In Voice Of Hope Analysis

Additionally, In Voice of Hope by Alan Clements, Suu Kyi defines violence as an action that gives pain to other and defines non-violence as positive action that is not passive. Based off her definition of violence, Suu Kyi believes that true nonviolence is unreachable because even if your intentions are to help you may end up harming. But Suu Kyi does believe that as long as your thoughts, words and emotions are not translated into physical violence then you are nonviolent. Additionally, as a political leader Suu Kyi believes that is important to establish that problems can be solved without guns because non-violence is positive action and is not passive. One has to work to get what one wants, just don’t use violence as the answer to solve …show more content…
Some believe that Suu Kyi is powerless in government. This is reasonable, but why does she deny these crimes? Her comments on the crisis understate the crimes against humanity. The most she has stated about the crisis is, "We are concerned to hear the number of Muslims fleeing areas to Bangladesh," and she denied any "human rights violations" by the government (Kyi). Even if she was powerless she could try to get international help by condemning the violence. This supports my stance that her ideologies only extend to the people of Myanmar. This egoistic use of the Dharma is a common through out Myanmar indcluding some monks. In The Battle for Myanmar’s Buddhist spirit, monks in Myanmar discuss their beliefs on the true teachings of the Dharma. One monk stated, “The main concern is to protect the lives of the people.” Additionally, an extremist monk in Myanmar expressed strong views about Rohingya Muslims, “Buddhism will never die! This is our cause: those who insult our religion, crowd: are our enemies!!” The military and the people of Myanmar displays a strong belief in the corruptness of the Rohingya Muslims and therefore accept violence if necessary to protect their people (The