Freedom from fear is the title of the book first published in 1991. It refers to the title of Aung San Suu Kyi's speech delivered on the occasion of the 1990 Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought published as the centrepiece of this book. This prize was presented in her absence at the award ceremony at Strasbourg on 10 July 1991.[1]

Aung San Suu Kyi's concept of freedom from fear is influenced to some extent by the Anglo-American attempt to gain co-operation of the democratic forces in the fight against fascism and the subsequent Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, this influence is only indirect. Aung San Suu Kyi, instead begins her essay with the concept of fear within a Buddhist classification, and ends with the concept of perfection in a manner highly suggestive of emancipation from fear on the path to arahatship. Here I attempt to distinguish various layers that go into this expression.

Aung San Suu Kyi emphasises freedom from fear more than any other kind of freedom.[2] She underlines the close link to the Buddhist concept of mental training by means of both metta but in particular vipassana in the model of the Buddhist saint (yahanda) and the martyr (azani). What we can say is that freedom from opression, fear and national independence are all related to mental culture. One irony that should be pointed out from the beginning is that the techniques of vipassana, that are so useful in the prism context, are rivalled by heroin addiction in prisons, which is also known in Burma as ‘freedom from fear’.[3] There is thus overlap between drugs and mental culture, both of which aspire to freedom from fear.

In a recent article on Aung San Suu Kyi's concept of freedom, Silverstein argues that the struggle in Burma today ‘turns on the idea of freedom’. This idea in Burma has, he argues, two sources, one of which is ‘deeply embedded in Burma's religion and culture’, while the other is represented by the ‘ideas and values brought to Burma by the British rulers following their conquest’. At the beginning of the twentieth century ‘the two streams merged’, so that today, as during the time of U Nu, ‘the idea of freedom in Burma is a mixture of the two traditions’.

According to him, Aung San Suu Kyi's idea is ‘in the mainstream of Burmese thought’ and therefore ‘easily understood and widely accepted by the people’. Of the two streams of thought, the Burmese Buddhist idea of freedom is more powerful, for the Burmese concept ‘has its roots in Buddhism, customs and traditions even though it was not claimed in its own right before the advent of colonial rule.’[4] He argues that political freedom was experienced more by ethnic minorities and villages remote from the power centre. Religious freedom, on the other hand, was ‘implicit in Buddhism and explicitly practised by Burmans and non-Burmans alike without ever being extracted and claimed as an independent good’.[5]

I think Silverstein is right in saying that Buddhism has an important influence on Burmese ideas of freedom. However, largely because he does not deal with the English and Burmese terminology itself in detail, he ends up oversimplifying Aung San Suu Kyi's vernacular expression of freedom. In Burma, concepts for freedom and self-determination have historically been linked to the Buddhist quest for liberation, though this is a rather complicated relationship based on several different concepts of freedom as I have already indicated in my argument about the hermit state vis-à-vis the hermit practice.

There is the attainment of nibbana, which is a total unconditioned kind of freedom, but there is also the more esoteric and millenarian style of freedom that proclaims sovereignty and control, as in htwet yak pauk (the Freedom Bloc). For Aung San and Aung San Suu Kyi the former kind of freedom has a function in purifying politics and raising the politician's mind to a higher level, though the latter kind is seen as a corrupt and undemocratic form of freedom based on charismatic leaders claiming to be universal kings at the heart of government. Furthermore, there are other concepts delineated by U Hpo Hlaing in The taste of

(c) ILCAA 1999 - Gustaaf Houtman. Mental Culture in Burmese Crisis Politics. ILCAA Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia & Africa Monograph Series 33, Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, 1999, ISBN 4-87297-748-3, p295/392

freedom [vimutti rasa] which is productive of the various levels of ariya.

Depressed by fear

A distinction is often made between fear and anxiety. With fear, an idea exists as to the cause (fear of something in particular), whereas anxiety is less abrupt, more nagging psychological condition with a less identifiable source (one is anxious about a general situation). In Burma, fear is the predominant condition, the cause of which is well known. The opposite of fear is courage, and the repression and uprooting of fear is an attribute of heroes, martyrs and renouncers.

