October 24, 2025
By Shwetaungthagathu Reform Initiative Centre
By Aung Thet Paing Hmue
In Myanmar’s polycrisis, Ethnic Armed Organisations (EAOs) provide crucial education for millions. However, their focus on the dominant ethnic group’s identity risks creating new forms of exclusion for minority groups living within the EAO-controlled territories.
Key Takeaways:The post-coup expansion of Ethnic Basic Education Providers (EBEPs) is remarkable, but it mainly prioritizes and serves the dominant ethnic group
Language and curriculum policies in EAO-controlled areas create new barriers for “minorities within minorities”.
Interim education systems must prioritise inclusivity and equitable representation of all communities to build a truly federal and democratic Myanmar.
Historical Role of Education in EAO-controlled areas
Throughout history, the Myanmar education system was centralised and used as a tool for national assimilation. This process is often referred to as “Burmanisation“. This policy prioritised Burmese language and culture in the state schools, and marginalised the country’s diverse ethnic minority groups. This was seen as a cultural and identity threat to non-Bamar communities, fuelling decades of civil conflicts. This schooling strategy aims to promote a single national identity and is a core element of state-building, but has instead fuelled the ethnic tensions it sought to suppress.
The ethnic education system in Myanmar stands as a vital mechanism for cultural preservation, resistance, and the assertion of a right to self-determination by marginalised ethnic groups in the face of a persistent state-led “Burmanisation” project. Ethnic Basic Education Providers (EBEPs) were founded to respond to the state-enforced Burmanisation as a critical alternative. Ethnic Armed Organisations (EAOs), civil society organisations (CSOs), and community groups developed independent education programs, particularly in ethnic regions, to counter the junta’s monopoly on education.
Following the 2011 democratic transition, the semi-democratic government made a symbolic transformation to reform and include ethnic languages in the curriculum by the “Mother tongue-based and multi-lingual education; MTB-MLE“. By 2020, 64 minority languages had been introduced as subjects in government schools. Despite these efforts, EBEPs and EAOs continued to operate their own parallel systems, highlighting the lack of trust and reliance on a territorial-based administration system.
School supplies
Role of EBEPs in post-2021 military coup
After the 2021 military coup, many students and teachers nationwide joined the Civil Disobedience Movement (CDM) and boycotted the formal education system. By late 2024, approximately 7 million, or 53%, of Myanmar’s school-age children will be missing out on basic education. Therefore, the EBEPs’ functions became essential in many EAO-controlled territories. EBEPs have established functional and resilient mother tongue-based school systems. EBEPs have seen a surge in enrolment, ensuring the children can still access education amid the ongoing crisis in many places.
The growth of EBEPs since the military coup is a powerful testament to the resilience of communities in a polycrisis setting in Myanmar. The Karen National Union (KNU)’s education system supports over 145,000 students through 1,660 schools, while the Ta’ang National Education Committee (TNEC) serves over 10,000 students in 500 schools. There were only 215 schools in the 2023-2024 academic year in the Kachin Independence Organisation (KIO) controlled area. The number rose to 448 schools in total during the 2023-2025 academic year, indicating the improvement of the KIO education system in the region.
Minorities within Minorities challenges
However, the rapidly expanding EBEP system has introduced new complexities. The primary goal of providing the necessary education to the marginalized people also creates significant challenges for the minority groups in the EAO-controlled territories.
The creation of parallel education systems by EAOs has been a powerful act of resistance, but the specific peace and conflict dynamics of each ethnic group often shaped these systems. The education regimes developed by the EAOs tend to be more separatist in character when conflict is rife and less separatist when ceasefires are in place.
After the 1027 operation, the prior territories of the EAOs have changed significantly, forming a power and administrative vacuum in particular places. For example, the Palang State Liberation Front/Ta’ang National Liberation Army (PSLF/TNLA) has established a new governance body, the Ta’ang Land Council (TLC), in its newly acquired territory, which overlaps with KIO-controlled areas. Moreover, the TLC’s effort to make the Ta’ang language an official language causes ethnic tension with the Kachin, Shan, and Bamar populations.
