NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY Ethnic Conflict Between the Siamese and the Mon, Hmong and Malay-Muslims of Thailand: A Comparison of Religion, language and Ethnic Rank A Thesis Submitted to the University Honors Program In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Baccalaureate Degree With University Honors Department of Anthropology by Heather M. Fischer DeKalb, Illinois December 13, 1992 Approved: Department of: Date: 13^, /^?3 HONORS TKESIS ABSTRACTS THESIS SUBMISSION FORM AUTHOR: H eather M. F-igrT-waf _________________________________________._______ jxrrcio T-™ Ethnic Conflict Between the Siamese and the Mon, Hmong and Mr*lay—Muslim s o f T h a ilan d j ft Comparison of ReTigion,—LangnageV , r > • Societal Scale and Ethnic Rank nvrsOR’S d ept* * j.-u ADVISOR. p_rjQ-f es s o r j?r-ovenohcr-------------------- ------u e k i AnJ-.hrnpo 1 ngy________________________ DISCIPLINE: A n th ropology—-—_— -------------------------------------------------YEAR;^Qn^Qr--------------------------- HONORS PROGRAM: TTnivecs-i-ty- H-en-o-rs------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ — NAME OF COLLEGE: -Nort-he-gn I l l i n o i s . 'Pntv g r g f t y -------------------------------------------------------------- PAGE LENGTH:' BIBLIOGRAPHY (YES OR NO)^ ^ . -ILLUSTRATED (YES OR NO):Yeg . No PUBLISHED (YES OR NO): JF YES, LIST PUBLICATION: N/A COPIES AVAILABLE (HARD COPY, MICROFILM, DISKETTE):Har.d Copy. SUBJECT HEADINGS: (Choose 5 key words or phrases by which a reader could find your thesis) Ethnic Goa f-3ri-et” 1 n Th a-iTarrfl-------------- M1.B9.r_iti_es._in. Tha Li ahri- HraQng.A Mon .and Ma-la-ye--e-f Thailand----- Relig-irm -^Language a-nd--Ethnic rank .Majority-vs. Minority i-fa -Th <ri-ran3----- Conflict in Thailand ABSTRACT (100-200 WORDS): In mY paper I discuss the Ethnic pnnfiirf___________ among the. Siamese majority nnd the minority." Uue to the am5u~5t ~5f-------- . 1 lircitea my research to three arouns; The Lh“ °t southern Thailand. Within these n r « , ^ my _ parameters win-TBXtgTBB, language-and ethnic rsny. ”L“ religionUandTL gu Y T *■ .°egrfes °f eth»ic c o n flic t. T onmment th^ ■ Thai by Thai langUag-e ..is. very important i l w V - of beingh. Thn ? i_____ L1 - f-^-nlc.rank °also x - .relatest e ia t e B to ththp e awam r wre . n e sw s ----- ; T\ai: BBUuse ot tne lac* of information of I comment-that m u m research and study must be done in ",*1- fu lly unders tand—tire problem -------- ~ g ln nrflpr- ---------- For Office Use: THESIS NO; The population of Thailand (see appendix 1) consists of many different Kinds of people, hut this diversity is not readily apparent in Thai government publications. Charles Keyes (1987:14-15) states: "From Thai censuses, one gains the impression that the population of Thailand is largely culturally homogeneous. This appearance of cultural homogeneity is, however, deceptive. The people who have constructed Thai censuses have been led by political guidelines to avoid asking the kinds of ethnic self-identification questions raised in censuses in other countries, such as the United States. If a survey were made in which ethnic self-identification were taken into account, the population of Thailand would appear to be much more ethnically diverse." In a country with many different kinds of people, one might speculate that there would be conflict. The main purpose of this paper is to look at how much of the ethnic conflict between minorities and the Siamese majority is due to differences in religion, language and ethnic rank. Because of the large number of minority ethnic groups in Thailand, I will compare only a small number of groups with the Siamese.1 These groups will be: the Mons, the Hmong and the Maiay-Muslims. Before looking at these three minority ethnic groups, I will describe the Siamese briefly. The Thai's achieved a state society early in their history and Thai states were fairly large in scale (Provencher 1992). Monarchy and religion are important aspects of Thai 2 nationalism. "Thai nationalism, it is explained, is bound up with the notion of a Thai identity based on loyalty to the Monarchy, adherence to Buddhism and a sense of a common ancestry" (de Silva, et la. 1988:7). de Silva et al. (1988:2) says, "...One way in which ethnic groups are defined - and define themselves - is by religious affiliation." The majority of the Thai people practice Theravada Buddhism. Theravada Buddhism's main emphasis is on the Buddha and his teachings. "The Buddha does not merely symbolize the overcoming of attachment, ignorance, and grasping, and the attainment of binary ideals of dispassion and compassion. He is that truth and that reality. He represents the occasion whereby those who follow his example may discover this truth for