Though fear is cross-cultural, and psychologically a similar condition, there are different mechanisms for coping with fear. In Burma there are two different parties experiencing fear for different reasons, namely members of the regime who experience the fear of revenge by the people they repress, and the political opposition representing the common people who experience fear under repression. They cope with these fears differently, and while the regime initiates hard authoritarian behaviour, the NLD members respond non-violently with metta..

Aung San Suu Kyi has isolated ‘fear’ and ‘intolerance of diversity’ as the main characteristics of the regime [O1]. Similarly, U Kyi Maung characterised the regime as ‘fear-based’ and works like ‘Big-Brother’.[6] So, too has Tin U, who furthermore says that ‘this “fear” they live with is identical to the “fear” they have created among the people’.[7]

The people in particular fear forced labour [O2] and forced portering, which could lead to injury, disease or even death [O3]. However, like the feeling of imprisonment, fear is produced by the general state of the entire country in which human rights are denied.

Freedom from fear – democracy and human rights

Freedom and fear are closely related concepts in Aung San Suu Kyi's discourse. On a mundane level, they have everyday meanings. For example, to the question ‘what does freedom mean to you?’ Aung San Suu Kyi replied ‘Freedom would mean that I would be able to do what I understand to be right, without the fear that by doing so I would be exposing myself and others to danger’.[9] Thus freedom and fear are inversely related: true freedom can only arise in one who has overcome fear which, in turn, is related to an accurate perception of what is dangerous in a particular political environment. As I shall argue, there is here a complex relationship between fear and wisdom.

More concretely, Aung San Suu Kyi placed freedom from fear [eûkak\RæM>òKc\:mHlæt\kc\:er:] alongside freedom from want [K¥oui>tµ.m§kc\:læt\] as the two basic human rights ‘without which human beings cannot lead dignified, meaningful lives’. For ‘As long as there are parts of the world where the two freedoms are not fostered there will be refugees’ [K1]. The purpose of the democratic struggle then, is to liberate people from these two psychological conditions for, as she says, ‘In working for democracy and human rights we are striving to establish political and social institutions and values that will free our people from want and fear.’ [K3] She defines the democracy struggle as ‘a change in our everyday lives’ and ‘we want freedom from fear and want’ [Y23].[10]

Aung San Suu Kyi does not relate her particular use of the expression freedom from want to the Allied war effort. However, objectively speaking, that is where this discourse started. During World War II, the freedom from want and fear were originally enunciated in 1941 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt as the third and fourth of the Four Freedoms.

These were brought up in the Roosevelt meeting with Churchill in August 1941 off the coast of Newfoundland, when they established joint war aims under the Atlantic Charter as part of the democratic (as opposed to Fascist) ideology of the Alliance. It subsequently entered the discourse of human rights through the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights by an eight-member UN committee chaired by the American humanitarian worker Eleanor Roosevelt, wife of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Aung San Suu Kyi has repeatedly subscribed to the entire Declaration of Human Rights [Y30][ZD5], and so is well aware of its contents. She undoubtedly uses these expressions conscious of their international meaning in terms of human rights.

What is noticeable is that, of the four freedoms, only freedom of fear is actually prominent in her speeches; freedom from want is only referred to once, and freedom of speech and belief do not form cornerstones in Aung San Suu Kyi's political discourse. Freedom of speech is mentioned in particular by U Kyi Maung, who says that ‘Suu's [Aung San Suu Kyi] compound is the only liberated area in Burma. From there we say all sorts of things’ [K5]. Freedom of belief implies freedom from fear, for it is ‘fear of persecution for their political beliefs that has made so many of our people feel that even in their own homes they cannot live in dignity and security’ [K2]. Furthermore, freedom from want is a much underdeveloped concept, only referred to occasionally in relation to freedom from fear.

In contrast to the NLD perspective which psychologizes freedom, the regime steers clear of such mental view of rights and prefers to strive towards ‘practical human rights [internal to the country]’ [diu>rµ>òpv\tæc\k¥tµ.lU>AKæc\.Aer:etæ ] as meaning the ‘security of life and property, food requirements, and social advancement of the people’.[13] The regime cannot control the psychology of freedom.

