55 - THE ROHINGYAS Bengali Muslims or Arakan Rohingyas?

THE ROHINGYAS

Bengali Muslims or Arakan Rohingyas?

In recent months, the Rohingyas have been making headlines again. Who are they?

It was reported1 recently that Myanmar Foreign Minister U Nyan Win had told his ASEAN2

counterparts in Hua Hin, Thailand, prior to the ASEAN Summit, that the SPDC is “willing to

accept the return of refugees from Myanmar if they are listed as Bengali Muslim minorities but

not if they are Rohingyas, because Rohingyas are not Myanmar citizens”. What does this

signify? To the uninitiated, what difference does it make if they are Bengalis or Rohingyas? Are

they not from Burma? In Burmese politics, however, it makes a world of difference.

To a Burmese, the name ‘Rohingya’ is highly controversial even though in international circles it

is generally used to denote the Muslim community in the three townships of northern Arakan

State – Maungdaw, Buthidaung and Rathedaung – bordering Bangladesh. The Rohingyas are

closely related in ethnicity, language and religion to the Bengalis in the Chittagong region across

the border in Bangladesh. Today, they number about 800,000 in Arakan State and are classified

by the SPDC government as a foreign Bengali Muslim community. In the past, some have

estimated up to 2 million Muslims in Arakan State3. There are also large Rohingya refugee

populations overseas. It is estimated that there are 500,000 Rohingyas living in Saudi Arabia,

200,000 in Pakistan, 200,000 in Bangladesh, 50,000 in the United Arab Emirates and 25,000 in

Malaysia4. But it is generally accepted that Muslims now make up about one-third of the

population of Arakan State.

Buddhist Rakhaings, who make up the majority, claim that the Bengali Muslims in Arakan State

today came with the British Raj in the 19th and 20th centuries. They further claim that during the

War of Independence in Bangladesh and after cyclones devastated Bangladesh in 1978 and 1991,

many more migrated illegally into Burma. They say that the name “Rohingya” was coined by

Bengali Muslims to confer on themselves the status of an indigenous ethnic nationality like the

Shan, Karen and Kachin, etc. This would, they say, enable the Bengalis to claim parts of Arakan

State as their indigenous homeland, and carve out a separate Muslim state. The Rakhaings back

up their arguments by pointing to the communal massacres in 1942, and the Mujaheed

movement in 1947 that demanded autonomy and, in some instances, even tried to annex parts of

Arakan State to then East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). For their part, some Muslim Rohingyas

claim that, not only are the Rohingyas indigenous, but that Muslims kings also ruled Arakan in

1430 for over a hundred years5. This is, of course, hotly disputed by the Rakhaings who are

extremely proud of their Buddhist heritage.

The Kingdom of Arakan (Din-nya-waddy) is said to have existed since around 146 AD6.

Situated on the Bay of Bengal, the kingdom naturally had more ties with the Indian sub-continent

than with the rest of Burma, from which it was separated by the Arakan Yoma mountain range.

Arakan was influenced by Buddhist, Muslim and Hindu cultures. Depending on the fortunes of

war, Arakan is said to have stretched north from present day Arakan State to Chittagong and

even to Tripura in India. In 1404, King Narameikhla (‘Min Saw Mun’ or ‘Man Saw Muan’ in

Arakanese) was forced to seek refuge in Bengal after a Burman7 invasion. He was well received

by the Sultan of Gaur who helped him to recover his throne in 1430. From that time onward, it

was common for Buddhist Arakan kings to adopt Muslim titles in addition to their own names.

They even issued medallions bearing the Kalima, the Muslim confession of faith, in Persian

script8. But by the 16th century, foreign (mostly Portugese) and Arakanese pirates laid waste the

lands along the Bay of Bengal making much of it ungovernable. The slave trade, fuelled by

French, English and Dutch buyers, fed the anarchy in Arakan and along the Bengal coast. In

1784, King Bowdawpaya of Ava (Burma) attacked and conquered Arakan at the invitation of

Arakanese lords. Arakan became a province of the Burman kingdom, and after the first Anglo-

Burman war in 1826, it was ceded to the British. After the Union of Burma gained independence

from the British in 1948, Arakan monks and intellectuals, including the pre-Second World War

Prime Minister under the British, Sir Paw Tun, began demanding the recognition of the historical

independence of Arakan, and the formation of an autonomous Arakan State9. General Ne Win’s

1974 Socialist constitution recognized Arakan as a constituent but not autonomous state.

Whatever the validity of the claims and counterclaims of the Rakhaings and Rohingyas, it cannot

be denied that a large number of Muslims reside in Arakan State. The “Kaman” are descendents

of Afghan, Persian and Mogul mercenaries in the service of Arakan kings from the 15th century

and are recognized as citizens by the SPDC. The “Myay-du” are descendents of slaves from

