The recent visit of Pope Francis to Myanmar provoked a storm of controversy over his decision to avoid using the term “Rohingya”, with some accusing the pontiff of unwittingly emboldening ultra-nationalist forces who refuse to accept the term. Others defended the pope’s blatant omission of the word as sound diplomacy at a delicate juncture.
The highest authority of the Catholic Church eventually used the word “Rohingya” during his visit to Bangladesh, where over 600,000 Rohingya refugees have fled Myanmar military-led “clearance operations” the United Nations has said represent a textbook example of “ethnic cleansing.”
The controversy over the Pope’s use of the term in Bangladesh but not in Myanmar speaks volumes about the gap between how the spiraling humanitarian crisis emanating from western Rakhine state is being viewed inside and outside of Myanmar. And the debate over the use of the word “Rohingya” will intensify in the weeks ahead as the two sides begin a repatriation program that will again put the term in a spotlight.
Myanmar’s citizenship criterion is based on the taingyintha, or “national races”, concept. It is defined somewhat arbitrarily as those ethnic groups that were settled in Myanmar in 1823, a year before the first Anglo-Burmese war in which the British conquered Arakan (as Rakhine was officially known until 1989) and other regions of the country.
The Citizenship Law passed in 1982 made belonging to one of the national races the primary, though not only, criterion for full citizenship. Nine years later, the government issued a list of 135 official national races, and the Rohingya were notably not on it. Arguably, Myanmar’s military-led state erased them from its national history.
Pro-Rohingya advocates, mostly Rohingya themselves and foreigners, claim that they have been resident in Rakhine since as far back as the 8th century. Rohingya detractors, mostly Myanmar, firmly deny this reading of history and assert that they are illegal immigrants who arrived much later, during the British colonial period (1824-1948) or even well after independence from colonial rule was achieved in 1948.
The Rohingya’s critics refer to them as “Bengalis” to indicate their supposed foreign origins and frequently warn that they pose a demographic threat to who they regard as Rakhine state’s truly indigenous ethnic group, the mostly Buddhist Rakhine.
Rakhine state’s history is muddled, to be sure, but the truth likely lies in the middle of both assertions. Importantly, the presence of Rohingya people in Rakhine cannot be reduced to a single group.
Rather, they are more likely the mixed descendants of three groups: 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.
In any case, 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.
On the term itself, the anti-Rohingya camp claims that the word first appeared in the 1950s as a political construct to get an autonomous region in the northern part of Rakhine state or, even worse, to make the region part of what was then known as East Pakistan.
Pro-Rohingya advocates, on the other hand, point to the study “A Comparative Vocabulary of the Languages Spoken in the Burma Empire” written by Scottish physician Francis Buchanan in 1799 as proof the term “Rooinga” was in use in the area well before the British consolidated their rule.
In the book, Buchanan asserts that: “The first dialect spoken in the Burman empire derived from the language of the Hindu nation that is spoken by the Mohammedans, who have long settled in Arakan, and who call themselves Rooinga, or natives of Arakan.”
The problem with these conflicting narratives is that both have elements of truth. The term is not an unprecedented invention, as it clearly appears in a document predating the colonial period. But the colonial records don’t show the term anywhere, and it seems that it did not begin to be widely used until the 1950’s.
The solution to the puzzle is probably that the meaning of “Rooinga” in 1799 is not exactly the same as the meaning of “Rohingya” now, even though it referred to some of the ascendants of the present day Rohingya. The term likely derives from the word “Rohang”, which was the Bengali name given to Arakan at the time.
Thus, Rohingya would mean the same as “Arakanese.” It is also likely that the word “Rohingya” was not widely used as an ethnonym until recently and that it was done with a political purpose—as is the case with any ethnonym; ethnic identities are inherently political.
Much has been written about the origins of the Rohingya as an ethnic group, but little has been published about the origins of other groups in Myanmar which are largely taken for granted as national citizens. The Rakhine as an ethnic identity arguably did not emerge until the 19th century. The Rohingya’s problem is their political weakness inside the country and their late emerging ethnic identity.
In any case, underlying the debate on the term is an assumption that ethnic groups are closed, immutable entities that have always been what they are now. But ethnic groups change and evolve, and the concept of ethnicity evolves and changes, too. Both have changed enormously over time in ethnically diverse Myanmar.
The history of Myanmar should be viewed as a long story in which ethnic groups and the concept of ethnicity itself have gradually been solidified and politicized to the point of occupying the central role that they play today.
Anthropologists and historians such as Edmund Leach, F K Lehman and Victor Lieberman have shown that ethnic identities were fluid and ever-changing in pre-colonial Myanmar. It was the British who classified people in boxes, mainly on a linguistic basis, and often discouraged interactions between them, thereby creating hard divisions where there was virtually none until then.