Freedom from fear – Aung San and Gandhi

What is clear from the above contexts is that, though freedom from fear as an English concept had a predominantly secular strategic meaning within the Atlantic Treaty, and later a humanitarian purpose within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Aung San Suu Kyi does not relate her own use of freedom from fear directly to these. Instead, she ‘Asianizes’ and ‘indigenizes’ the concept by focusing on two personalities – Aung San and Gandhi.

The war created a situation of fear world-wide. But to the Burmese and Indian population this very same war situation also brought onto the horizon the possibility of national independence after a long period of colonial domination. During this time, the state of fearlessness of the national political leaders became the nation's focus. Do they dare to oppose colonialism? Aung San Suu Kyi finds the words used by Jawaharlal Nehru to describe Mahatma Gandhi could therefore well be applied to Aung San: ‘the essence of his teaching was fearlessness and truth, and action allied to these, always keeping the welfare of the masses in view’. Aung San Suu Kyi has suggested that Aung San and Gandhi share ‘an inevitable sameness about challenges of authoritarian rule anywhere at any time’ which is reflected in ‘a similarity in the intrinsic qualities of those who rise up to meet the challenge’ [O19]. Both were, of course, the leading political figures during a period of intense locally aroused nationalist sentiment, so that fearlessness attained particular cultural interpretations for their own respective countries.

The allied forces asserted the same concept in their own way against the threat of ultra-right nationalists in Germany (and later Japan). Nationalists in both India and Burma hoped that Article 3 in President Eisenhower's Atlantic Treaty, which affirmed that peoples would have the right to choose their own government, would apply to their respective countries. Indeed, we know that on 8 September the British Prime Minister exempted all elements of the British Empire from the Atlantic Treaty. Premier U Saw visited Britain in October 1941, shortly before Japan entered war, specifically to look for a promise of freedom for the colonies under this Treaty. However, the British government suggested to U Saw that the Atlantic Treaty

This is why Aung San emphasized the importance of freedom from fear regularly, for it had been mentioned the Atlantic Treaty and he hoped that the four freedoms would be extended to Burma also. The Declaration of Human Rights was not formulated before Aung San's death, and so we can only investigate Aung San's relationship to President Eisenhower's notion of freedom from fear.

It is through the image of Aung San that she came to appreciate the need to resist fear. Resisting fear was a feature of her upbringing by her mother, who taught her to respect Aung San's values of fearlessness [O11]. As Aung San Suu Kyi explained, in his speeches Aung San, once he attained political power, was able to become a civilian and ‘lay aside his sword without fear’ because of his faith in metta and truth [E26]. Aung San, in his inaugural address to the AFPFL delivered on 20 January 1946, encouraged the Sangha to foster ‘freedom from fear’ with the people. The role of the Sangha, in their propagation of Buddhism, should ‘go amongst our people, preach the doctrine of unity and love; carry the message of higher freedom to every nook and corner of the country, freedom to religious worship, freedom to preach and spread the Dharma anywhere and anytime, freedom from fear [eûkak\RæM.siu:rim\pUpn\òKc\:mHkc\:læt\m§], ignorance, superstition, etc., teach our people to rely upon themselves and re-construct themselves materially, spiritually and otherwise’.[15]

Aung San Suu Kyi quoted a resolution which was proposed by Aung San on 16 June 1947 in the Constituent assembly, as the basis of drawing up the new constitution which she said ‘encapsulated the hope of the people of the Burma for a state sustained by democratic values that would enable them to live in freedom and dignity’. The fourth point is that the constitution shall ‘guarantee and secure to all the peoples of union, justice, social, economic and political; equality of status, of opportunity, and before the law freedom of thought, expression, belief, worship, subject to law and public morality …’.

