We previously discussed that counting facts in history is not enough. We must understand the meanings and biases behind them. Now, we need to study the idea of "Political Heritage" deeply. This is the key to understanding the struggle of indigenous people in Myanmar for self-determination. Political heritage is not an antique object in a museum. It lives in the "Collective Memory" of the people. It is a living force. It shapes political fights today. It gives strength to hopes for the future. [1]


We cannot see political heritage as just old palaces or law books. It is more than physical objects. It lives in the spirit and "Collective Existence" of the people. Oppressed people often lose their national structures. For them, political heritage does not survive as "Intact Institutions." It survives as "Fragments." These fragments include social ceremonies, family stories, revolution songs, and poems. They are in the memories of place names and customs passed down through generations. Examples include Myanmar National Day and the Karen wrist-tying festival. They include stories of the Mahamuni Buddha in Rakhine and revolutionary songs of different groups. These pieces are scattered. However, when we put them together, they create a strong political image.


These fragments do not survive because they are exact copies of the past. They survive because they give strong meaning to the lives of people today. For example, celebrating a New Year festival is not just for fun. It is a "Political Act." It shows a distinct culture amidst the dominant Bamar culture. [2] Physical things like palaces, armies, and administrations may be destroyed. But if people feel the state is part of them, the heritage remains strong. The Hanthawaddy Kingdom is not on the map anymore. However, it lives in the hearts of Mon people. It is a strong "Political Idea" for self-rule, culture, and dignity. Therefore, "owning political heritage" is not receiving a static object. It is like "Scaffolding." We retell and redefine the past to support our identity today. We reshape the past to meet the needs of the present.


Historians and governments often criticize revived heritage. They call it "fake" or "Invented Tradition." [3] However, outsiders cannot decide the legitimacy of political heritage. A tradition might disappear for centuries and come back. If it reflects the people's current struggles, pain, and hopes, it is valid. The Karen concept of "Kawthoolei" as a country does not need exact geography. It is powerful because it matches their desire for self-rule and freedom. We do not judge the "Authenticity" of heritage by history books. We judge it by its ability to unite people. If a story organizes people for resistance, it is a "real" political force.

It is true that we choose what to revive. These choices are "Selective." We might forget past conflicts between tribes or classes. We focus on things that are useful for unity today. This choice does not make the group weak. It makes the heritage useful for the present. Humans do not live by facts alone. We need stories, symbols, and "Shared Meanings" to define our lives. [4] The truth of political heritage is not about "Archival Accuracy." It is about the reflection in the collective life of the people.


Dominant nations often try to destroy the heritage of local people. They try to rewrite history. They try to weaken local culture. But heritage does not disappear easily. It changes form under oppression. Conquest can destroy thrones and laws. It can destroy armies. But it cannot destroy the stories and customs in the collective memory. It cannot erase "Collective Trauma." Even defeat can become a strong heritage. The fall of Mrauk-U was not the end for the Rakhine people. It became a "Moral Narrative." It is a story of resistance against injustice and resilience.


People who leave their homes carry their heritage with them. This includes "Diasporas" and "Displaced Communities." For example, refugees in camps on the Thai-Myanmar border keep their culture alive. Mon, Karen, and Karenni people hold revolutionary events there. The state tries to create "State-enforced Silence" and erase history. This creates "Difficult Heritage." [5] These are ugly parts of the past that conflict with a good identity. Unresolved trauma and betrayals remain like scars. The broken promises of Panglong are one example.


Heritage is not a stone. It is like a living thing that changes with the environment. Every generation chooses what to keep based on their needs. In the 1950s, the Karen revolution focused on Communism and Christianity. Today, it focuses on democracy, human rights, and federalism. [6] This is not lying about the past. It is "Adaptation." Heritage survives if we can translate it into modern political language. Things that seem new often carry old emotions. They give "Historical Depth" and "Legitimacy." The 2021 Spring Revolution used symbols from the 1988 uprising and the colonial era. We can use Gayatri Spivak’s term "Strategic Essentialism." This means we build a clear identity to fight a common enemy. We do not deny our differences, but we unite for survival.


Political heritage is not neutral. It is a powerful resource. It is also a battlefield where groups fight to define meaning. Communities use heritage to demand legitimacy and autonomy. The "Panglong Agreement" is not just a historical treaty. It is a moral resource for equality and self-determination. Dominant states try to own heritage through "Curatorial Nationalism." [7] They present kings like Anawrahta or Bayinnaung as "Fathers of the Union." They turn holidays into national memories. They try to build a "single heritage for the whole nation." This becomes a weapon for centralization. [8]


These heritage wars happen in many ways. They happen through names, statues, and school books. They happen through "Silences." For example, the AFPFL tried to change the name "Karenni" to "Kayah." There were disputes about putting General Aung San statues in ethnic areas. Textbooks leave out ethnic history. The official history does not mention the federal movement after 1962. The heritage of the winner becomes "History." The heritage of the loser becomes "Myths" or "Insurgent stories." The main goal of this competition is simple. Whose past will validate the "Legitimacy of the Present"?