Beyond territorial disputes, the issue of “minorities within minorities” is also evident in linguistic and political situations. Many ethnic education systems are designed to promote a specific ethnic identity and language by relying on a single, dominant dialect. For instance, the Karen Education and Culture Department (KECD) places a heavy emphasis on the S’gaw language. This creates an internal hierarchy among even the same ethnic group. Moreover, the Karen conflict is not monolithic, with splinter groups such as the Democratic Karen Benevolent Army (DKBA) and KNU-Peace Council (KNU-PC). Each group has its own education system with distinct curricula that reflect their ideological separation.
In Rakhine state, minority groups such as the Rohingya, Mro, Khumi, and Maramagyi face significant barriers. For the 2025-2026 academic year, the United League of Arakan (ULA) is hiring teachers to reopen schools in AA-controlled areas of 15 townships, including Paletwa township in Chin State. However, the Rohingya teachers have been barred from teaching, and local school committees are being pressured to hire Rakhine teachers. The ULA aims to revitalise Rakhine education, but there is no clear information on how they will provide education for the Chin ethnicity in Paletwa township. These exclusions could damage the reconciliation between the Rakhine and Rohingya communities for the future of Arakan.
Recommendations
To ensure that the interim education system serves as a foundation for the future democratic state and nation-building process, the following factors should be considered by all stakeholders.Decentralised education system: the EAOs should incorporate the micro-minorities with fairer representation, collaboration, and diverse leadership. In this way, the interim education system will be transparent and become an inclusive decision-making process for all people.
Cross-ethnic cooperation: to foster mutual understanding and avoid linguistic marginalisation in the controlled areas, the EAOs should coordinate policies to recognise each other.
Teacher diversity: The recruitment policies should prioritize inclusivity by ensuring the representation of teachers from underrepresented minority groups.
Expand Inclusive Education for all: To bridge the educational gap, all stakeholders should expand education at all levels by supporting necessary training and infrastructure to accompany the innovations to ensure no one is left behind.
‘Conclusion
The rise of EBEPs in post-coup Myanmar represents an act of extraordinary resilience and a vital community-driven alternative for millions of children facing an acute schooling crisis. Yet, this crucial provision operates as a double-edged sword: the prioritisation of the dominant ethnic group’s identities within EAO-controlled areas risks reproducing the exclusionary mechanisms of the state (such as past Burmanisation policies). This trajectory not only creates “minorities within minorities” but also fundamentally undermines the foundation for a truly federal and democratic building process of Myanmar. For education to contribute to a shared and just future, it must move beyond cultural preservation for dominant groups and embrace principles of inclusivity, equity, and shared governance for all ethnic minority groups within these territories.
About the author: Aung Thet Paing Hmue is a Junior Research Fellow at the Sustainability Lab of the Shwetaungthagathu Reform Initiative Centre (SRIc) with over two years of experience in the humanitarian sector. Currently residing in Thailand, he navigates cross-border challenges while building his professional future.
Source: This article was published by The Sabai Times
Shwetaungthagathu Reform Initiative Centre
The Shwetaungthagathu Reform Initiative Centre (SRIc) is a hybrid think tank (non-partisan) and consultancy firm that advances sustainable governance, policy innovation, and sustainability literacy in Myanmar. Through its Sustainability Lab, SRIc conducts in-depth public policy research and analysis to promote sustainable development and guide Myanmar toward a more resilient, equitable, and environmentally conscious future. SRIc provides strategic policy advocacy, CSR consultation, and the development of sustainability roadmaps grounded in Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles. These services support public institutions and private sector actors in aligning their operations with the Sustainable Development Goals. By integrating rigorous research with actionable consultancy, SRIc supports responsible business practices, fosters innovative CSR strategies, and designs impactful sustainability pathways. SRIc contributes to local transformation & global sustainability efforts through this dual approach.
No comments:
Post a Comment