By Eric Vandenbroeck
Some years ago I reported
about the historical roots of the violence against
Rohingyas, whereby to this one can ad that it was not the abolition of the
old monarchy by the British in the late 19th century that forebode the disaster
that came after independence in 1962. Rather, Myanmar’s inability to become a
functioning national entity is the fact that the country, with its present
borders, is a colonial creation bringing together peoples and ethnic groups
with little in common, and even centuries of conflicts with the Burman kings
that predate British rule.
The Buddhist Bamar people also known as Bama
or Burmans in the spoken register and Mranma or Myanma in the literary register entered the central
Irrawaddy river valley in the 9th century and who became the de facto rulers of
current Myanmar today differentiate themselves from other ethnic groups in
Myanmar.
The British governed Burma as a province of India until 1937 despite
profound cultural differences between the two countries.
Class differences in colonial Burma also reinforced ethnic tensions. For
example, Indian money-lenders, called kala, or foreigners, contributed 55
percent of all taxes in Rangoon and constituted the middle class, whereas the
Europeans contributed 15 percent and the Burmans only 11 percent. The unequal
class relationship bolstered Burmese opposition to the Indians, who were
perceived by the Burmans as owning all of Burma. (Gravers, Nationalism as
Political Paranoia in Burma: An Essay On the Historical Practice of Power,
1999, p. 21.) Present day xenophobia against the Rohingya Muslims can be traced
to resentment of the favored status of the Indian Hindus and Muslims during the
colonial period. While the Rohingya’s ancestors settled in Rakhine state in the
early eighth century, their physical features and Muslim religion share many
attributes with the neighboring Bengali people. Buddhist leaders in the 1920s
and 1930s began to integrate xenophobic slogans in their rallying cries for
revolts against colonial rule. The first political awakening in Burma following
the consolidation of British rule in 1885 was led by the Young Men’s Buddhist Association (YMBA), which was
established in opposition to the Christian dominance of Burma’s politics.
Protesters throughout the 1930s shouted slogans such as, “master race we
are, we Burmans” and “race, language, religion.” Freedom and independence from
colonial rule became inextricably linked with the purge of all foreign
influences. (Ibid. Gravers, pp. 38 – 9.)
This year again a group of Buddhist monks staged a protest march to
"let
the world know that Rohingya are not among Myanmar's ethnic groups at all".
As is also elsewhere, the role of religion or in this case a nationalist
form of Buddhism in violent conflict is not singular, nor is it unique. Most
violent conflict however requires the organization of networks ready to move
crowds hence ideologues and intellectuals at the pinnacle of organizations
likely to incite religiously motivated violence. They construct the discourse that
motivates for mobs to act.
In the case of Burma, however, there is a suspicion organizer on a State
level, or/and army intelligence could be involved.
Campaigners for Burma's Muslim Rohingya minority have accused the
country's government of failing to intervene as thousands of homes were
attacked and more than 100 people were killed.
The satellite pictures released by Human Right Watch, show Kyaukpyu district on 9 October, and then on 25 October. On
9 October, hundreds of closely packed houses can be seen on the peninsula, as
well as scores of houseboats along the northern shoreline. But in the image
taken on Thursday, few boats remain and the 35-acre district is almost entirely
empty of houses, here:
Some experts suggest existing population data is skewed to exaggerate
the number of Burman, which forms the largest single ethnic group and are
ethnically related to the Tibetans and the Chinese. They comprise of about
two-thirds of Myanmar’s 47 million people and dominate the army and
government.
The state claims that 3% of Myanmar’s population comprises of Muslims,
but other studies suggest the population could be as high as 13%, Muslims are
believed to number around seven million in Myanmar. The majority are Indian
Muslims who settled in Myanmar when the country was under British rule. Most of
Myanmar’s ethnic minorities inhabit areas along the country’s mountainous
frontiers.
Islam is practiced widely in Arakan/ Rakhine State
in the west of Myanmar, where it is the dominant religion of the 1 million
Rohingya minority, as well as some Indians and Bengalis. There are also a few BaMa (Burman) converts to Islam as well as Muslims of mixed
Indian Burmese ethno-cultural heritage, known (these days pejoratively) as Zerbadees.
