Latest Highlight



Who are the Rohingyas? An Arakani xenophob named Aye Chan says they are "Bengalis" from Bangladesh, and many of his hoodlum followers even call Rohingyas the "Talibans"; some even call them as "terrorists" perhaps because most Rohingyas are Muslims and some racist people it is easy to find all Muslims as being terrorists. However, research shows that Rohingyas look like Bengalis but aren't Bengalis.

 If Rohingyas are not Bengalis, who are they? Rohingyas are a mixture of people beginning from indigenous Chandra people of pre 10th century Arakan, and also Rohingyas in them had Arab and Persian traders from the 7th century settled in Arakan, and the Bengali Sultan's soldiers send to Arakan with General Sindi Khan to help restore Noromikhala in the mid-15th century, and finally they also had in their people Bengali slaves captured from lower Bengal during the 16th and early 17th century from raids by Mogh (Rakhine) pirates in the Bay. These flows of people from the north and west of Arakan are recorded in history.1 These people who looked like Indians and Bengalis were scattered all around Arakan but due to their racial differences, eventually were pushed out to the Mayu frontier in the north. "Rohingya" as an official name adapted during the 50's in the last century by its leaders to serve as a survival mechanism for its people to unitedly face the destiny of attack and expulsion by the brutal military regime and its Arakanese collaborators. However, the name "Rohingya was in use recorded by an early British historian of Burma.2

In Arakan not surprisingly, "Rakhine" is also a new name changed from the historic name "Mogh" Most of the Rohingyas look like Bengalis because Bengalis have similar historic backgrounds as the Rohingyas have from the past. The racially motivated discrimination and expulsion of the Rohingya people has been an ongoing phenomenon for years for these people. The latest large scale push was during 1942, the 1978 and 1993 and even now in a smaller scale.3

Historically speaking, Arakan was an Indian land but occupied by the racially mongoloid people during the 11th century removing the Indian Chandra dynasty. The dark skinned Rohingyas called by the Rakhines as "Kalas" are the indigenous Rohingyas. Rohingyas look like Bengalis but aren't Bengalis. Like the Rakhines (Moghs) are racially like Burmese, so racially Rohingyas are like Bengalis. This is clearly because Arakan is a racial fault line. It is for this reason that there are Rakhines, Chakmas, Thanchaingas, Moghs, who are racially mongoloid people in Bangladesh.

They are now Bangladeshi citizens. In contrast the Rohingyas in Arakan, Burma were denied of their citizenship in the 1982 constitutional reform by the racist military government of Burma. This change was done unfortunately (on record) with the help of some Arakani xenophobs like Aye Kyaw, Aye Chan and Ashin Nayaka who enjoy freedom and democracy in abroad but keep racist skeletons at home in Arakan; calling the Rohingya people as the "Influx Viruses". In this act of suffering of a people, causing genocide and crime against humanity, the xenophobes even call themselves as democrats-ofcourse, it is acceptable in Burma to the military's Burmese way to democracy. Thus Rohingya issue remains unresolved and the suffering of these racially different Burmese people living in the faultline continues.

References:
(1) O, Malley, Chittagong Gazettier, p.20, Abid Bahar, Burma's Missing Dots, p.54, D.H.L. Hall, Burma, 37, Phayre, History of Burma, p. 172
(2) Francis Buchanon,"A Comparative vocabulary of some of the languages spoken, in the Burmese empire"SOAS, p. 40-57.
(3) Abid Bahar, Burma's Missing Dots, 23-50.
(4) Abid Bahar, Dynamics of Ethnic Relations in Burmese Society. An Unpublished thesis on Burma 1982.



By-Abid Bahar Ph.D.
(Dr. Abid Bahar is a playwright and public speaker teaches in Canada)

Abid Bahar

Muslims in Burma are only 5% of the total population and they have been almost always used as escape goats by the military government to distract the attention of the Buddhist majority on the the oppressive military regime. A google search (see the reference) on riots against Muslims in Burma would show, the riots would invariably start on a Muslim rape charges. Almost always it starts as a rumor and some Muslims are attacked or a mosque is destroyed, followed by a riot. (1) The trend of blaming the victim repeated in Akyub on May 28, when the dead body of a Rakhine woman was found near a Muslim village.


The dead body was that of a female teacher who previously punished a Rakhine boy and the boy's brothers on the teacher's way home captured her and punished her to a point when she died. To save themselves from murder charges the Rakhine brothers left the dead body near a Muslim village.(2) Arakan already an extreme anti Rohingya region was burning with anger now burst into flames. The xenophobes already found an issue and provoked the locals to the point of attacking Muslims. 10 Muslims were traveling by bus were killed brutally.

"Since yesterday the Buddhist monks and Rakhine extremists escorted by security forces were announcing ‘War on Kalas, (war on Rohingyas) along the street of Maungdaw. This message was spread like a wild fire all over Maungdaw and Buthidaung townships."(3)

"Rakhine is home to Burma's largest concentration of Muslims, including much-persecuted Rohingya Muslims, and their presence is often deeply resented by the majority Buddhist population.

"In a joint statement quoted by Reuters, eight Rohingya rights groups based outside Burma condemned the attack on the Muslims on the bus, whom they termed "Muslim pilgrims".

"Although it appears those on the bus were not Rohingyas, the groups said the attack followed months of anti-Rohingya propaganda stirred up by "extremists and xenophobes".(4)

Endnotes
(1)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuSNRuTIqzk,
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,CHRON,MMR,,469f3872c,0.html; http://www.islamawareness.net/Asia/Burma/rohingya1.txt
(2) http://cbnbd.com/?p=6738;
Abid Bahar, Burma's Missing Dots, 2010;
(3)http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-801170
(4)http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18324614




What is Genocide? What is Rohingya genocide? When did it began? In which part of Burma is this taking place? Are there refugees taking shelter in the neighboring countries? Who are the parties involved?, What should be done about it? Does it have anything to do with Rohingya’s race or religion? Are there democratic minded Rakhines to help stop the crisis?These are some of the questions people are curios to know. Human rights and international UN agencies are curiously waiting to know from the present “democratic” government what measures it is taking to stop genocide in Burma? .

