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.
Mr. Edward, Is there any peaceful people in your Myanmar who is thinking how to stop the atrocity on the helpless Myanmar Rohyangas. Is killing, rape and murder is your answer?. May god give you the same fate.
I accept your assertion Bamars are Racists – what would you:
1.what would you call a West Pakistani -the case during the Bangladesh war of liberation when >2million Bengali Speaking Muslims were slaughtered?
2. what would you call a Saudi Muslim killing , maiming a Yemeni Muslim
3. what would you call a Turk Muslim killing, maiming a Kurd Muslim
4. I am not finished – this above all things WHAT WOULD YOU CALL A
MUSLIM THAT KILLS A MUSLIM.
revive your memory, as one of the Abrahamic flock – CAIN & ABEL it’s in the GENES?
All the Burmese here are racists. Complete the sentence ‘I am a racist because…’. From the educated racist who is steeped in history books to the layman racist who relies on slogans and banners to hide behind. Nothing really diminishes the fact that over 700k people of your countryfolks have run for the hills in the last three months just so they can glimpse another day. Old women, pregnant women, girls, children they all ran. They are still running. They have seen babies burned alive, sexual violence, decapitation of loved ones. What horrors. These are also written in history books and we don’t have to imagine too deeply since it was only decades ago when the Ethnic Shan people were attacked In a similar way. What I don’t understand is why did you not take bangladesh offer of rooting out the terrorist elements together. It is clear to see your law enforcement and army aren’t really professional outfits. Scorched earth worked well in ancient times but not today, the history books don’t tell us anything about the future since we are making it now
The article mentioned only 3 groups of Muslims in Arakan state . The 1st. group was the earliest n very few Indians ( both Hindus n Muslim, Hindus more than Muslims) mixing with ethnic , local Arakans there. The 2 nd. group was local Kaman ethnic Muslims,descendants of slaves bought by Arakan kings n Portuguese mercenaries n the 3rd. group was tseveral thousands British imported Chittagong Bengalis during colonial period. However, there is another 4 th. group the article failed to mention was that of Bengal interlopers from then East Pakistan,now Bangladesh, the constant daily influx of them through the porous borders for several decades since post Burma independence. These mixed of them, self- identifying themselves as so – called Rohingya, a political movement term claiming to be an ethnic of Myanmar with a plot to cede Northern part of Arskan as their independent, autonomous,Islamic state now withOIC, UN, US n UK supports.
Excellent comment by Peter Soe Wynn ! Hit it right on the spots with your facts. Pl. continue to expose these facts on the subject which the West, US n OIC, their liberal media n journalists are ignoring n trying to hide these facts for their own self – interests n hidden agendas underneath against Myanmar country n deceiving the world now !
Excellent comment ! You hit the nail right on the spot! Absolutely true ! Pl. continue to expose these facts to uncover all the fabrications, distortions,disinformations regarding this issue of so- called Rohingya by OIC, US n UK n their OIC n Soro donation recipients US n Western liberal media n their disingenuously biased so- called journalists who are now deceiving the world about the subject for their own self- interests with hidden agendas underneath against Buddhist Myanmar country now !
Rameez,
There is one small critical difference. The areas or countries you mentioned are not indigenous nations trying to sort out colonial wrongs – these are still countries occupied by colonial conquerors.
Yes, if God is fair and just, these countries should return to the natives, and after that, it is up to the natives who they want to allow to enter their native homelands.
It is like why Israel had to be returned to the Jews, which the Palestinians still do not understand.
But of course how can the Abrahamic God be fair to natives who are atheists and pagans? Right!
Because of their common God of the Christians and the Muslims the whole world is in fiery conflagration. It is not a God of Mercy or Compassion! It is a God of War – a God of Jihad and a God of the Crusades and Inquisition!
Read your history books!
Extrapolation of one Rooinga progenitor whom Buchanan met in 1799 to today’s
(2 to 3) million so called Rohingyas is simply preposterous.
It seriously undermines the inductive- “from the particular to general”- or the deductive “ from the general to the particular “ reasoning of logic.
When compared to the Kamans whose arrival in Arakan presumably predates that of the “Rohingyas” and whose numbers to date remain well below 100,000, the ever shifting demographics of the "Rohingyas" that hover around 2 to 3 millions (inside and outside Myanmar) really strain one’s credulity. This kind of faulty application of logic to history is what conceivably led a 17th century French historian such as Guizot to declare: "NOTHING FALSIFIES HISTORY MORE THAN LOGIC" perhaps with the exception of Matthew Smiths "Fortify Rights" deservingly dubbed by an expat analysts as "Falsify Rights."
Having spent long years in academia working with historians made me aware of the fact that "logic " is sometimes understood as the last resort when running short of sources.
