The concept of the “135 ethnic groups” is often presented as a way to demonstrate Myanmar’s multi-ethnic and multicultural coexistence and unity. In reality, however, it can also be understood as a political concept that deconstructs indigenous nations and assimilates them under a single national identity—that of Bamar/Myanmar. In doing so, it reduces political heritage and historical nationhood to the status of cultural or ethnic groups.

In his book The Conditions of Diversity in Multinational Democracies, political scientist McRoberts argues that many countries tend to reduce their internal nations to “ethnic groups” rather than recognize them as national communities. In Myanmar, successive authoritarian regimes have used similar strategies.


Large ethnic communities that once possessed their own political systems, rulers, or monarchies have sometimes been described as “major ethnic groups,” but the meaning of this term has never been clearly defined. General Aung San himself attempted to define such concepts in relation to the idea of a “nation,” but acknowledged that a proper Burmese dictionary was needed to provide a satisfactory definition.


The list of 135 ethnic groups contains many inconsistencies. For example:

  • Karen communities are divided into categories such as White Karen, Sgaw, Mon Karen, and others, making the list difficult to describe as a list of national communities or nations.
  • Chin communities are divided into as many as 53 categories, often conflating language, locality, and lineage.
  • Some groups appear under overlapping or different names.
  • The Bamar are also divided into nine categories. Some have argued that this reflects the symbolic importance of the number nine in Burmese astrology, since 1 + 3 + 5 = 9.


The result is a classification that is neither clearly a list of nations, nor ethnic groups, nor languages. Its criteria are inconsistent and difficult to define.


The political use of this concept has produced several consequences:

  • Fragmenting indigenous political formations and supporting a “divide and rule” approach.
  • Reducing national communities with their own political histories to groups expected to be loyal primarily to the Union of Myanmar.
  • Creating narratives that strengthen the legitimacy of the central state.
  • Weakening claims to self-determination and historical political rights by placing all groups, including the Bamar, under the same category of “indigenous ethnicity.”
  • Encouraging the assimilation of distinct indigenous cultures and identities.


Professor James C. Scott has argued that peoples living beyond or at the margins of centralized state power have historically developed different strategies to resist political and cultural domination. One important example is the development and preservation of distinct writing systems.


For indigenous communities, writing systems can serve purposes far beyond communication. They can help:

  1. Preserve language and culture.
  2. Reduce dependence on state-controlled systems of communication.
  3. Strengthen distinct identities.
  4. Symbolize resistance to standardized state languages and scripts.
  5. Resist political centralization and the state’s attempts to make populations more easily legible and governable.


Indigenous writing systems can therefore become forms of political as well as cultural resistance.

Their cultural purposes include:

  • Recording and preserving histories and traditions.
  • Passing cultural knowledge and arts to future generations.
  • Supporting systematic teaching and learning of mother tongues.
  • Preserving distinctive identities, symbols, and collective memory.


Their political purposes include:

  • Resisting cultural assimilation by the central state.
  • Symbolizing self-determination and freedom.
  • Strengthening unity within ethnonational communities.
  • Reducing dependence on state-controlled systems of knowledge and information.


Their social purposes include:

  • Building communication networks within communities.
  • Exchanging knowledge and ideas.
  • Educating future generations.
  • Strengthening social cohesion and collective identity.


From this perspective, the concept of the “135 ethnic groups” can be understood not simply as an administrative classification, but as a political instrument that fragments indigenous peoples and weakens their claims to collective political rights. The problem is therefore not merely personal or cultural; it is institutional and political.


The main points are:

  1. Attempts to assimilate the distinct identities and political heritage of indigenous peoples often generate resistance.
  2. Such resistance can be understood not only as political action, but also as a moral claim to dignity, recognition, and self-determination.
  3. Indigenous peoples continually develop creative ways to protect their rights and identities.
  4. Literary culture and language can become important tools of political liberation.
  5. Institutions and practices that strengthen ethnonational identity and unity can play an important role in political struggle and collective resistance.


Indigenous resistance will continue to preserve distinct identities while also seeking to build a modern and democratic federal system. Culture, language, literature, and collective memory will continue to play an important role in that journey.



Infographic courtesy of “The Art of Not Being Legible” by Piers Kelly.