First, what is genocide?


Genocide is “a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves”"Genocide means any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such:

a. killing members of the group

b. Committing bodily or mental harm to members of the group

c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, imposing measures intended to prevent birth within the group.(1)

What is Rohingya Genocide?

Rohingyas original home is in Arakan of Burma. They have been driven out of Burma by the successive military government beginning mainly from 1962. In the same year a total of were 20,000 Rohingyas were pushed out of Arakan to Bangladesh (then East Pakistan). In reaction to this Ayub Khan warned that “Pakistan doesn’t want its army to cross the border into Burma but…” In 1978, over 200,000 Rohingyas were driven out by the government forces. When international agencies in Bangladesh refugee camps checked the refugee’s identity, they were found to carry National Registration Certificate (National Registration certificate). Burmese government at the insistence of international body accepted the refugees. In 1992-93, over 300,000 refugees were forced out of Arakan to Bangladesh, this time the solders at the border made sure that as they leave, Rohingyas don’t carry any documents.Ever since Rohingyas have been crossing the Naf River to enter into Bangladesh. In 2008, there have been 10,000 refugees poured into Bangladesh territory. Now that Hasina government is refusing to accept Rohingya refugees anymore, lately they are crossing the ocean in small boats ( a kind of suicidal, many die on the way) to take shelter in Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia.(2) Why Rohingyas are desperately leaving Arakan?

Rohingya extermination as a state policy began after Ne Win came to power but it turned genocidal when the government introduced some measures so that Rohingyas willingly either leave Arakan or face severe consequences. The UN report of violation on the Rohingyas in 2009 includes measures:

Compulsory labor

Illegal taxation/ extortion

Restriction of movement,

Prevent villagers from giving a fair income for their produce

Confiscation of land to built villages for Buddhist settlers and for expansion of military facilities.

There is also ban on marriage.(3)

A typical day in Arakan reported as “Rohingya people in panic in Northern Arakan
The report mentions:

“The Rohingya people in Northern Arakan have been passing days and nights in panic because of authorities have been seizing weapons (such as knives, choppers, swords, daggers, hoes, adzes, spades) from Rohingya villages while the Rakhine and Natala villegers have been equipped with lethal weapons even with guns since 15 days ago, said a local politician requesting not to be named.”(4)

The Parties involved in the genocide

Who are the parties directly and indirectly involved? In Burma Rakhine Moghs are only 5% of the population but occupies 30% in the armed forces. It is a force to recon with. This disproportionate distribution of the Rakhine Mogh, both in the Burmese army and their alleged oppression in the ethnic areas especially in Arakan is something important to understand. Reliable sources reports that in Arakan, in the name of Burmese military, Rakhine forces does all the genocidal activities such as rape, forced labor and applying bans on marriage, restricting Rohingyas from traveling from one village to another. The parties directly involved are the Arakanese police and militia, Nasaka and the ultra nationalist hooligans. There are the anti Rohingya provocateurs who work at home and abroad. Prominant among them are Aye Kyaw, Aye Chan, Monk Ashin Nayaka, and many other low level leaders and followers in Arakan and elsewhere. The provocateurs wrote xenophobic books and articles and give speeches some are available on Youtube propagating the the Rohingya people as being “dangerous,” “foreigners” in Arakan, and even “influx viruses,” requiring extermination, warning their fellow countrymen that otherwise they will be exterminated. Considering the depth of their hate mongering actions,and the acts of genocide, it is important to find out more about the people who are directly executing their orders. (5)

Why Rohingyas became the target of genocide?

Rohingyas are different from the Rakhines in bothe race and religion. Rohingyas are Muslims and Hindus, Rakhines are Buddhists. In 1982 a delegation from Arakan was led by Rakhine Mogh Aye Kyaw convinced the military government to constitutionally declare the Rohingyas as the non citizens of Burma. This was successfully done and Aye Kyaw openly takes the credit for committing the crime against humanity knowing very well that due to such initiative, close to a million Burmese people were uprooted from their ancestral homeland now suffers in foreign countries looking for a home they can call their own. Aye Kyaw and his band of people claims themselves as Burma’s democracy movement leaders and themselves as being “good Theraveda Buddhists.” Human rights groups wonder about the basis of their claims!

Are there democratic -minded Rakhines to help stop the crisis?

There are many. There are progressive-minded people but they were being undermined from 1930’s by the rise of ultra nationalist leaders both in the army and in the civilian authorities.(6)

What are the excuses of declaring Rohingyas as the non citizens of Burma?

To the xenophobes, Rohingyas entered Arakan after 1824, the year the British began occupying Burma. Denying the historic Rohingya existence (from the Indian Chandras to the Arab sea going settlements in Arakan, to General Wali Khan and General Sindhi Khan’s army sent by the Bengal’s Sultan to help the Rakhine Mogh king and their army settled in the Kaladan valley during the 15th century, and Shah Suja’s followers in the 17th century, Rakhine Moghs claim that Rohingyas are only British time settlers. It says they have never heard the name Rohingya. Francis Buchanon heard the name Rohingya 1798. (7)

The unfortunate thing is that if the xenophobes claim is true that Rohingyas entered Burma after1824 even that has been close to two hundred years. Surprisingly, the same ethnic group Rakhine Moghs in Cox’s Bazar of Bangladesh took shelter in Bangladesh during the British rule are Bangladeshi citizens. Strangly, Rakhine xenophobes like Aye Kyaw, Aye Chan, Ashin Nayaka and their followers not using the same standard for themselves, earned citizenship in the West comfortably live their lives but keep their racist skeletons in their native Arakan.(8)

Rakhine-Rohingya–Buma Triangle in Arakan

Unlike most of the ethnic groups in Burma (who are directly) involved in conflict with the Burmese government and now are initiating dialogues, in Arakan however, despite international pressure to stop genocide, Rohingyas’s dialogue with the government is seriously obstructed by the presence of the ultra nationalist third group, the Rakhine -Mogh, which in alliance with the military now commits genocide in Arakan. Not known to most people is the fact that Rakhines are 5% of the Burmese population but occupy 30% of the Burmese army. They are a powerful force against democratic movement to recon with. Alamgir Serajuddin observing the medieval Rakhine activities of piracy in the Bay of Bengal and the cruel massacre of the Bengal governor Shah Suja and his family (assured of asylum) observed: “The Arakanese [Rakhines] were a daring and turbulent people, a terror at once to themselves and to their neighbours. They fought among themselves and changed masters at will. Peace at home under a strong ruler signaled danger for neighbours.” (9) It is true that most Rakhines are not fundamentally xenophobic but it is unfortunate that they are being misled by their leaders to commit Rohingya genocide in Arakan and genocide in ethnic territories, the bad name however is spread all in the name of Burmese people.