Ethnic Bamar chauvinism, ethno-nationalist insurgencies and military dictatorships in the 20th century further hardened those divisions, and the democratic transition launched in 2011 has arguably exacerbated the problem as ultra-nationalist organizations have been freed to spread their exclusionary notions of Myanmar nationhood and anti-Muslim propaganda.
Sociologist Michael Mann has described modern nation states as “cages”, with the shape of the cages dependent on political, institutional, economic and ideological “crystallizations” that were to a certain extent random products of complex and unpredictable histories. Myanmar’s “cage” has come to be made, among other things, of solid ethnic bars.
Rohingya leaders, by asserting their name, are playing by the increasingly rigid rules of the game in Myanmar. They have not created these rules, but the tragic irony is that they have legitimized and encouraged the notion of national races which now ideologically underlies their oppression. Trapped in Myanmar’s cage, it is understandable they feel there is little else they can do to assert their rights.
The denial of the Rohingya to use the name they have chosen for themselves is undoubtedly part of the persecution they have suffered for decades. Conversely, such persecution has pushed them to assert more forcefully their identity and the term itself.
Their right of self-identification is undeniable, but there is a certain fetishism of such rights among pro-Rohingya activists. And the problem at root is not so much the denial of their Rohingya identity as the prevalence of “national races” and communalism in the Myanmar “cage.”
It is likely that many Rohingya in Rakhine, if not most, would forsake the term if it opened a way to regain their rights in Myanmar. Many have tried to do so when offered the chance. In 2014, the government launched a pilot program of citizenship verification in central Rakhine’s Myebon Township.
In line with the 1982 Citizenship Law, they would be granted citizenship if they could prove that three generations of their ancestors had lived in Rakhine, an extremely difficult process in the remote area where many have been undocumented for decades while others were stripped of theirs by authorities when they were rendered stateless in the early 1990s.
Even if they could prove their ancestors’ presence, they had to accept being branded as “Bengali”, not “Rohingya”, on their national identification cards. All Rohingya in Myebon have been confined to a camp since the wave of sectarian violence in 2012, and most took part in the program.
Only 97 of almost 3,000 were granted citizenship under the scheme’s terms. But those who won citizenship soon discovered that their situation remained unchanged: they were still confined to the camp and could not even go to the hospital. Citizenship, for them, came without the rights they had naturally envisioned.
One woman who received her citizenship told this writer that her father had been a well-respected police officer in the town and that her family had previously enjoyed good relations with Muslims and Buddhists alike. Four years after being confined to the camps, she still hadn’t come to terms with the fact that none of that mattered anymore.
Her story had been erased from the Rakhine community, as the history of the Muslims in Rakhine state is now being erased from the country in a mass exodus across the border into Bangladesh. The tragedy of the Rohingya – one Pope Francis appeared publicly to overlook in Myanmar – is not so much the denial of their collective history as the erasure of such personal lived histories.
I have more to add. Even Ro consider themselves as Chitagonians.
http://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/2017/10/16/bangladeshi-textbook-appears-endorse-myanmar-propaganda-rohingya/
Buddhism mask off = not better than other religion ,,,,, Come and see in Burma,
History can be deleted even with solid evidence. People nowadays can just say anything and do everything to prove their claims. One thing everyone knows; people move from one place to another before there was even a word "boarder" and if they move- they intermary.
Overall, a reasonanble article,. However, IMO he has hedged just too much. I take exception to the writer’s assertion that "The Rakhine as an ethnic identity arguably did not emerge until the 19th century." He needs to elaborate.
An explanation could be that until late 18th century Rakhine was an independent kingdom, hence within the context of Myanmar, Rakhine did not require an ethnic identity. So, it seems logical that, starting 19th century and beyond, along with other national groups within the Burman context Rakhine identity surfaced.
I guess this document speak for itself. Funnily enough, pro-Ro propaganda were intensified after Bangladesh independence. Hummmm
This document shohld speak for itself.
Who own Rakhine state now? We Myanmar own! We never accept Bengali as the natives of Rakhine, so they are not Rohingya or arakeneses. We accept Rakhine and his minorities like Dianette, Thet, Maramagyi are Arakeneses. Bengali are our enemies who invade our own land with human wave due to British who is our real enemy. We are now an independentcountry so we have full right to reject Bengalis for even citizenship, so far away from ethnicity…. All of people who push us to accept Bengalis are our enemies who are trying to insult our sovereignty. We don’t have policy to negotiate with our enemies! We don’t care anybody who are gossiping online on side of such disgusting Bengalis and British alliances! ????
Burmese, in their poor English, say it right: "they not from here, no no no". This conviction has always been there, then came the rohingya terror attacks, then western and ummah’s one-sided covering of the crisis. All fitting the foreign intervention scenario. Myanmar sofar as acted flawlessly in countering terrorism and offering the return of the people that are proven to be MY citizen (some are and some are not…autodetermination anyone?). Indeed they should be returning to Bangladesh, and guess what… they are. Drumming up comments (from Pakistan, KSA…) with articles like this is just ill-spent money. Driving away a restive minority unable to control terrorism from within is sometimes the only solution to achieve harmony. Sunni countries are very familiar with this concept.