As I pointed out in my article from 2003,
according to the first reference to the term, British medical doctor, Francis
Hamilton, wrote at the end of the 18th century that Rohingya is a name, not an
ethnic category, and that this was the word the Muslims living in Rakhine at
that time used for themselves. In the above article “A Comparative Vocabulary
of Some of the Languages Spoken in the Burma Empire”, Hamilton wrote: "I
shall now add three dialects, spoken in the Burma Empire, but evidently derived
from the language of the Hindu nation. The first is that spoken by the
Mohammedans, who have long settled in Arakan, and who
call themselves Rooinga, or natives of Arakan." Whereby elsewhere the suggestion is made that
the term could also derive from the word “Rohang”,
and that this was the Bengali name given to Arakan at
the time.
What I would at to this today, is that more research should be done
(including develop some estimates) about those who were already in Arakan before the region became culturally ‘Burmanized’ from the 10th to 14th centuries (they are also
probably ancestors of present day
Rakhine); slaves taken by Rakhine kings and Portuguese mercenaries from Bengal
in the 16th and 17th centuries and workers who migrated from Bengal during the
colonial period; and those who migrated from Bangladesh after independence.
Clear is that what is now a clearly delineated border between two
countries was not so before the British arrived to impose their European ideas
of homogenous nation states. Arakan was before the
British’s arrival a diffuse frontier area between the Burmese and Bengali
worlds without a strongly enforced line of demarcation.
In certain historical eras, extensive areas of Arakan
were under the sway of Bengali rulers; at other times areas in Bengal reaching
up to the Bangladesh city of Chittagong were ruled by Rakhine kings.
As for the earlier mentioned 1911 census,
Rohingya are included with the Indian population as an ethnic group of Indian
origin, and the census of 1921 categorizes Rohingya as Arakanese, see a reaving
detailed analyses underneath.(1)
Fact is also that what are currently called Rohingya, used to have
National Registration Cards (NRC) like everyone else in the country. Apparently
upon introduction of discriminatory policies on Rohingya by Ne Win in 1970s,
the NRCs were taken away by various measures. Numerous check-points were set up
to block Rohingya’s travel and to confiscate their IDs. Nagamin
(the Dragon) operation in 1977-78 was crafted to drive out all Rohingya from
Burma. It produced about 250,000 refugees that fled to neighboring Bangladesh.
However, most of the fleeing refugees were returned to their original dwelling
places, so the plan was not quite successful for the Burmese regime. Although
systematic discriminatory policies were in place and IDs and other government
issued documents were seized by the government, Rohingya remained as citizens
of Burma until 1982. The Citizenship Act promulgated in 1982 is the official
document that striped off the citizenship of Rohingya.
The Myanmar (Burmese) military junta calls itself currently the State
Peace and Development Council (SPDC). Following its consolidation of power, the
junta advanced an ideology called “The Burmese Way to Socialism,” which was
xenophobic in character and formulated by the intensely nationalistic Burmese
Revolutionary Council. The goal of this program, still evident to this day, is
the “Burmanization” of the country, referring to the
majority Bamar people.(2)
Including during the 1960s, the official Burma Broadcasting Service
however relayed a Rohingya-language radio programme
three times a week as part of its minority language programming, and the term
‘Rohingya’ was used in journals and school text-books until the late 1970s.(3)
These inhabitants called Rohingya are now among the most persecuted
groups in Burma, and have been forced to leave.