In order to stop the genocide in Arakan and for Burma to stop its bad reputation, Burmese leaders have to understand this Rakhine-Rohingya-Buma Triangle. It seems that things are changing in Burma on a daily basis. When Burmese government decides to officially recognize Rohingya citizenship and stop genocide in Arakan and initiates dialogue, it is recommended that it should be between the mentioned three parties perhaps with the presence of foreign observers, including Bangladesh, Thailand and Malaysia; countries where Burmese refugees continue to pour in to escape genocide. British Foreign Secretary William Haigue lately raised concerns about the Rohingya community that lacks basic civil and human rights.(10)

This is a serious matter happening in Western Burma, it is about genocide and it should be settled as soon as possible on a priority basis to clear up the “Burmese” name; which includes everybody in Burma.

ENDNOTES:

(1) What is genocide, adapted from McGill University sponsored Global conference on genocide, 2007

Link: http: cfchr. mcgill .ca/ what is genocide-en.php?manu=2. cited in Abid Bahar’s book, Burma’s Missing Dots, Xlibris, 2010, p.223;

Tin Soe, “Ethnic Groups deliver UN Commission of Inquiry Petition to the British Foreign Office here

(2) Rohingya Outcry, RPF,1978, Also Images of Rohingya boat people, link here
Also in Abid Bahar, Dynamics of Ethnic Relations Between the Berman and the Rohingyas, an Unpublished MA thesis, 1982.

(3) United Nation’s Human Rights Report, 7th April, 2003.
(4) Kaladan Press, April 9, 2009
(5) killing-rohingya rohingyablogger.com; Rohingya Refugees shifted to Medan;
Also read article: Arakan, the Epicenter of Refugee Production here  Link: here
A Brief History of Arakan: From Kingdom to a Colony Link: here
(6) Shwe Lu Maung, We the People published in Habib Siddiqui edited Problems of Democratic development in Burma and the Rohingya people, Japan,(JARO),2007
(7) Who are the Rohingyas? Published in the Irrawaddy here
also read Abid Bahar’s “Aye Chan Enclave with Influx Viruses Revisiter., in Burma’s Missing Dots, 2010;

Also read Mohammad Ashraf Alam, A Short Historical Background of Arakan, Arakan Research Society, Chittagong, Bangladesh, October 2006, here Francis Buchanan, A Comparative Vocabulary of Some of the Languages Spoken in the Burma Empire.” Pp. 40-57;
Also Francis Buchanon in South East Bengal (1798). His journey to Chittagong, the Chittagong Hill Tracts, Noakhali and Comilla. Also in Michael Charney, Buddhism in Araka: Theories of Historiography of the Religious Basis of Ethnonyms in the Forgotten Kingdom of Arakan from Dhanyawadi to 1962 ;
Abid Bahar, “I have never heard the name Rohingya” link here
(8) Xenophobic Burmese Literary Works – a Problem of Democratic Development in Burma
 link here
(9) Alamgir Serajuddin, Asiatic Society Bangladesh, Vol. xxx (1), June, 1986.
(10) UK Watching the Mood on the Streets of Burma, link here




(Dr. Abid Bahar specializes on Western Burma, visited refugee camps in Bangladesh in 1978, and 2003; he now teaches in Canada)
By Dr.Abid Bahar
Lately, Rakhines of Arakan "Protest against the BBC and demand apology" for showing Rohingyas in the Burma map. But why apology? For showing the Rohingya homeland in Arakan? I understand that BBC knew all about the Rakhine-Rohingya problems and also that the ultranationalist Rakhine's sucess in convincing the Burmese military to declare the Rohingyas as the noncitizens of Burma. Not surprisingly, showing the Rohingya existance in Arakan only flamed the racist fire. But the BBC was polite enough to not say openly that Arakan is the epicentre of refugee production in South Asia and South East Asia and it is the Rakhine-Moghs to blame..

Historically speaking, Arakan was a medieval kingdom lost its independence to Burma for its holligans and its leader's belief in intolerance and lawlessness; Arakan at some point of history for their oppressive rule became notoriously famous. In the Bay of Bengal they were in the business of slave trade with the Portuguage by capturing Bengali men, women and children and in the process Arakan earned its name "Mogher Mulluk," land of the holligans. It is here that the Moghul prince Suja and his family members were promised to give shelter but in the end were robbed and massacred. In this holligan spirit, the extremist Rakhine Moghs failed to understand that intolerance doesn't pay positively.

In our modern times, Arakan is only a backward province of Burma became so backward and insignificant that we hear its name only in reference to exporting Rohingya refugees to the surrending countries and its leaders like Aye Kyaw becoming famous for openly preaching xenophobia.No measures taken yet to take them to the ICC.

Surprisingly, to the Rakhine leaders, the holligan intolerance in Arakan is tolerable and the burden of refugees from Arakan to Bangladesh, Thailand, Japan, Malaysia and elsewhere is not a concern at all and for the Rakhine it is business as usual. Research shows that in the Arakan province the extremist take over is complete; it is in the education, business, police and in the military recruits from Arakan.

Not knowing it well, the international community until now blamed the Burmese military for the Rohingya genocide in Arakan but only lately is finding out the notority in this corner of the world not by the Burmans but by the ultranationalist Rakhines. This is because the holligans has been acting as if they are the victims. Rohingyas are projected as foreigners in Arakan even "Influx viruses." and when these xenophobes see danger, they hide their head under the Burma turtle shell but when it passess away it shows its Rakhine Mogh all out extremist/ holligan nussiance causing death, destruction and genocide in this part of the world.