On the other hand, concrete and ASCERTAINIBLE FACTS such as records of Indian migration from 1824 to mid-20th century maintained by the British Library attest to the fact that laborers from Bengal were lured to Arakan by jobs in the burgeoning rice farming industry and other areas made up the bulk of today’s so called Rohingya.
As a parting thought, those who have recieved full citizenship such as the woman mentioned in the article, I believe, should be allowed complete freedom to travel and live anywhere in Myanmar.
Geo politics is adding up to go to Andaman sea.
The issue is from the Killing field of Rakhyne. Stop killing, rape and murder. Ask Myanmar army to join with Hitler.
The prime concern is a humanatarian issue of killing rape and murder of Myanmar Rohyangas. Is there any one in Myanmar thinks for peace and right for its Rohyanga. Any one thinks who created ARSA to fabricate attack in Rakhyne ?
Please ask Min Aung Hlaing.
Good views
Chittagong kingdom is never have in this region
I would also like to refer the readers and the author to a paper by Jacques P. Leider on the "Identities and histories of Rohingya". With regards the article as a whole, I would define the whole problem in North Rakhine as mainly political due to the fact of territorial ambitions of the "leaders" or the Bengali/Rohingya living in that area, first in aiming to join with what was to become "East Pakistan" in 1947 when it was imminent British India was to be partitioned into India and Pakistan, with Pakistan being in two parts, West and East Pakistan, with India sandwiched between the two. The "leaders" of the Bengali population of North Rakhine petitioned Mr. Ali Jinnah, Leader of the Muslim League of India, for the inclusion or indorporation of their area, North Rakhine area of Buthitaung and Maungdaw into what was to become East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). This was based on the Muslim population in the area being the majority (around 90%). This was against the wishes and advice of the Muslim League of Burma led by U Razak who wished all Muslim in Burma (now Myanmar) to live in peaceful co-existence with the rest of the people in what was to become independent Burma (now Myanmar). U Razak was a comrade of General Aung San and was a member of Aung San’s cabinet. Both were assassinated on 19 July, 1947. The petition was rejected by Mr Jinnha on grounds that the area had never been part of India and he did not want complications after both Burma and Pakistan had gained independence from the British. Mr Jinnah also acknowledged the Bengali population had immigrated into North Rakhine from India under the British rule. Pakistan and India gained their independence in 1947 and Burma in 1948. The second reason for politics as the major issue was the declaration by the leadership in 1951 a demand for an Islamic State in North Rakhine. The Muslim leadership in North Rakhine took up arms against the central government of Burma soon after they had made their demands known in 1951; and since had sporadically been staging frequent uprising in the region. The current crisis arose from the series of uprising and the terrorist attack on 25 August 2017. Readers should note that throughout the recent history of Burma/Myanmar the majority of the Muslim population ( The Muslim Population in Bruma/Myanmar is around 2%) had lived in peace and harmony with the rest of the population, having assimilated and integrated well into the general or local society or societies with no territorial ambition opposed to the territorial ambitions of the Muslim population of North Rakhine. The Muslim population in North Rakhine had also been resistant to any attempts ot integrate by both the local and general population and the government. Having experienced colonization by the British who, in the process abolished the monarchy and later by invaded by the Japanese, the people of Myanmar (Burma) bore a deep sense of indignation; and the territorial ambition of the Muslim leaders of North Rakhine therefore consequently drew intense anger and contempt for them. Particularly as they, the Bengali population had been encouraged to move into Burma by the British and were used as a force – soldiers, porters etc – to quell rebellion by the Burmese against the British, and given preferential treatment during the Britiah rule of Burma. In Burma/Myanmar, there is therefore two groups of Muslim population, one, the larger and the main group which have integrated well into the general local societies, happy to live in peace and harmony and have no territorial ambitions and the other, smaller but territorially and culturally ambitious and militant group in North Rakhine area of Buthitaung and Maungdaw. Here. I hasten to add, here, I am referring only to the consequential migrations of the Bengali population moved in by the British rulers; and what happened subsequently. There had been incidences of mass immigrations following the East- West Pakistan war of 1971 which established Bangladesh and the natural disasters which are common in the Ganges/Bhramaputra Delta where Bangladesh is situated. Historically, there had been steady migration of the Muslim population from India, since after the Mughal conquest of India. Most of whom integrated into the local communities, one such group would become to be known as the Kamans, one of the ethnic group recognized by the Myanmar Government. There were, also, Muslim population moving in both directions following wars between the Rakhine Kingdoms and the Chittagonian Kingdoms.
British Census late 1800’s called any/all muslims as Mohameddans – the census records indicate that there were 64,000Mohameddans in Arakan!!!!!! okay Rohingyas???
todays UNHCR indicates that there are within Arakan >2 million Rohingyas and >2million Rohingyas in Bangladesh, Saudi, Malaysia…etc. total 4 million.