The first step taken to this end was to remove them from Burmain legal terms by revoking their citizenship by
initiating the 1982 Burma Citizenship Law.The law
seems to have been declared in order to strip Rohingya of their nationality, as
it was announced shortly after many Rohingyas returned after fleeing in
1978.(4)
The legal status of the Rohingya is dire. They have no citizenship in
their country of origin, and the hundreds of thousands of them who have fled to
Bangladesh and other nearby countries find themselves caught in limbo. None of
the countries in the region are signatories of the Convention on the Reduction
of Statelessness, which requires its parties to grant its nationality to a
person born on its territory that would otherwise be stateless.(5)
The revocation of citizenship for the Rohingya was only one component of
the SPDC’s strategy to alienate and remove them from Burmese society. Intense ethno religious-based violence preceded the 1982 law,
beginning in 1978 with Nagamin, the King Dragon
Operation. The Burmese military, called the Tatmadaw, directly and deliberately
targeted civilians, particularly Rohingyan Muslims,
for killings, rapes, and the destruction of places of worship. Their aim was
“scrutinizing each individual living in the state, designating citizens and
foreigners in accordance with the law and taking actions against foreigners who
have filtered intothe country illegally.”(6)
The rhetoric mirrors directly language used by Burmese officials today
to describe the Rohingya: illegal immigrants, foreigners, and non-citizens. As
a direct result of theKing Dragon Operation, over
200,000 Rohingya fled to Bangladesh. The vast majority of these Rohingya were
repatriated by 1982, in this instance.(7)
Another major outflow of Rohingya from Burma to Bangladesh occurred in
1991-1992, and has resulted in a humanitarian crisis that has lasted for more then twenty years. Those fleeing to Bangladesh reported
“widespread forced labour, as well as summary
executions, torture, and rape.” Security forces, including the Tatmadaw, forced
Rohingyans to work oninfrastructure
projects under harsh conditions and without pay.(8)
During this early period more than 250,000 people, almost one third of the
entire Rohingya population, fled the country.(9)
This influx of refugees was largely contained within twenty camps near
the Burmese border, near Cox’s Bazaar, Bangladesh. The period between 1993-1997
saw the repatriation of 236,000 Rohingya, many of which were allegedly coerced
into returning by the Bangladeshi government, with the consent of the Burmese
government.(10)
Their return, however, in no way signaled an improvement in their
condition within the country. Northern Rakhine is one of the most heavily
militarized regions in Burma, despite verylow levels
of armed conflict.(11)
The United States Department of State describes the plight of the
Rohingya as discrimination of “the severest forms.”(12)
Their freedom of movement is non-existent, as they require official
permission to leave their home villages, and may under almost no circumstances
travel outside of Northern Rakhine. They are subject to arbitrary restrictions
of religious freedom, forced labor (particularly in winter months), arbitrary arrests,
and extortionate taxes on births and deaths.(13)
Individuals are even forced to carry out sentry duty for the villages,
essentially doing the work of the Tatmadaw for them. In addition to restricting
travel and expression, the Rohingya are constantly living with the threat of
having their lands confiscated
Intimidation is rampant in causing families to leave their land, but the
government also pursues legal means of removing Rohingya by strictly enforcing
old zoning laws, for example by destroying a house built on land zoned for rice
cultivation.(14)
Even Bangladesh does not
legally acknowledge the status of the Rohingyas as refugees, because
Bangladesh is not a party to the UN Convention Relating to the Status of
Refugees, nor its 1967 Protocol. There is no national law regulating the
administration of refugee affairs or guaranteeing the realization of rights of
refugees. (15)
As the situation became more dangerous in Burma and more desperate in
Bangladesh, Rohingya started to take to the sea in rickety boats in the hopes
of reaching Thailand or Malaysia. For example in December 2008, the Thai navy
intercepted and detained 400 of these boat people on a military island called
Koh Sai Daeng. From there, they were taken out to sea and forced onto a barge
without motors or adequate food or water. They were then cut loose, and left to
drift in open water for twelve days before being rescued hundreds of miles away
by the Indian coast guardnear the Andaman
Islands.(16)
Upon rescue, only
100 were left onboard, and there is evidence that this has been happening since
2007. (17)
As for the current
situation, the government reported 82 killed, 4,600 houses burned and more than
22,000 people displaced—all almost certainly underestimates.
In the absence of mass deportation, Rakhine’s Buddhists are intent on
absolute segregation. Those left behind in towns as yet untouched by the
violence in Rakhine find themselves shunned by their Buddhist friends and
neighbors. The one belief both groups still share is that more trouble will
come, at any time.
The Thai military,
however, denied any wrong doing, claiming that they ‘suspect’ the Rohingya
of providing support to the Malay Islamic insurgency in southern Thailand. (18)
The current
situation is that outbreaks of violence between ethnic Rakhine Buddhists
and the Rohingyas have killed dozens and displaced thousands since June. Rights
groups also have accused Myanmar security forces of killing, raping and
arresting Rohingyas after the riots.