Abid Bahar
(Dr. Abid Bahar is a playwright and public speaker teaches in Canada) 
E Mail : abid.bahar@gmail.com
The region of South East Asia is almost entirely Buddhist. To account for Islam in Burma is to account for Islam in a Buddhist environment. In our contemporary period, surviving as a Muslim in the Burmese Buddhist environment has become very challenging. The biggest challenge before the Muslim leadership seems to be to learn to fight the common local and international stereotypes propagated against Muslims.

A study on the themes of Buddhist-Muslim dynamics and the uses and abuses of religious themes in contemporary Burmese politics is likely to shed some useful light on this important issue. This paper raises the question that in the face of these challenges whether Muslim leadership should calibrate and keep Muslim identity or it will keep it in tandem with the Burmese in this very unique societal context. Other emerging

questions that as a minority religious ethnic group whether Muslims should understand the elements of Theravada Buddhist culture in cognizance of its own broad range of interests in Burma or following the fatalist view remains isolated within themselves. In addition, one can also ask whether like the prominent Muslim leaders of the past, Muslims should continue to adapt culturally meaningful survival strategies but also develop local roots that are both appropriate and contextual or in the face of challenges just abandon their identity.



Introduction

Islam as a world religion exposed itself to all over the world. It is seen to survive in Christian, Jewish, Hindu and here in Burma’s Buddhist environment. “I saw some Muslims kneel down and pay respect to the

Buddhist monks,” said Pan Cha, a Burmese Sikh businessman who arrived at the Thai-Burmese border in early October after being involved in the September demonstrations. (1) Buddhism is world religion. Majority of its followers populate in Asian countries.



China —102 000 000

Japan —8 965 000

Thailand —55 480 000

Vietnam —49 690 000

Myanmar —41 610 000

Sri Lanka —12 540 000

South Korea —10 920 000

Taiwan —9 150 000

Cambodia —9 130 000

India —7 000

Source: http://www.buddhist-tourism.com/buddhism/buddhism-statistics.html

Section 1: Burmese Muslims

Muslims and Buddhists in Burma lived in relative peace until the beginning of Ne Win’s military rule in 1962. Previous to this there were powerful Muslim advisors worked with Burmese kings and in the recent past there were government Ministers in Aung San’s and also in the U Nu’s cabinet.

(2) When did Muslims begin settling in Burma? How did Islam survive in Burma? What were the causes of its contemporary letdown? It is estimated that Muslims began to arrive in Burma from the 8th century

A.D. (3) Their ancestors arrived to Burma from almost every nationality of the world. The current population of Myanmar Muslims are the descendants of Arabs, Persians, Turks, Moors, Indian-Muslims, Pathans,

Bengalis, Chinese Muslims and Malays who settled and intermarried with local Burmese (4) From “1255-1286, in the first Sino Burman war, Kublaikhan’s Muslim Tatars attacked and occupied up to Nga Saung Chan.

Mongols under Kublai Khan invaded the Pagan Kingdom. During this first Sino Burman war in 1283, Colonel Nasruddin’s Turks occupied up to Bamaw. (Kaungsin) (5) As a result of the various historical forces present in Burma, there developed a Muslim religious ethnic minority which is spread

all around Burma.



The various groups of Myanmar Muslims are:

(1) Panthay (Burmese Chinese Muslims),

(2) The Indian-descended Muslims live mainly in Rangoon.

(3) Muslims of Malay ancestry in Kawthaung, people of Malay ancestry

are locally called Pashu.

(4) Rohingya population is mostly concentrated in five northern townships of Arakanstate: Maungdaw, Buthidaung, Rathedaung, Akyab, Sandway, Tongo, Shokepro, Rashong Island and Kyauktaw. (5)

Despite their history of long settlement and now being indigenous to the land, Muslims are still considered as “foreigners” in Burma. “ . . . violence and discrimination against Burma’s Muslim minority has been commonplace over the last four decades. Islamic leaders in Rangoon believe that attitudes among the predominantly Buddhist Burmese population began to change from tolerance to persecution after General Ne Win seized power in a military coup in 1962. Since then, Muslims have been deliberately and systematically

excluded from official positions in the government and the army.” (6) “Over the decades, many anti-Muslim pamphlets have circulated in Burma claiming that the Muslim community wants to establish supremacy through intermarriage. One of these, Myo Pyauk Hmar Soe Kyauk Hla Tai (or The Fear of Losing One’s Race) was widely distributed in 2001, often by monks, and many Muslims feel that this exacerbated the anti-Islam feelings that had been additionally provoked by the destruction in Bamiyan, Afghanistan. (7)

One of the major Burmese Muslim groups called the “Rohingyas” lately was even declared by the military government as the noncitizens of Burma. (8) Surprisingly, Muslims who only comprise from 5-10% of the population are identified as the #1 enemy of the Burmese people. Questions often asked “why?” Are Muslims the “easy targets?” (9)Are they themselves intolerant to the Burmese culture? It is not easy to answer these questions.

Causes of anti-Muslim xenophobia and genocide

The present research found most observers blame the military for spreading anti-Muslim xenophobia. There are also the others that blame Burma’s Theravada Buddhism’s political dimension, some others identify the

anti-Muslim Hindu fundamentalist influence from India for the problem, while still others blame the “militant Islam” for Muslim’s lack of respect to the Burmese Buddhist environment. In dealing with these problems this paper also raises the question, what Muslims should do to overcome these challenges; whether Muslim leadership should calibrate and keep it in tandem with the Burmese ethnic dynamics or keep their strong and pure Muslim identity in this very unique and hostile societal context. Other emerging questions asked that as a minority whether Muslims should understand the elements of Theravada Buddhist culture in cognizance of its own broad range of interests in Burma. In other words, whether like the prominent Muslim leaders of the past, Muslims should continue to adapt culturally meaningful survival strategies such as educating themselves in Burmese, and at the same time encourage higher education as the strategies of survival.



Problems and the Prospects

The biggest problem Muslims face today is xenophobia. Research shows that it comes originally from the common reactionary stereotypes spread by Western missionaries and the early Hindu Mohashoba fundamentalist campaign in Burma against Muslims during the early part of the 20th century.

