Why Myanmar is called Myanmar and not Burma?

The decision to call Myanmar “Myanmar” rather than “Burma” has been a point of debate, not only internationally but also among its citizens, historians, and political thinkers. To understand why Myanmar is called Myanmar and not Burma, we must delve into the etymology, cultural significance, and political dynamics that have shaped the country’s complex narrative.

1. The Roots of “Myanmar” and “Burma”

Both “Myanmar” and “Burma” stem from the same linguistic roots. The term “Myanma” is a more formal version of “Bamar,” which refers to the country’s ethnic majority, the Bamar people. The Bamar people historically dominated what is now Myanmar, leading to both names becoming interchangeable over centuries. “Myanmar” is the more literary and formal name, while “Burma” is colloquial, easier to pronounce in English, and the name used during British colonization. The choice between the two, however, is more than linguistic; it reflects political eras and decisions.

2. Colonial Influence and the Name “Burma”

The British colonial administration adopted “Burma” after colonizing the country in 1885, using the term throughout its rule over the region, which lasted until 1948. During this period, “Burma” came to represent the foreign and colonial dominance of the British, who imposed their culture, language, and political structure onto the land and its people. For many in the country, especially those attuned to the legacy of colonialism, “Burma” became symbolic of a painful history of occupation and exploitation. Even after Burma’s independence in 1948, the name remained, carrying forward that colonial legacy.

3. The Political Rebranding to “Myanmar” in 1989

In 1989, the oppressive ruling military junta made the unilateral decision to change the country’s English name from “Burma” to “Myanmar.” This was done alongside renaming several other cities and regions. Rangoon became Yangon, for example, as part of a larger rebranding effort by the junta. The change aimed to distance the country from its colonial past and represent all ethnic groups under a single, more inclusive name.

However, this rebranding has been controversial. Critics argue that the junta’s move was motivated more by an attempt to legitimize its rule and less by a genuine desire for inclusivity. Many citizens felt excluded from this decision, as the public had no voice in this change, adding to the perception of “Myanmar” as a symbol of military dictatorship. Even today, the name “Myanmar” is linked to the military regime, raising concerns among international governments and organizations who view it as complicity in recognizing an undemocratic authority.

4. Identity and Inclusivity: What the Names Represent

The choice between Myanmar and Burma also reflects a nuanced discussion on identity and inclusivity. While “Myanmar” might aim to be a unifying term, encompassing all ethnic groups, some argue that it still centers around the Bamar majority, subtly sidelining the country’s vast ethnic diversity. Myanmar is home to over 135 ethnic groups, including the Shan, Karen, Rakhine, and Chin peoples, who have their unique languages and customs.

For some, especially those in opposition to the military junta, “Burma” is a symbol of the democratic struggle—a term used by political activists such as Aung San Suu Kyi and her party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), who campaigned under the name Burma to emphasize their opposition to the junta. On the other hand, supporters of the name “Myanmar” argue that it is more inclusive and forward-looking, shedding colonial baggage and aiming to represent a sovereign nation.

5. International Reactions and Preferences

International responses to the name change have varied. Organizations such as the United Nations and countries including Japan have adopted “Myanmar” in official settings, seeing it as an official reflection of the country’s sovereignty. However, some Western nations, like the United States and the United Kingdom, continue to use “Burma” in support of the country’s pro-democracy activists, who prefer the name as a form of resistance.

The dual usage creates a unique scenario where both names are legitimate and politically loaded, often depending on one’s stance on Myanmar’s government. For foreign governments, the choice between “Myanmar” and “Burma” often signals diplomatic intentions, whether recognizing the current government or supporting its opposition.

“Myanmar” embodies a hope to transcend colonial legacies, aiming to unify and represent an ethnically diverse nation on its own terms.
“Burma” represents a connection to the country’s ongoing struggles for freedom and the fight against military oppression.

The real question might not be whether to call it Myanmar or Burma, but how to move toward a future where all of its peoples can feel represented and included—regardless of the name on the map.