Aung San, as co-founder of the Anti-Fascist Party League, thus skilfully blended this anti-Fascist and pro-democratic idea of the concept of ‘freedom from fear’ with its Buddhist ramifications as advocated by the Sangha, while providing for the other two freedoms (expression and belief) in the constitution. Aung San died young, and is generally seen as a modern pragmatic man of action who advocated a secular politics. Aung San relied much on intermediaries such as Thahkin Kodawhmaing to translate his politicial views into the more religious-minded ideas of the common people. To develop a coherent political philosophy meant that Aung San Suu Kyi had to look elsewhere for inspiration. She looked initially in the direction of Gandhi. Gandhi's greatest achievement she quotes Nehru as saying was the ‘instillation of courage to the people of India’. He used the ancient political philosophy of ancient India and found that ‘the greatest gift for an individual or a nation … was abhaya, fearlessness, not merely bodily courage but absence of fear from the mind.’[16] She also looked at Mandela, whose Long walk to freedom she had read.[17]

Buddhist freedom from fear

One explanation for Aung San Suu Kyi's emphasis on freedom from fear is that this is readily interpreted in Buddhist tradition in terms of psychological comportment rather than substantive political realities. When properly translated, this is less controversial in the mental culture of Burmese politics, as it appeals to the Burmese aptitude to interpret politics in terms of Buddhist psychological concepts.

One reason for the neglect of the other three freedoms is to be found in Burmese Buddhism. Freedom of belief does not translate well into Burmese, for it is too readily associated with ideology and with monotheistic religion, which translates into Burmese as ‘wrong-viewed’ [misÍaOeIe] and ‘selfness’ (atta), and runs directly opposite to the Buddhist teachings about non-self (anatta). Also, freedom of speech is not so important in Burmese discourse, for in Burmese opinion the spiritual and conciliatory nature of speech is seen as more important than the freedom to say what one wants [R2].

Though used, ‘Freedom from want’ may also be controversial. ‘Want’ is too readily linked to the mental defilements related to sense-gratification. In Pali, there are no less than sixteen different terms for ‘desire’, many of which overlap with ‘want’ in a negative sense, of which the most important in Burmese are ‘craving’ [t%Ha tanha] and ‘desire’ [SNã chanda]. Though sometimes positive, as in the desire to do good or to attain nibbana, for the most part these concepts are seen to go against the grain of even minimal Buddhist behaviour because they are based on attachment, which prevents the practice of Buddhist charity (dån dana)

Indeed, the regime has sometimes justified its socialist path by means of the idea underlying Schumacher's ‘Small is beautiful’, i.e. what matters is the reduction of want rather than the increase of consumption. It is by these means that the regime has justified its ‘hermit’ status of closed borders and egalitarian socialist development. It is possible, therefore, to see in this cynical manipulation of Buddhist ideas of ‘want’ a history of human rights violation. Freedom from want takes a peripheral role in Aung San Suu Kyi's speeches and writings compared to the central role designated to freedom from fear. As she said, ‘among the basic freedoms to which men aspire that their lives might be full and uncramped, freedom from fear stands out as both a means and an end’ [K6].

In ‘Freedom from fear’ Aung San Suu Kyi categorises ‘fear’ (bhaya-gati) as the worst of the Four Corruptions (agati) in the monastic code of conduct, for not only does bhaya, fear, stifle and slowly destroy all sense of right and wrong, it so often lies at the root of the other three kinds of corruption’ [O6].[18] She holds that fear creates a corrupt society, saying that ‘in any society where fear is rife corruption in all forms becomes deeply entrenched’ [O6]. The political situation becomes confrontational because hate and fear are ‘the opposite sides of the same coin. It's the same thing. You don't hate unless you fear, basically’ [O7].

I have already noted that Aung San Suu Kyi tied this concept to Aung San's fearlessness of Aung San [R12][U1], her father, who spoke truth ‘fearlessly’, and Gandhi, who said: ‘the greatest gift for an individual or a nation … was abhaya, fearlessness, not merely bodily courage but absence of fear from the mind’.[19] Aung San Suu Kyi, however, moved away from this in favour of indigenising and Buddhicising her concepts – the concepts of Law as dhamma, human rights as ‘the shade of the Buddha's teachings’ [E32], and freedom from fear as the development of metta and karuna. Indeed, she says that enjoyment of these basic freedoms will come when the country is ‘peaceful like the dhamma’ [K4]. Thus the broader concept of freedom and human rights, from which all four particular freedoms follow, are closely linked to Buddhist practice.