Historically speaking, during the British period, we see the penetration of Indian Hindu influence in Burma. Such reactionary alliances launched from India by the fundamentalist Hindus from India for a Hindu-Buddhist alliance against Muslims resulting “from mid 1930s there appeared to be a succinct

polarization between Buddhists and Muslims of Burma, . . . U Ottama, the leading Pongyi activist and friend of India who led the entire Pongyi movement during 1920s, became twice the President of Hindu Mahasabha in 1930s.” Swapna Bhattacharya says, “We should however restrain ourselves to stamp out this revolutionary monk as orthodox and anti-Muslim. He demanded a “closer cooperation between Hindus and Buddhists.” U Ottama was from Arakan.”(10) The stereotype that Islam was instrumental in the destruction of Buddhism in India and in Afghanistan and now a threat to Burma is a major problem Muslims face today. In the face of this, should Muslims keep low profile? Historically speaking, for an ethnic group living in a hostile environment, keeping inactive has always proven to be less effective.

Then should Muslim leadership educate Burmese people of the historical fact that the stereotypes were only myths. Contrary to the myth, one would find that after Asoka, (the Buddhist emperor’s death), it was the rise of Hindu fundamentalism that led to the destruction and massacre of Buddhists in India and in Afghanistan. As a result of this historic event, Indian Buddhists continued to take shelter in Sri Lanka, in China and in South East Asia. (11) .
Surprisingly, the xenophobic mentality has reached to a new height during the colonial period that “Muslims were stereotyped in the society as ‘cattle killers’

(referring to the cattle sacrifice festival of Eid Al Adha in Islam). The generic racist slur of ‘kala’ (black) used against them as the perceived “foreigners” has also negative connotations when referring to Burmese Muslims.(12)

During U Nu’s time Hindu fundamentalist influence in Burma became even greater. “U Nu as the devoted Buddhist was pressured by the wealthy and influential Hindi merchants and the former ordered the prohibition of slaughtering the cattle. Although he relaxed that during the Kurbani Edd (Hariraya Haji), Muslims had to apply the permits for each cattle and strictly follow under police supervision.”(13)

Common themes and strategies for Buddhist-Muslim understanding Muslims in Burma live in Buddhist environment. Despite the rise of a great deal of propaganda and hatred, Muslims should find ways to bridge friendship with their fellow Buddhist citizens. It seems that there is a great deal of resources common among the Buddhists and Muslims. Therefore, the leadership should find Islam’s especially Sufi Islam’s common themes of unity with Buddhism and find ways to interfaith dialogue and involve in local community works and disapprove the present day extremist Muslims strategy of self destruction for the Burmese Muslims.

(1) Dialogue:

This is obligatory to the faithful Muslims because the Quran says, “O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each other (not that you may despise (each other).” (Qur’an, 49:13) It is true,” . . . dialogue with the other requires patience, flexibility and open-mindedness which were clearly revealed in Prophet Muhammad’s dialogue with others even if they were idolaters and this is why Allah praises him,”(14) The Quran says, 
“It is part of the Mercy of Allah that you deal gently with them. Were you severe or harsh-hearted, they would have broken away from about you: so pass over (their faults), . . . ; and consult them in affairs (of moment) . . .”

(Qur’an, 3:159)

(2) Education: It has proven over and again that education and research helps. Muslim leadership should urge its people to educate and inform themselves in both Islam and Buddhist themes and not remain isolated within its madrassa education and within its own community.

(3) Finding similarities: Muslims believe that Allah had sent more than 124,000 prophets to our world. It is possible that the various religions are just the various forms of a common faith with different approaches. “And certainly, We sent messengers (rasul) before you: there are some of them that We have mentioned to you and there are others whom We have not mentioned to you . . .” [Qur’an 40:78] “For We assuredly sent amongst every People a messenger . . .”[Qur’an 16:36](12) It is true, “the word Muhammad is also spelt as ‘Mahamet’ or ‘Mahomet’ and in various other ways in different languages. The word ‘Maho’ or ‘Maha’ in Pali and Sanskrit mean Great and Illustrious and ‘Metta’ means mercy. Therefore ‘Mahomet’ means ‘Great Mercy’.Here are some other links regarding Gautama Buddha’s Prophecy about Muhammad being another Buddha (Maitreya Buddha)”(15) According to Buddhism, “Great compassion makes a peaceful heart. A peaceful heart makes a peaceful person. A peaceful person makes a peaceful family. A peaceful family makes a peaceful community. A peaceful community makes a peaceful nation. A peaceful nation makes a peaceful world.” “ . . . according to Islamic doctrine, there is no problem in establishing peaceful relations with Buddhists. It cited three reasons for this. First, certain modern Islamic scholars have asserted that the Prophet Dh’ul Kifl—the “man from Kifl”—mentioned twice in the Qur’an, refers to the Buddha, with Kifl being the Arabic rendering of the name of Buddha’s native kingdom, Kapilavastu. The Qur’an stated that the followers of Dh’ul Kifl are righteous people. Secondly, al-Biruni and Sehristan, two eleventh century Islamic scholars who visited India and wrote about its religions, called Buddha a “Prophet.” Thirdly, Kashmiri Muslims who settled in Tibet from the seventeenth century married Tibetan Buddhist women within the context of Islamic law. His Holiness Dalai Lama opened the dialogue by explaining that if both Buddhists and Muslims remain flexible in their thinking, fruitful and open dialogue is possible. (16)

Julian Ruth notes “His Holiness Ashin Adissawuntha, the Abbot or Head of Buddhist Monastry of Narathiwa, Thailand visited the Jame Mosque of Narathiwa on last Friday, and meet with Muslim Religious teachers and said that” Buddhists & Muslims have to work hand in hand for PEACE in the world. His Holiness said both Buddhism & Islam are based on Logic and

Reason . . . Lord Buddha said . . . you have to investigate about it and it you find truth in it, than believe it. The Prophet Muhammed also encouraged his followers not to follow blind doctrines but reason, ponder and think and believe. The great Lord Buddha treated human beings as same without any discrimination or race, colour or nationalities and the Prophet Muhammed did the same. The last sermon of Prophet Muhammed can be said “the fist Human right declearation in the histroy of the world”.(17) The similarities between Islam and Buddhism are outstandingly similar.