British FO records of conversation between Bangladesh Ambassador Khawaja Kaiser and British Ambassador Terence O’Brien – confirms that Bangladeshi Refugees from the 2 major incidences in Bangladesh of:
1971: Bangladesh War of liberation where >3million lives were by the millions lost (FRATRICIDE) Muslim killing Muslims and 20million refugees crossed borders of India and Myanmar.
1975: Banladesh PM assassination, once more (FRATRICIDE)and more refugees.
It does not take a genius to open their eyes as to where in a short space of time between the late 1800’s to 2000 Arakan appears to have a Rohingya population of >4 million.
for the record of conversation see:
https://limun.org.uk/fckfiles/file/limun_hs_unhcr
if you have a bone to pick go check the British Records and also consider why most of these Rohingyas, had the hide in the late 1947 via the Rohingya Muslim Mujahideen Insurgency demand to secede from Myanmar and join ther MUSLIM BROTHERS in the then East Pakistan.
It was originally Hindus dynasty until 9th Century and so natives were Indiana that appearance nothing related to Tibet/Mongo descents of Rakhine/Maugh..
British erra came later, there were hundreds of wars by Burman kings invasion..
Why Aung Sann smartly represented for entire territory of today Burma, was a reason independent Arkan fallen into Burma..
No bias comments by outsiders here will be respected..
Absolutely right!
Extract of Article." The Rakhine as an ethnic identity arguably did not emerge until the 19th century". So might is Right. Rakhine can say they are pure, geniune ethinic people not Rohigya. Religion played big role in Burma now.
Look the history back who they are, Human is human ethnic is ethnic different meaning they wanted to be created the name “Rohingya” is a joke.Myanmar country under British colonial rule the government 122 years (1826-1948) recorded no such ethnic
Rohingya. That’s ok another thing is they are staying borderline of Myanmar, India, and Bangladesh so’ why India and Bangladesh have no any a single Rohingya ethnic? this name is lies and just created and make Myanmar country into problems.
Chittagong Bengali Muslims are hijacking the Rakhaing people alternate identity “Rohingya”.
All the Bengali Muslims who used the name Rohingya are identity thieves.
Rohingya mean Rakhingtha (Rakhing people) by Chittagonian Bengali accent.
Same as Burmese call “Rakhing” as “Yakhine”. Bengali dialog does not have “Ra” sound. So they used nearest sound “Ro”.
So, they call “Rakhingtha as “Rohingya”. All the Rakhingtha (Rohingyas are Buddhist) nothing to do with the identity name “Rohingya” and Bengali Muslims.
Chittagong Bengali Muslim liars want to become ethnic of Myanmar to occupy the Rakhaing land.
That is why they are hijacking Rakhaing people identity as liar Muslim identity to become ethnic of Myanmar.?
Chinese and Indians are proud to be called Chinese, Indian.
But Bengali Muslims are trying to hide the truth. Please think why?
Who are Rohingya?
The Truth About The Rohingya Lie – The Most Important Video of 2017
Carlos,
Finally we are getting somewhere.
No use like what others did jumping to conclusions when confronted with a conflagration and blaming the firemen for starting the fire when the spark of arson that started it all was by one of the locals.
Better still is to do what or as you have done that is to be like a Sherlock Holmes like coroner and investigate into the cause of the fire, which might also establish why the arson took place at all.
I hope you or some other would go further back in time and beyond and be critical of Western hegemony and white supremacist mentality.
First clarify the Colonial British policy of allowing free cross border traffic between British Burma and British India. I appreciate your historical fact about Arakan native rulers who before British times at one point in time even ruled an area which extended to including Chittagong now part of Bangladesh. Clarify how many ‘Bengalis’ (not the original Arakanese) entered Burma then.
Second clarify the situation that the British, like what they did in colonial Africa, collated disparate tribes or ethnic groups in Burma into one. This remains a residual and inherited insurmountable problem and legacy in Myanmar today. It accounts for the continuing ethnic wars in the North of Myanmar.
It remains a ‘closet’ problem in India and Pakistan today. Were it not for Western colonialism and the resulting independence of ‘artificial entities’ there should be as many as 30 different States or Nations today in the Indian sub-continent. Similarly there would be one Malay Archipelago rather than Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and the Philippines, if it were not for Western Colonialism! Many of the conflicts and problems in Africa today are due to modern State (ex-Colonial) borders straddling over and across tribal groups and divisions!
And there are more consequential problems in Myanmar due to its British colonial past but enough for today from me but to close and say that the West, particularly the British, should not be so smug as to start talking about human rights and refugee problems that have arisen from the seeds that they planted as the Colonial Lord!