Of all freedoms, freedom from fear is therefore Aung San Suu Kyi's focus. Fear sums up not only the regime and the conditions in the country [Y1-Y16], but emancipation from fear very much at the heart of the Buddhist concept of martyr (azani) and saint (yahanda).

Overcoming fear

The political niche of Gandhi and Aung San, of course, parallels that of Aung San Suu Kyi today, which is why theyse men are an inspiration to her. The main difference is that she is facing not a colonial but an indigenous military Burmese regime. Nevertheless, the situation of fear generated by repression by police and military is as pertinent today as it was then.To overcome fear is a major preoccupation on the part of Aung San Suu Kyi. She draws attention to several techniques in which she herself and her colleagues coped with her fear, and through which she also expects the regime to cope with its fear.

The regime ‘fear change’ [O4]. If fear is ‘not the natural state of civilized man’, then civilisation consists of drawing on that ‘wellspring of courage and endurance in the face of unbridled power’ by reasserting ‘the sanctity of ethical principles’ and see to it that ‘spiritual and material advancement’ takes place through ‘self-improvement’, and in particular ‘perfection’. By these means, ultimately, it is ‘man's vision of a world fit for rational, civilized humanity which leads him to dare and to suffer to build societies free from want and fear’. Aung San Suu Kyi views international support as ameliorating the fear of the people (though not of the regime) such as the support by the former European Economic Community for the Burmese cause [O5].

First, she claims that in her youth she conquered fear from the dark by facing it for two weeks [O8]. After she was subsequently brought up outside Burma she had not further developed fear as a habit [O9].

Second, brahma-vihara proves to be a major element in overcoming fear. As we shall see below, Tin U also emphasizes that brahma-vihara and a monastic education allowed him to turn away from ‘a shallow and fearful life’ associated with his life under the military [E1]. Also, Aung San Suu Kyi views the regime's fear as the product of its lack of compassion for others, and developing compassion would dissipate its fears [F2]. This is a view she shares with Tin U, who holds that ‘fear compromises the feelings of compassion’ and ‘when SLORC eases their fear a bit they will have a dialogue with us’.[20]

Third, a more basic way of overcoming fear is by taking refuge in the Three Jewels – the Buddha,

Dhamma, and the Sangha. Also known as the Three Refuges (sarana tiratana), ‘those who seek its protection overcome their fear, alarm, physical and mental suffering and various miseries’. Wholesome consciousness (mahakusala-citta) inclines one to the Three Jewels, and through devotion and veneration mental defilements are ‘moved’ resulting in ‘refuge consciousness’ (sarana-gamana). Though these benefits are often seen as taking place ‘in the lower worlds after death’, the Three Refuges are commonly recited at funeral services with the aim of benefiting the dead in the process of being dispatched to their new abodes.[21]

Fourth, we have already noted that vipassana practice leads to states of mind that permit one to be ‘free from fear’. Indeed, as we will note later on, the issue of uprooting fear (rather than temporarily suspending it) through vipassana was addressed by U Pandita in In this very life in which Mara's Sixth Army is known as ‘Fear’ itself, and only ‘a person who reaches nibbana is completely protected and can therefore be called “The Fearless”, the one without danger’. This is attained ‘even before arriving at the perfect safety of nibbana’, for ‘one is protected from fearful things while walking the Noble Eightfold Path’ so that ‘this path itself is the haven’. It is ‘attachment’ that makes for ‘a very shallow fearful life’ [E1].

However, ‘freedom from fear’ is not unambiguous, both in the context of the Burmese language and in Buddhism. Though in some contexts it works well in Burmese, its use is contextual and sometimes it does not translate well. For one thing, in Rangoon and Mandalay the drug heroin is now known locally as ‘freedom from fear’, an alternative form of courage needed to face dictatorship which is allegedly fostered by the military to defuse opposition.[22]

The reason why it does not translate well is because in Buddhism fear is not necessarily always negative. Indeed, it is often seen as positive. For example, ‘fear’ [ûqt†pé tra:, P. ottappa] in the sense of ‘not doing, saying or planning out of fear of doing bad deeds’ (i.e. moral dread, scrupulousness) together with ‘shame’ [hirItra:], are seen as the ‘two guardians of the world’ [elakpåltra: 2på:], which are ‘cultural rules guarding the world from destruction’.[23] Additionally, samvega [qMewg] represents the fear of the consequences of action for a future state, and as a result, the experience of remorse.