Buddha’s teaching emphasized on self-enlightenment and self-liberalization similar to Islam’s jihadi Akber, the greater Jihad. Sufi meditation tradition, emphasize the practice of love, compassion and service. Gautama the Buddha and Prophet Mohammed never claimed to be God. Both were rebels and fought against discrimination by the upper class. Both wanted suffering to end but through different methods. The other similarities are that ethics is given priority; compassion is one of most important virtues in both religions. Buddha told the Brahmins and householders of a certain village as follows: “A lay-follower reflects thus: How can I inflict upon others what is unpleasant to me?’ On account of that reflection, he does not do any evil to others, and he also does not cause others to do so” (//Samyutta// 55,7).(18) The Quran says: “And certainly We sent messengers (rasul) before you: there are some of them that We have mentioned to you and there are others whom We have not mentioned to you . . .” [Qur’an 40:78] “For We assuredly sent amongst every People a messenger . . .”[Qur’an 16:36] (4) Survival of the Fittest: While the xenophobic military is to blame for the suffering of ethnic groups including the Muslims, it is also important that Muslims by religion are obliged to know and learn to live in their environment, in this case in the Buddhist environment. Islam says, “read,” “seek knowledge,”“come and learn; you can be what you want to be.” From the above it seems that the old maxim “knowledge is power,” still holds truth for the Muslims of Burma. The main idea should be to learn about “the other’s beliefs and cultures.” Increasing contact and cooperation between Buddhists and Muslims is a necessary condition. In the interfaith dialogue, they should encourage themes that can lead to more understanding between religious groups and avoid tendency toward fundamentalist expressions.

After all, both Muslims and Buddhists are Burmese people and only dialogue can bring peaceful existence. (5) To get rid of the stigma that Muslims are a “dangerous people,” Muslims have to develop their popular news media among the Burmese people and employ effective intellectuals to help them in this democratic and humanistic endeavor.

Struggle for Democracy and Law and Order Suffice to say, the failure of the Muslim community in the South East Asian region in the similar Buddhist environment, such as in Thailand, the Thai Muslims and in Cambodia, the Cham Muslims suffered; the latter in a Buddhist environment faced genocide of near extinction. In Burma, mosques had been attacked by Buddhist monks, there has been genocide going on in Arakan against Rohingya Muslims.(19) Burmese people irrespective of religions “should focus on fighting poverty, diseases, unemployment and bloodshed on its soil and not on destroying relics, which are a living lesson of history.” The research findings will recommend for Muslims of South East Asia to learn to be both competitive, loyal, and at the same time effective. This is more important in a military ruled hostile environment in Burma. Again, the focus should be on education, a regularly held bi-yearly global conference on Muslims of Burma and being informed of both an inward-looking strong tradition based Muslim identity as well as to be a strong Burmese in the outward-looking identity could be one of the most useful survival strategies for Burma’s Muslims and its emerging leadership to adapt Muslims are Burmese People .It is not easy to be a Muslim in Burma despite the fact that “most Muslims are indistinguishable in appearance and behavior from the country’s Buddhists population: they dress the same, wear longyis, speak Burmese, and understand Burmese culture and history.”(20) However, as a result of their common suffering, the Muslim minority of Burma historically has become an ethnic group. In this never ending struggle, it seems that only in a democratic Burma Muslim can have their future and Muslims should fight and utilize every democratic means to promote their survival strategies of peaceful living in Burma. Muslims of Burma should know that their ability to adapt and survive in this Theravada Buddhist environment as the fittest will decide their fate either of survival or extinction.

Section 2:

Rohingya Nation: Contemporary Problems and Making Certain of the Uncertain Future Rohingya people comprise the biggest block of Burmese Muslims. Historically speaking, Rohingya people have been driven out of Arakan in large numbers starting from A.D.1784, 1942, 1978, and 1992. But the worst one is taking place now. In the words of FIDH International Federation of Human Rights: The . . . exodus is a deep, sustained trickle of low visibility. The Rohingyas progressively leave Burma in small groups, families or individuals . . . . Little by little, the population is being forced to leave Arakan because of a deliberate policy of cleansing.” Today over a million people, approximately 200,000 live in Bangladesh, 20,000 in Malaysia and about 700,000 in different Arab countries and smaller numbers in Western countries and in Japan. There are still another 1 and a half million Rohingyas live in Arakan under serious hardship and repression. Burma continues to have anti-Rohingya xenophobic military government. The scenario doesn’t look good. From the times of Sindhi Khan who conquered Arakan, until the time of U Nu Rohingyas lived as a prosperous community in Arakan But today, Rohingyas are at their lowest existence. They are now identified as a stateless people. Rohingyas lost almost everything. But until now what was not lost was the identity—“Rohingya.” Are they presently losing it? Yes, in Bangladesh, it has been a historic trend that Rohingya people to escape repression in Arakan cross the Naff River and try to amalgamate with the Chittagonian people of Southern Chittagong. To escape from the continued oppression, this has been a historic trend by the suffering Rohingya people.

This continued practice of crossing the border to Bangladesh for shelter helped neither them as individuals nor their community to return to their ancestral homes later on to make claims on their properties because Rohingyas once left Arakan never returned back again to Arakan. The few Rohingya returnees to Arakan were almost always identified as Chittagonians and invariably put in jail as foreigners. While in Bangladesh, out of a fear that if they identify themselves as the Rohingyas, they would lose their earned privileges; they preferred to abandon their Rohingya identity. This is not a healthy and creative thing for the Rohingya survival. In their exiles what is needed is that they are needed to keep up their identity alive.