It is good if history is accurate. However, the main value of political heritage is not accuracy. Its main job is to provide moral strength for political battles today. Heritage gives us words for sacrifice and justice. It turns simple demands into a moral fight. It connects current struggles to ancestors. This maintains "Cohesion." It gives the feeling that "We are not a new group; we have a long history." The power lies in the "Moral Orientation." It gives people the belief that "We are on the right side."


This means we must study history to find the truth. But we should not use truth as a weapon to destroy the "Agency" of oppressed people. We must understand why different interpretations exist. Martyrdom and remembrance act as a shield against defeat. They tell us that "their sacrifice was not in vain." Political heritage creates strong emotions like "Pride," "Resentment," "Hope," and "Fear." These are the fuel for political movements.


No society has only one single heritage. Political heritage is always diverse. It is made of many stories that sometimes conflict. Heritage of kings, religion, farmers, and rebels can exist together. We must also remember "Minorities within Minorities." For example, Palaung, Pa-O, and Wa people in Shan State have their own heritage. We must not erase them. Large ethnic groups must be careful not to dominate. We need "Inclusive Recognition." This prevents "Assimilation" and gives dignity to every group. We should accept "Plural Memory Systems." This supports coexistence instead of forced unity.


Examples from Myanmar and the world show how heritage survives. After Hanthawaddy fell, Mon heritage lived on through language and Buddhism. It revived during the colonial era. The modern Mon national costume is a reinvention. The Ta'ang movement today is not an exact copy of an ancient state. The Shan Sawbwas lost their official rule. But their prestige still lives as a symbolic power. We see this in the world too. Kurds created "Democratic Confederalism" based on history. Native Americans use old treaties to claim sovereignty. The memory of the Holocaust created the promise "Never Again." This shows that heritage is not just about keeping the past. It builds the future. Autonomy is important for the safety of cultures.


Political heritage is a strong resource. But it can be dangerous if we use it wrong. If we treat heritage as "Sacred and Immutable," it freezes. It becomes useless for modern politics. Sometimes a group claims, "Only this is the real heritage." This creates a tool to silence other voices within the group. Heritage must be "Open, Contested, and Reinterpreted." We must welcome criticism. Heritage without "Self-critique" becomes a myth. It might repeat old mistakes, like excluding women or looking down on other races.


Despite these risks, we must understand different political heritages. This is the foundation for peace and democracy in Myanmar. A sustainable Federal Union cannot rely on "a single imposed narrative." We must respect "plural heritages." We need to revive "Marginalized" heritage. This gives dignity and a voice to oppressed people. "Adaptive Heritage" [9] can build "Interethnic Trust." It creates a "Shared Moral Ground." We must use "Inclusive Memory Practices" in schools, museums, and holidays. We should not force everyone to be the same. Instead, we should create conditions for "Liberation Politics" that value diversity.



Note:

[1] According to Maurice Halbwachs' theory of Collective Memory, society remembers history through shared social frameworks, not just individual memory. Past events and revolutions directly influence political heritage today. It acts as a force that supports hope and dreams for the future.

[2] Gayatri Spivak says that "subaltern" (oppressed/lower class) people maintain an essential core for cultural resistance. They do this to demand rights or to mark political goals strategically.

[3] Eric Hobsbawm wrote a paper called "Mass-Producing Traditions: Europe, 1870-1914." He explains that Invented Tradition is a cultural practice designed to look old. It aims to boost national spirit. But look at Kwanzaa, which African-Americans invented. It does not teach American nationalism. Instead, it unites African-Americans to fight for social power and pride. It creates resistance unity.

[4] Humans are Meaning-Making Animals. We are not computers that just collect data. We need to create meaning for our lives and our future. We carry these meanings in Narratives (stories) and Symbols. Clifford Geertz said culture is a "system of shared meanings." We are born into this web of meaning. Victor Frankl argued that finding meaning is the basic drive of humans. He showed that a shared goal gives a group mental strength to overcome trauma.

[5] British sociologist Sharon Macdonald studied Nazi heritage in Nuremberg. She discussed this in her book Difficult Heritage (2009). It refers to historical sites or customs linked to war and oppression. It is an important concept for analyzing how we show history and memory to the public.

[6] The path of the Karen people's political heritage is described in more detail later.

[7] Curatorial Nationalism is when the state selects, organizes, and presents heritage. It does this to build a "National Identity." It creates historical stories on purpose to show state power and achieve political goals.

[8] Callahan, M. (2003). Making Enemies: War and State Building in Burma. Cornell University Press.

[9] Adaptive Heritage means not keeping old objects or stories stiff and unchanged. It means cultural heritage can change to fit today's society and values. It can take on new meanings.