Just in case it be thought that these are merely Buddhist theories, it should be noted that they are also of some political significance. This is evident when we look at the political speeches of Burma's leaders. Ottappa was quoted as a protest against the regime's actions. Aung Shwe in his letter on the subject of the National Convention to the Chairman of the SLORC, wrote about the National Convention that ‘no resolutions based on the development of a genuine multi-party democracy and law ka pa la taya have been reached in the Convention’, so that the National Convention has not addressed matters vital to the country's problems.[24] It was also used by Aung San in appreciation of Burmese modesty as opposed to the Japanese tendency to jump collectively naked into their public baths.[25]

The concept of samvega features in Maung Maung's explanation for Ne Win's rule.[26] In Buddhism ‘fearlessness’ (Aenat†pé P. anotappa) in the sense of ‘lack of fear of bad action’ [mekac\:m§mH mln\>òKc\: qeBa],[27] the tenth of the Ten Mental Defilements, is a negative attribute when it contributes, along with other mental processes, to lust (tanha), conceit (mana) and wrong belief (ditthi), all of which prolong samsaric existence.[28]

[1] It was published in The Times Literary Supplement, the New York Times, the Far Eastern Economic Review, the Bangkok Post, the Times of India and in other newspapers in Germany, Norway and Iceland.

[2] Though she has also referred to the other ‘basic freedoms’, namely of association, expession and unlawful restraint (Aung San Suu Kyi ‘Honoring those of fought for freedom’. Mainichi Daily News, 12.01.1998).

[3] Christ Beyrer. ‘War in the blood: sex, politics and AIDS in South East Asia’. Burma Debate, V, 2, 1998, pp. 6–8.

[4] Silverstein (1996:212).

[5] Silverstein (1996:214).

[6] ASSK (1997b:194).

[7] ASSK (1997b:232).

[8] ASSK (1991:184–85).

[9] Interview with Aung San Suu Kyi by Ivan Suvanjieff. Shambala Sun, January 1996.

[10] By contrast, the regime steers clear of such mental view of rights and refers to striving towards ‘practical human rights [internal to the country]’ [diu>rµ>òpv\tæc\k¥tµ.lU>AKæc\.Aer:etæ ] as meaning the ‘security of life and property, food requirements, and social social advancement of the people’. NLM and eûk:muM, 16.09.1998.

[11] New York Times, 07.01.1941, pp. 4,7.

[12] Chorba, Timothy. ‘The Charter is still relevant, says a diplomat. Asia Week, 31.10.1997.

[13] ‘General Than Shwe speech on the occasion of the AGM of the USDA’. NLM and eûk:muM, 16.09.1998.

[14] Cady (1958:429–31}.

[15] Silverstein (1993:93–142), Aung San (1971:28).

[16] ASSK (1995:184).

[17] Victor (1998:103).

[18] General Saw Maung in his first statement appealed to the military ‘should not indulge in the four agati (biases) in the general election.’ (Saw Maung 1990b:8,15).

[19] ASSK (1995:183–84).

[20] ASSK (1997b:234).

[21] Mingun (1990–96,4:483).

[22] Institute for Asian Democracy. ‘The heroin trade’. In Towards democracy in Burma, 1992.

[23] Awbatha (1995:538).

[24] Aung Shwe (1992:39). The meaning is inserted as a note by the ABSDF editors of the volume as follows: ‘the Buddhist principles of shame and fear which guard the world from falling into chaos.’ However, exiled Burmese are often unaware of the Buddhist message underlying the terminology of politicians back home. In this case, it may well have meant the four guardians of the world, namely byama-so tayà, which has come to be associated with democracy.

[25] Sagaìng Han Tin (1985:48).

[26] Maung Maung (1969b).

[27] Awbatha (1975).

[28] Mahasi Sayadaw. ‘Tuvataka Sutta.’ Translator Daw Kay Mya Yee. Rangoon: Nyo Maung, 1982, p. 8.