It is my understanding is that Southern Chittagong is almost all inhabited by the Rohingya people. Historically speaking, beginning from 1784 and 1942 and in the later time influxes, helped to the development of about two thirds of the people of Cox’s Bazar district. These were the original Rohingyas of Arakan. In 2007, I met M.A. Habibullah, the famous author of the book, Rohingya Jatir Etihas, who kindly travelled from Cox’s Bazar to meet me in Chittagong city, and I had the privilege to meet him. He said to me that his forefathers were Rohingyas that escaped the 1942 genocide. To strengthen the Rohingya future, Rohingyas like the Rakhines of Southern Chittagong, the latter are already citizens of Bangladesh should do something about Bangladeshi Rohingya identity. This has to be done by the Rohingya leadership as a thought-out plan with Bangladeshi Rohingya sympathesizers to secure Rohingya rights in Bangladesh. The point is if the stranded Biharis can have their rights to be the citizens of Bangladesh, why not the Rohingyas. In addition to the above, there is a large group of up to 700,000 Rohingyas in the Middle East, most live there as Bangladeshis. This anonymous nature of the Rohingya existence has to be removed and Rohingyas has to identify themselves as the members of the Rohingya nation. With this change, they will enjoy more freedom and recognition in Arakan especially in abroad.

It is evident in the Rohingyas in outside Arakan that those who identify themselves as Rohingyas get more privileges. I am almost certain that the identity of a Rohingy nation and its recognition by Arab/ Muslim nations will give the Rohingyas in the Middle East and elsewhere more advantages. Advocate Nurul Islam (U.K.) and U Mohiuddin of New York and the other capable leadership who have contacts with Arab Organizations should work in this direction. To me, Rohingyas lost their country but they still have their national identity, the Rohingya nation. There are complains of Fascist and fundamentalist superficial elements in the leadership. If it is true and Rohingyas continue to lose this due to the weakness in their leadership, like in the past Rohingyas will risk losing everything. It seems to me that to the Rohingya people, the identity Rohingya nation is their only survival design. If there is any hope of returning to Arakan, the identity Rohingya nation as a survival mechanism can only help them to return to their ancestral homeland or at least in future will help them to see the unfolding of a much better future than what is presently now for the Rohingya people that are scattered around the globe. The spirit of Rohingya nation has to be kept alive not through the blame game and reiterating the hopelessness but through involving young leadership with the experienced ones and through initiating creative workshops, and yearly conferences. This should be done by the leadership both inside Arakan and in abroad. Once initiated this continued intellectual process will slowly undermine division in favor of consensus among the people of the Rohingya nation.

REFERENCES

(1) http://www.bmnetwork.org/bmc/index.php?option=com_content&task= view&id=132&Itemid=2

(2) Wikipedia,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Burma

(3) Ibid

(4) Ibid

(5) Ibid

(6) Crackdown on Burmese Muslims, Human Rights Watch Briefing Paper,

July 2002 http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/burma-bck3.htm

(7) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Burma

(8) About the Rohingyas, Human Rights Watch/Asia, “Burmese Refugees in

Bangladesh: Still No Durable Solution,” May 2000.

(9) ‘Easy Targets: the persecution of Muslims in Burma,’ Karen Human Rights Group, May 2002; Muslim Quarter in the heart of Maungdaw town ordered to vacate, Rohingya Times, July 16, 2003.

(10) Swapna Bhattacharya (Chakraborti), Islam in Arakan: An interpretation from the Indian perspective: History and the Present. 2006.

(11) Why did Buddhism disappear from South Asia? Brahmin atrocities that destroyed Buddhism in the Subcontinent, Posted on February 3, 2008 by Moin Ansari http://rupeenews.com/2008/02/03/why-did-buddhismdisappear- from-the-south-asian-subcontinent-summary-of-brahmin-atrocitiesthat- destroyed-buddhism-in-the-subcontinent/; I M A G E S A S I A,

PART 1: REPORT ON THE SITUATION FOR MUSLIMS IN BURMA

http://www.ibiblio.org/freeburma/ethnic/rohingya1.txt; Abid Bahar,

Tagore’s Paradigm Exposed in “Dalia” News from Bangladesh, 2008

http://newsfrombangladesh.net/view.php?hidDate=2008-06-03&hidType=HIG hidRecord=0000000000000000202967 ;

http://thubtenchodron.org/InterreligiousDialogue/islamic_ buddhist_dialogue.html;Michael Young says “Afghanistan has been a Muslim country for only a slightly shorter period than Egypt. The Taleban claim that the age-old Buddhist monuments are “an insult to Islam”. Yet until now no regime in the country’s well over a thousand years of Muslim rule has sought to damage or destroy Afghanistan’s priceless, pre-Islamic cultural heritage.” “When Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab (raa) conquered Jerusalem, he refused the opportunity to offer salat within the walls of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher for fear that some ignorant Muslims after him might claim the church and convert it into a mosque because he had once prayed there. He left the church with its icons and works of Christian religious art intact. Michael Young, The Latter-Day Kharijites of Kabul March 3, 2001;

http://sanooaung.wordpress.com/2007/12/15/photos-of-antimuslim- riots-in-bagopegu/

(12) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Muslims_in_Burma; REPORT ON THE SITUATION FOR MUSLIMS IN BURMA

http://www.ibiblio.org/freeburma/ethnic/rohingya1.txt

(13) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burma_Muslim_Congress.

(14) Shahid Khan mail2shahid@gmail.com, mail2shahid@gmail.com, June 30, 2008”

(15) Buddhist Muslim Unity Association, Was Prophet Muhammad a Buddha? Edited from the book, MUHAMMAD IN PARSI, HINDOO AND BUDDHIST SCRIPTURES by A.H.Vidyarthi & U.Ali. Common virtues of Buddhism and Islam

http://sanooaung.wordpress.com/2007/11/26/common-virtues-ofbuddhism-

and-islam/

(16) http://thubtenchodron.org/InterreligiousDialogue/islamic_buddhist_dialogue. html; Link: Dalai Lama http://thubtenchodron.org/InterreligiousDialogue/ islamic_buddhist_dialogue.html

(17) Julian Ruth, Buddhists and Muslims work together for the PEACE in World Monday, May 8, 2006 11:58:56 AM

(18) http://biblia.com/theology/buddhism7.htm

(19) Abid Bahar, “Xenophobic Burmese Literary Works—a Problem of Democratic Development in Burma.” http://www.rohingya.org/index. php?option=com_content&task=view&id=182&Itemid=70 Chapter 2 of Abid Bahar’s book Burma’s Missing Dots-the Emerging face of Genocide in Burma, 2008.