Nurun Nabi Helpless? Nurun, you can really use more light on the matter: Myanmar has a lot of minorities, most of them are in peace with the Government,if they take up arms they must face the consequences.
Nurun Nabi Actuslly it is the other way around. The atrocities n rapes committed by Bengali terrorists to local,ethnic Arakan Buddhists,????Hindus,ethnic Kaman n Daingnet Muslims which the OIC n Western media ignoring n turning blind eyes about it. On last October , discovered 92 bodies of Arakan Hindus including women n small children massacred violently n Beheaded. 8 Hindi women raped, taken to Bangladesh n forced to converted to Muslims ,threatened to kill them if refused until local Hindu group cane n rescued them. Well documented about it. There are many mores well documented such incidents to Buddhists n Hindus in Arakan state , such crimes committed by Bengali terrorists with full supports from OIC behind the scenes. Will bring it up these such atrocities many others more again in this forum! More to come on your n your Muslim brothers ‘ screens again !
Leo Galata Morente Bombassei d very true !
Go to Rakhyne and by you own god gifted eye.
Kyaw Myint Oo , Go to Rakhyne and see.
Kyaw Myint Oo I am writing again Kyaw, Go to Rakhyne and see in your own god gifted eye. Are you sure you are denying the truth ? I pray to god at some way god gives you a bullet wound. Read all international news papers to see bullet wounds. Read UN, HRC report. The real answer you can get from Min Aung Hlaing.
Kyaw Myint Oo Why you are killing. Is your hospital is in short of blood. Why you are raping, is your army wifes are impotent and cannot satisfy their husband ?
Leo Galata Morente Bombassei , They did not take arms. Your Min Aung Hlaing fabricated the story to justify genocide. Why you are not allowing UN, ICC and HRW to invesigate. You can ask your China and Russia UN veto suporter to investigate.
it took the Pope to visit yet he is being criticized. the Pope even pleaded in behalf of the boznians during the balkan wars and personally went out of his way to accomodate muslim migrants to the roman enclave. so what have you?
Aung KyawRhee So you are supporting genocide from the killing field of Rakhyne. ICC does not teach. It has a solmn duty.
Aung KyawRhee ARSA is a creation by your army to attack the innocent Rohyanga, fabricated by Min Aung Hlaing. Ask UN, ICC and HRW to go to Rakhyne state to veryfy.
Absolutely right
Mohammad Shakhawat Hossain You are insane and spreading fake news. Stop Taqiyya.
Those ancient buildings are not belong to himayana/thayrawadi religion of today Rakhine people.
There are more than a dozen of ancient shrine mosques.
Study yr self
Aung Myo Khant…,Instead of teaching histry lesson, can you tell why you are killing the Myanmr Rohyangas.
Kyaw Myint Oo … Is it the argument, that you are killing them.
Leo Galata Morente Bombassei …. They were always peaceful. You fabricated ARSA story to kill them.
Aung KyawRhee … Have you ever heard, what is ICC?
Aung KyawRhee … This vidio was created by your Myanmar army. Tell UN to veryfy your false story.
Why you are teatch us histoy lesson. My question to you !
Why you are killing and raping them?
teaching
Why you are giving me history lesson, I want to know from you, why you are killing and rapeing them.
We are talking not on history. We are taking whats, the killing hapenning as of to day in Rakhyne.
Lei……You own Myanmar. But why you are killing and raping them.?
Is it your religion teaching?
Leo…..There were no terror attack. This attack was fabricated by Min Aung Hlaing, to fool people like you, to give order to army to kill, rape and murder.
None of thousands years old historical statues today in Arakan are belong to Himayana/thayrawadi religion as Buddhist civilization just aged about 1400 years that later than muslim and any other..
Kyaw Myint Oo … Read to day (13 Dec. 2017) issue of Chicago Tribune, and Toronto Star. Read your army atrocity and rape. You are hiding truth.
Tell me what you mean "without a bullet wound…….. " . The only thing before raping Myanmar Rohyangas, the army did not use bullet. Its after rape. I have a question to you, is your army wifes are impotent?
May god bless you and your family with the same miseries these Myanmar Rohyangas are going through now. My prayer to god.
Chitko Han … You are completely wrong. Min Aung Hlaing created ARSA fake story to attack and blame Myanmar Rohyangas. Allow UN, ICC and HRW to veriyfy the truth.
Aung KyawRhee ….You want to bring back Rohyangas brom Bangladesh and kill them what you could not do from 25th august.
Edward Mg The total AESA story is a fake issue. Allow UN. ICC, HRW to verify your story. You are hiding the truth.
Kyaw Myint Oo… There are millions of people in India speaks Bengali language. What you want to say, ?