Bengal who were brought in the 16th century to work at the pagodas. In the 17th century, some

escaped to Ava, were accepted as the Burman king’s subjects and given their freedom. They

returned to Arakan with King Bowdawpaya’s army in 1784 and resettled in Arakan10. Unlike the Kaman, the Myay-Du are not in the SPDC’s list of 135 national races. During the British

occupation from 1826 onwards, South Asians were brought into Burma as labourers, traders and

administrators, creating resentment against South Asians in general. Many South Asians –

Hindus and Muslims – assimilated culturally. They spoke Burmese or Arakanese and adopted

Burman or Arakanese names but retained their religion. The Kamans and the Myay-dus do not

refer to themselves as ‘Rohingya’. Arakanese refer in general to the Muslims in their midst as

“Arakan Muslims”. However, the Muslims in Maungdaw, Buthidaung and Rathedaung, possibly

because of their concentration, were not well received and did not or could not assimilate.

The issue of migration into Burma from Bengal after independence, and the citizenship of

Arakan Muslims, was complicated by population pressures in Bengal, insurgency in Arakan,

inadequate documentation and a porous border. In the 1950’s, the name, ‘Rohingya’ began to be

used by Arakan Muslims to denote Bengalis who had settled in Arakan before independence, in

an effort to qualify for citizenship. As demands for an Arakan state grew, the Rohingyas also

lobbied to be recognized not only as citizens but as an indigenous ethnic nationality. Prime

Minister U Nu, Deputy Prime Minister U Ba Swe and Professor G C Luce also started using the

term ‘Rohingya’ to describe the Bengali population in northern Arakan. In April 1960, U Nu

authorized the Burma Broadcasting Service to broadcast in the Rohingya language. Rohingyas

point to this fact as evidence that they are an indigenous ethnic nationality of Burma. But

Rakhaings point out that the broadcast was made under the Foreign Languages Programme, not

the National Languages Programme11. To bolster the Rohingya argument of their indigenous

status, it is alleged that the former President of Burma, Sao Shwe Thaike12, as Speaker of the

Constituent Assembly (sic), said, “Muslims of the Arakan certainly belong to one of the

indigenous races of Burma. If they do not belong to the indigenous races, we also cannot be

taken as indigenous races.”13

To complicate matters, in 1978, General Ne Win launched ‘Operation Naga Min’ to expel illegal

immigrants from Arakan State. The Burma Army was indiscriminate. A mass exodus took place

and 250,000 to 300,000 refugees fled to Bangladesh. This included citizens and non-citizens.

The process was repeated in 1991, when another 250,000 to 300,000 were expelled. Both times,

the international community intervened. The majority were repatriated. The agreement did not

acknowledge the returnees as Burmese citizens but as residents of Burma. Ironically, with these

expulsions and the subsequent dispersal of the refugees, the ‘Rohingya’ name became wellknown worldwide, while most people have never heard of Arakan. In addition to these

expulsions, the Burmese military government in 1982 introduced a new Citizenship Law

effectively denying citizenship rights to people of Chinese or South Asian origin. Citizens are

defined on the basis of their ethnicity. They have to belong to an ethnic group that settled in

Burma prior to 1823. Only those groups listed as the 135 ‘national races’ or ‘indigenous peoples’

can claim citizenship. The law also stipulates that the person must speak one of the national

languages. No other ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities are recognized.

It is ironic but, given their extreme fear of a Muslim invasion, Rakhaing nationalists and

academics, even those who are staunchly anti-SPDC, tend to agree with the SPDC’s position that

Rohingyas do not exist, and that they are not Burmese citizens. Like the SPDC, they will only

accept the existence of foreign Bengali Muslims in Arakan. This has influenced the Burmese

democracy movement greatly. No ‘Rohingya’ political organization has been admitted into any

of the numerous Burmese alliances. Rakhaing leaders have even been known to walk out of

meetings where ‘Rohingyas’ are present. Some civil society organizations will work with

Rohingya organizations but are reluctant to defend them or speak out on their behalf. Rakhaings

who dare to use the name ‘Rohingya’ or work with ‘Rohingya’ organizations risk disciplinary

action, expulsion or being ostracized by the Rakhaing community.

Until the 1982 Citizenship Law is changed, the status of Arakan Muslims in Burma will remain

in limbo. It may require a national debate on citizenship and how minorities are treated before

any progress can be made. However, the fact remains that today, a large number of people living

in Burma have been deprived of their most basic rights as human beings. It is unconscionable

that the democracy movement, which claims to be fighting for universal human rights, has

ignored and continues to ignore their plight. It should not matter to the democracy movement

whether or not the Arakan Muslims are called ‘Bengalis’ or ‘Rohingyas’, or are citizens, an

indigenous population, an ethnic nationality, or a foreign religious minority. The fact is that they

live in Burma. They were able to participate in the elections during the democracy period14,

again in 1990, and are part of the Burmese democracy movement. A way must be found to

engage them in Burma’s nation-building process. Ignoring them or excluding them will not solve

the problem. In fact, it will exacerbate and create additional problems as the recent ‘boat people’

incidents show. Similar to other Burmese exiles, there are many ‘Rohingyas’ or Arakan Muslims

living overseas who have skills that can be used to contribute to the re-building of Burma.