themselves, or, by relying on his power at least to improve their lot in this life or a future one" (Swearer 1981:8). Theravada Buddhism is also important for the Thai King. Theravada Buddhism incorporates the notion of god-king (devaraja) from Hinduism (Swearer 1981:39). "...the ruler was considered to be either an incarnation of a god or a descendant from a god or both, and in the case of Theravada Buddhism the king became a representative of god..." (Swearer 1981:39). Thus, to the Siamese the king is virtually god. The Siamese show their respect towards the king and also believe in spirits. "These spirits are credited with controlling events within their domains and with guarding local custom" (Keyes 1977:151). Standard Thai language (see appendix 2) is the national language which is taught in schools, used on all official documents and used in almost all printed materials (Keyes 1987:15). The Thai language has a large literature (Provencher 3 1992). Thai religion and language plays an important role in being Thai. There are more groups of Thai than just the Siamese. There is ethnic rank among the Thai. The highest, of course, is the Siamese, which developed a state of great scale. The next in rank and scale were the Lanna Thai states in north Thailand (Provencher 1992). The least in rank and scale of state were the Isan in the Northeast and the Pak Thai in southern Thailand (Provencher). Thus, it has been normal for the Siamese to rank different Thai groups. These other groups of Thai also speak different dialects of the Thai language that are not easily comprehensible to the Siamese. Mon The Mon and the Thai have a long history of relations which may be one reason why the Thai accepted the Mon so easily. Charles Keyes (1987:18) comments, "Tai-speaking peoples are not the original inhabitants of what is now Thailand." Before the eleventh century, when Tai became historically significant, the dominate groups of people spoke languages that are included in the Austroasiatic or Mon-Khmer language family (Keyes 1987:18) (see appendix 3). For instance, Keyes (1987:18-19) notes that the Mon had kingdoms in central and northern Thailand as well as Burma from around the third century A.B. to the thirteenth century. Michael Smithies et al. (1986:59) enforces Keyes analysis: "Major Mon civilizations existed in Southern Burma and 4 Thailand long before the rise of Thai and Burmese states." The Mon also had large state societies early in their History (Provencher 1992). Though the Mons have long lived in Thailand, much of the written documentation of the Mon-Thai relationship deals with the Mon coming over to Thailand from Burma. For example, Brian Foster (1982:5-6) states: "The Mons who came from Burma were welcomed by Thai monarchs and were considered desirable subjects. In some cases they were met at the border by representatives of the crown and were given government lands to farm." Their lifestyles were similar in some ways: (Foster 1982:6) both are Theravada Buddhists; both have social organization similar to that of other lowland Southeast Asian peasants (Smithies 1986:62); and both are wet rice farmers. Because the Mons had so much in common with their Thai welcomer, the Thais found them rather easy to assimilate (Smithies 1986:62). Though the Mon situation seemed quite positive, they were separated from the Thai both economically and socially (Foster 1982:6). If the Mon have been in Thailand before the Tai, then where did the Siamese come from and how did they become so powerful? To explain the emergence of the Siamese let us begin with the collapse of the Mon Kingdom of Haripunjaya. In the late thirteenth century some Tai chiefs expanded their rule when they defeated the Mons who ruled the kingdom of Haripunjaya; which was centered in what is now the town of Lamphun (Keyes 1977:75). Charles Keyes (1977:75) argues that when the Tai defeated the Mon at Haripunjaya it was not a defeat of one people over another but the manifestation of a new tradition, the Yuan, which developed from both Mon (civilization) and Thai (barbarian) traditions. Keyes (1977:76) states that in 1350 a Tai lord became ruler of N all the Mons and Tai in the lower Cao Phraya basin. Though the Tai conquered several Mon states, it seems to be the case that . they did not have any deliberate intention to obliterate the Mon group. Keyes (1977:75) elaborates, "The chronicles of northern Thailand do not indicate that the Tai conquerors embarked on any genocidal campaign against the Mons." In fact, the interrelationship between the northern Tai principalities and the Mon states of lower Burma remained friendly after the Tai domination of northern Thailand, and the Mon monks were still important in teaching Buddhism to the Tai rulers of Chaing Mai (Keyes 1977:75).