At least 800,000 Muslim Rohingya live in Rakhine State along the coast
of western Myanmar. But Buddhists and other Burmese view them as illegal
immigrants from neighboring Bangladesh who deserve neither rights nor sympathy.
1) It was not until sixth census, that of 1921, that racial
classification of the population was attempted. In previous censuses the
population was classified by religious only.
In the Chapter XI, Paragarph 157 of that
census mentioned that, “Numbers are tabulated in Imperial Table XIII for three
Indo-Burma Races, the Zerbadis, the Arakan Mahomedans, and the Arakan
Kaman, all these being associated as Race-group ‘S’ for convenience.”
About ‘Arakan Mahomedans’, in the Paragraph
159 also mentioned that, “The Arakan Mahomedans are
practically confined to the Akyab district and are
properly the descendants of Arakanese woman who were married Chittagonian Mahomedans. It is said that the descendants of
a Chittagonian who has permanently settled in Akyab district always refuse to be called Chittagonians and desire to be called Arakan
Mahomedans; but as permanent settlement seems to imply marriage to an Arakanese
woman it is quite in accordance with the description given. Although so closely
connected with Chittagonian racially the Arakan Mahomedans do not associate at all: they
consequently marry almost solely among themselves and have become recognized
locally as a distinct race.”
“The Arakanese Buddhist in Akyab asked the
Deputy Commissioner there not to let the Arakan Mahomedansbe included under Arakanese in the census. The
instruction issued to enumerators with reference to Arkan
Mahomedan was that this race should be recorded for those Mahomedans who were
domiciled in Burma and had adopted certain mode of dress which is neither Arakanese
nor Indian.”
“The number of Arakan- Mahomedans tabulated in
1921 was nearly 24,000. The number tabulated at previous census as Mahomaden Arakanes have been as
in Marginal Table 8 such difference of numbers as are shown here indicate
enumeration of the Arakan-Mahomedans at previous
under other description in the census tables of 1901 it is impossible to
identify them. Probably under other Mahomedans tribes in all three earlier
censuses mentioned, in the table.”
8. Tabulated Arakan-Mahomedans
Census persons M F
1921 23,775 12,740 11,035
1911 4,675 3,558 1,117
1901 —- —- —
1891 466 288 177
In the Report of 1931 Census, Volume XII, Burma, Part. I, Paragraph 140 mentioned
that, “Figures of all population of different race-groups at the last four
censuses are given in Imperial Table XVIII. The figures in that table for the
years of 1901 and 1911 were obtained from Imperial Table XIII of those censuses
and some difficulty was experienced in compiling them. In the Imperial Table
XIII for 1901 the races, tribes and castes are classified according to the
predominant religion, but the figure given for any race, tribe or cast include
the figures for all religions with exception of 8,000 males and 7,000 females
representing the Arkan- Mahomedans, which have been
included in groups “S” (Indo-Burman Races). For the 1911 figures 10, 000 males
and 9,000 females were taken to represent Arakan–
Mahomedans and included in groups S (Indo- Burman Races).”
In Paragraph 141 mentioned that, “The number of Indians has increased
from 881,357 in 1921 to 1,017,825 in 1931, i.e., by 136,468 or 15.5 per cent.
In paragraph 16 of Chapter I, it is pointed out that many Arakan
Mahomedans in Akyab district returned themselves as
Indians at the 1921 census. The number may be roughly estimated at between
10,000 and 15,000, in which case the increase in the Indian population would be
in the neighbourhood of 17 per cent.”
“In the Paragraph 143 also mentioned that, “The Arakan-Mahomedans
are mostly found in Akyab district; the only other
districts containing an appreciable number Kyauk Pyu
(1,597) and Sandoway(1,658). They are properly the
descendent of Arakanese women who had married Chittagonian
Muslims. They are recognized locally as a distinct race and they dress
different from the Arakanese and Chittagonians. The
number recorded in 1931 was 51,615, which is more than double number of 1921,
namely 23,775.”
