<Articles>General Aung San and the Arzani Beikman, Martyrs' Mausoleum

Pro-democracy groups in Burma (Myanmar) have viewed the history of the Burmese military systematically, arguing that the army stood with the people during the time of General Aung San, but after his death it degenerated and began to oppress the people. However, as we can see from the fragments of historical documents, such an understanding is too simplistic. This paper analyzes the issue of the construction of the Arzani Beikman as part of an approach to grasp the complex reality of Aung San. Conventional research has mainly discussed Aung San's political vision based on his speeches in 1946-1947, but if it is viewed during the period of Japanese occupation period as well, a different picture of Aung San should emerge. Such an analysis is also an important question in Japanese history: what effect did the Japan army have on Burma? The Arzani Beikman was an attempt by Aung San and the Burmese military under the influence of the Japanese military leadership to build a shrine in Rangoon modeled on Yasukuni Shrine. Aung San, who was assassinated in 1947, was buried in the Arzani Beikman in 1948. If this is interpreted as being buried in the “evil symbol” of Japan militarism transplanted to Burma, then Aung San and the Burmese military continued to be bound by Japan militarism. However, it is necessary to consider whether Aung San, who launched an uprising against Japan in 1945 under the banner of “anti-fascism, ” can be evaluated so simply. In this paper, I will contrast Aung San and Ba Maw and analyze their responses in depth. The first section of this paper examines the education of the Burmese people about the memorial and Yasukuni Shrine by the Japan military. Aung San and the Tatmadaw affirmed the construction of the facility and decided to refer not only to the dead of the anti-British movement but also to those who responded to the call to arms as arzani. Ba Maw, on the other hand, had set out to honor Burmese historical figures, but he integrated his activities with the recognition of the arzani. Section 2 reveals how Aung San and others continued to be interested in the construction of the Arzani Beikman in Rangoon, while Ba Maw emphasized the importance of honoring heroes in various regions after 1944. The two sides thus fought for control over how to honor the arzani. Section 3 shows that Aung San and others who led the uprising against Japan insisted on honoring the arzani even after the war. Eventually, however, Aung San began to change his perspective on the victims of the war, such as trying to commemorate all victims without distinguishing friend from foe. The second half of the section also addresses the era of U Nu, who buried the assassinated Aung San and others in the Arzani Beikman. In the end, it should be said that Aung San was indeed influenced by Yasukuni thought. This is something that has not hitherto been pointed out, but it is an important fact for understanding him and the Burmese military. However, Aung San was not completely imbued with this view, and it can be said that he began to break from it after 1946. Furthermore, Aung San's successor, U Nu, positioned the Arzani Beikman instead as a symbol of democracy. However, Ne Win later seems to have wanted to return to the wartime ethos and tried to redefine the Arzani Beikman as a symbol of heightened nationalism.