Recommendations to the Burmese democracy movement:

1. Treat Arakan Muslims/Rohingyas, especially those in exile who are working for democracy,

as human beings and as comrades-in-arms. Rakhaings have demanded that the name

‘Rohingya’ be dropped as a pre-condition for recognition or inclusion. While the concern

over the use of the name is understandable and must be taken into account, it remains a fact

that in a free society, people can call themselves by any name they wish. However, even if

the Rohigyas were to call themselves Arakan Muslims, they would still not qualify for

Burmese citizenship under Burmese law. The historical authenticity of a name is also not an

issue. New names are being coined all the time. The more the Arakan Muslims are excluded

and marginalized in Arakan, the more likely they are to ask for a separate state. They will

not ask for a state if they can co-exist as equals in Arakan State.

2. Condemn racism and intolerance. Arakan Muslims/Rohingyas should not be insulted because

of their features, skin colour or religion15. Their rights as a minority – ethnic, cultural,

religious – should be respected in the same way that the minority rights of all Arakanese

should be respected within the context of the larger Union of Burma.

3. Initiate a dialogue with Arakan Muslims/Rohingyas without pre-conditions. Build on

common ground. Most Arakan Muslim/Rohingya leaders and activists speak Burmese. They

want democracy and federalism, and support the concept of an ‘indivisible’ Arakan State16.

4. Re-examine the meaning of terms such as ‘minority’, ‘ethnic’, ‘ethnic nationality’, ‘national

races’ and ‘indigenous’ as they are used today in the international community and in UN

circles. Many of the meanings have evolved over time and may not be the same as it is

understood in Burma or translated into Burmese. Actually, the term ‘ethnic nationality’ does

not exist in international circles. It was coined by the Burmese democracy movement in the

1990’s to replace ‘national races’ because the word ‘race’ has changed in meaning.

5. Initiate a dialogue within the movement on a vision for a future Burma. Who are

‘indigenous’ and what difference would it make to a citizen of Burma whether or not he or

she is indigenous? What protection will the ‘ethnic nationalities’ and/or ‘minorities’ have in a

future Burma? Who can become citizens, or will Burma remain a closed society?

Recommendations to the international community:

1. Work to improve the living conditions of Arakan Muslims/Rohingyas. The international

community, especially the UNHCR, WFP, UNDP and other agencies, should work with the

SPDC regime to improve conditions in the three northern Arakan townships, and with host

countries like Bangladesh for refugee camps and with countries like Thailand, Malaysia, and

Indonesia for refugee and migrant worker communities. Current conditions are not

acceptable.

2. Initiate a dialogue with the SPDC and neighbouring countries on the SPDC’s treatment of

ethnic and religious minorities in Burma. The international community, especially the UN,

ASEAN, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, should take the lead in these

matters.

Reference :

1 Bernama News. “Only Bengalis Accepted, Rohingyas Have To Wait, Says Myanmar”. 27 February 2009.

2 ASEAN = Association of South East Asian Nations. The ten member nations are: Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia,

Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.

3 Martin Smith. “Burma – Insurgency and the Politics of Ethnicity”. Zed Books Ltd., London and New Jersey, 1991.

4 Chris Lewa. “A stateless minority in Myanmar: The case of the Rohingyas”. 6-7 December 2007 – unpublished.

5 Arakan Rohingya National Organization, “NCGUB pushing the Rohingya from the frying-pan into the fire”, 13

February 2009.

6 G.E. Harvey. “History of Burma”. Frank Cass & Co. Ltd., London, 1925 and 1967.

7 Burman = majority ethnic group in Burma. They make up about 60% of the present population. Burmese = citizens

of the Union of Burma.

8 Harvey.

9 Smith.

10 Khin Maung Saw. “Response to the Press Release of the Rohingya”. Berlin. 2009.

11 Khin Maung Saw.

12 Sao Shwe Thaike was a Shan and the father of the Executive Director of the Euro-Burma Office.

13 Dr San Oo Aung. http://sanooaung.wordpress.com. 22 January 2008

14 1948 to 1958 and from 1960 to 1962.

15 Ye Myint Aung, SPDC Consul-General in Hong Kong, in a letter to fellow diplomats said, “the Rohingyas are

ugly as orgres” and that “their complexion is dark brown”, unlike the Burmese who are “fair” and “good looking”.

Some Rakhaing academics have also been accused of calling the Rohingyas ‘viruses’.

16 Declaration of the Rohingya Consultation, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, 2005 and Declaration of the

Arakan Rohingya Council, Chittagong, Bangladesh, 2008.