“The Arakan Kamans
have increased from 2,180 to 2,686 and are practically confined to Akyab and Kyauk Pyu districts.”
In the report of 1911 census, Volume IX, Burma Part I, Paragraph 264,
it’s mentioned that, “the majority of the members of the Musalman
tribes are to be found in the two districts of Akyab
and Rangoon, which contain 56% of the Musalmans of
Province (Burma). In Akyab they are indigenous and
entered largely in the Agricultural occupation. The population of Musalman in Akyab district in
1901 is 154,887 and in 1911 it was 178,647.”
Thus, according to the series censuses we can tell that, ‘There was a
Muslim community in Arakan, particularly in Akyab District, who prefers to call themselves Arakan–Mahomadens and were quite
distinct from the Chittgonians and Bengali immigrants
to Arakan.’ ‘According to Baxter report of 1940,
paragraph 7, “This Arakanese Muslim community settled so long in Akyab District had for all intents and purposes to be
regarded as an indigenous race.”
In 1825 Arakan became a British territory with
a population of only one lakh souls, (Maughs 60,000;
Muslims 30,000, Burmese 10,000). That’s means:-
Particulars 1825 1931 increased
Total 100,000 1,008, 335 10 fold+
Rakhines 60,000 548, 566 10 fold –
Muslim 30, 000 54, 248 2 fold –
The total population of Arakan increased 10 fold
in 106 years from 1825 to 1931 and the Rakhine’s population also increased
nearly 10 fold during the same years. Why the Muslim’s Population increased
only nearly 2 fold, while the Buddhist population traditionally had a smaller
growth rate compared to both Hindus and Muslims. There is strong possibility
that the census on Muslims was incorrect. The populations of Arakan Mahomedans should be not less than 300,000 in 1931
not merely 51,615
2. Holmes, Robert A. “Burmese Domestic Policy: The Politics of Burmanization.” Asian Survey. Vol. 7, No. 3. Mar. 1967,
University of California Press. p188.
3. Lwin, N. S., ‘Making Rohingya
stateless’, AsiaPacific, New Mandala, October 2012:
http://www.newmandala.org/making-rohingya-statelessness/
4. Myanmar: The Rohingya Minority: Fundamental Rights Denied.P 9-10:
https://doc.es.amnesty.org/cgi-bin/ai/BRSCGI/MYANMAR%20THE%20ROHINGYA%20MINORITY:%20FUNDAMENTAL%20RIGHTS%20DENIED?CMD=VEROBJ&MLKOB=25897364242
5. Ibid. p10.
6. Myanmar: The Rohingya Minority: Fundamental Rights Denied.p5.
7. Bangladesh: Analysis of Gaps in Protection of Rohingya Refugees. UN
High Commissioner for Refugees. UNHCR Refworld. May
2007. <http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/472897120.html>.Feb.13 2009.
p12.
8. Myanmar: The Rohingya Minority: Fundamental Rights Denied.p6.
9. “Bangladesh-Myanmar: Bleak prospects for the Rohingya.” Integrated
Regional Information Networks.29 Oct. 2008. UNHCR Refworld.
< http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/490ad4d3c.html>.
10. Bangladesh: Analysis of Gaps in Protection of Rohingya Refugees.p12.
11. Myanmar: The Rohingya Minority: Fundamental Rights Denied.p14.
12. “Population of Arakan (Rakhine) State
vulnerable to violations and forced displacement.” InternalDisplacement
Monitoring Centre. Feb. 2008.
13. Rohingya: Burma’s Forgotten Minority.
14. Myanmar: The Rohingya Minority: Fundamental Rights Denied.p23-25.
15. Bangladesh: Analysis of Gaps in Protection of Rohingya Refugees.p8
16. “Time to ratify the UN convention on refugees.” Editorial. The
Bangkok Post. 18 Jan. 2009.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/9934/time-to-ratify-the-un-convention-on-refugees
17. Montlake, Simon. “Thailand
accused of mistreating Muslim refugees.”
18. “Thailand’s deadly treatment of migrants.” BBC World News. 17 Jan.
2009. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7834075.stm>.
For updates click homepage
here