beneficial to do so, such as densely populated regions with predominantly Burman populations. The interfaith marriage law sheds light on discrepancies between the central authorities’ claim of democracy and Burma’s political and social reality. Many scholars of international relations, as well as Burma watchers, have argued, with reason, that the law was enacted specifically to discriminate against Muslims. As Radio Free Asia explained: The law requires Buddhist women and men of other faiths to register their intent to marry with local authorities, who will display a public notice of the engagements. Couples can marry only if there are no objections; but if they violate the law, they could face imprisonment. (Toe, 2015) The significance of this law as it relates to Tatmadaw control tactics is that it allows the military and central authorities to gain the support of the general public, especially the Burman majority, by creating an environment in which public dissent is celebrated by those in power. Historically public objection in Burma is seen as rebellious or treasonous. Having a mechanism like the interfaith marriage law available to provide positive affirmation to the public that their demurral is supported by those in power, allows the military to gain the trust of the civilian populace thereby further limiting the likelihood that it will step back from actual power. Despite claims by monks that the BaMaTha operated independently of the government or other national institutions, recent reports from the well-known Burmese news source The Irrawaddy indicates a different story. In early 2019, the military made a cash donation to BaMaTha claiming that the group is necessary to maintaining the welfare of Burmese society and should be supported in the name of Buddhism (Naing Zaw, 2019). In an attempt to save face within the international community, the state82