(20) Crackdown on Burmese Muslims, Human Rights Watch Briefing Paper, July 2002 http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/burma-bck3.htm Also see Anti-Muslim picture of Monks destroying Mosques in Bago/Pegu in 1997 «http://sanooaung.wordpress.com/2007/12/15/photos-ofanti- muslim-riots-in-bagopegu/



(Adapted from Abid Bahar's Burma's Missing Dots, Xlibris, 2010)
Oh holligan man, youuuu the enemy of the nation
You commit holliganism in the state of Arakan
Holliganism in the Bay, ancient Mogh pirates ran
Now you promote racism in the Burmese province of Arakan
Oh, holligan man, the enemy of the nation!

Oh holliganman, youuuu, the enemy of democracy and the nation
Pungi leader began in the 30's racism in Arakan
Anti Muslim,anti Rohingya riots by his racist holligan
Rohingyas not included in the census of the nation
Holligans persuded the military to deny Rohingyas as Burmese citizen
Oh, holligan man, the enemy of the nation!

Oh holliganman, youuuu, the enemy of the people and the nation
You are the xenophob Aye Kyaw and Aye Chan
You call the Rohingyas as the Bangladeshi Chittagonian
Aung San Suu Kyi, nor the Burmese people don't understand
You Aye Kyaw, Ashin Nayaka and a Chan; the racist man
Oh, holligan man, holligan, the enemy of the nation!

Oh holliganman, youuuu, the enemy of Arakan and the nation
Collaborator of the military regime, you against humanism
You are Aye Kyaw, Ashin nayaka and Aye Chan
You kill people, provocatour, Dr, of death and charlatan
Oh, holligan man, holligan, the enemy of the nation!

Oh holliganman, youuuu, the enemy of the humanity and the nation
You call them as "Influx Viruses" in an enclave of the nation demand an extermination
You lost the Arakan nation now dehumanize the Rohingyas as the nonhuman
You call them all the Muslim men of Arakan, the Taliban
Oh, holligan man, holligan, the enemy of the nation!

Oh holliganman, youuuu, the enemy of the Rohingya and the nation
Rohingyas are from Chandra, from sea faring traders and the helper Gen Sindhi Khan
Shah Suja was killed and his asslym seekers were axed by the holligan
It was not by the gentleman Rakhine, but the Mogh band of rackless holligan
Oh, holligan man, holligan, the enemy of the nation!

Oh holliganman, youuuu, the enemy of the children and the nation
Check Buchanon and stop saying Rohingya a fake name want seperation
Rohingyas are very peaceful people, their men women and Children
They are not allowed to marry, travel, exterminated, killed by the army man
Oh, holligan man, holligan, the enemy of the nation!

Oh holliganman, youuuu, the enemy of the Rakhine-Rohingya coalition
You hate Maung Su Maung, you are the xenophobs selling snake oil to the nation
Rohingyas demand their citizenship rights to their leaders, ASEAN and the UN
They want in Burma like the Rakhines in Bangladesh recognized as the Bangladeshi citizen
Oh, holligan man, holligan, the enemy of the nation!

Oh holliganman, youuuu, the enemy of Burma and Arakan
The xenophob man spreading anti- people poison is Aye Chan
He teaches in Japan, says he works for democracy but a racist stubborn
A teacher, and the Doctor of death to face the ICC, not Arakanese but a Barua son
Oh, holligan man, holligan, the enemy of the nation!

Oh holliganman, youuuu, the enemy of Arakan
Rohingyas were born and brought up and they love the nation
They have been suffering, thay are the people of the soil and the daughter and are Burmese son
Rohingyas are boatpeople, refugees but to you the holligan, they are all fundamentalist, terrorist &Taliban
Like you and the other Burmese human when they get hurt they also bleed, they cry; they are not "viruses", they are human
Oh, holligan man, holligan, the enemy of the nation!

(Dedicated to the spirit of Advocate Nurul Islam, Professor Dr. Walker Uddin of the State University of Pansylvania, and Chris Lewa of Arakan Project, appreciating their continued contributions to human rights and democratic development in Burma.



Who are the Rohingyas? An Arakani xenophob named Aye Chan says they are "Bengalis" from Bangladesh, and many of his hoodlum followers even call Rohingyas the "Talibans"; some even call them as "terrorists" perhaps because most Rohingyas are Muslims and some racist people it is easy to find all Muslims as being terrorists. However, research shows that Rohingyas look like Bengalis but aren't Bengalis.

If Rohingyas are not Bengalis, who are they? Rohingyas are a mixture of people beginning from indigenous Chandra people of pre 10th century Arakan, and also Rohingyas in them had Arab and Persian traders from the 7th century settled in Arakan, and the Bengali Sultan's soldiers send to Arakan with General Sindi Khan to help restore Noromikhala in the mid 15th century, and finally they also had in their people Bengali slaves captured from lower Bengal during the 16th and early 17th century from raids by Mogh (Rakhine) pirates in the Bay. These flows of people from the north and west of Arakan are recorded in history.

(1) These people who looked like Indians and Bengalis were scattered all around Arakan but due to their racial differences, eventually were pushed out to the Mayu frontier in the north. "Rohingya" as an official name adapted during the 50's in the last century by its leaders to serve as a survival mechanism for its people to unitedly face the destiny of attack and expulsion by the brutal military regime and its Arakanese collaborators. However, the name "Rohingya was in use recorded by an early British historian of Burma.

(2) In Arakan not surprisingly, "Rakhine" is also a new name changed from the historic name "Mogh" Most of the Rohingyas look like Bengalis because Bengalis have similar historic backgrounds as the Rohingyas have from the past. The racially motivated discrimination and expulsion of the Rohingya people has been an ongoing phenomenon for years for these people.The latest large scale push was during 1942, the 1978 and 1993 and even now in a smaller scale.

(3)Historically speaking, Arakan was an Indian land but occupied by the racially mongoloid people during the 11th century removing the Indian Chandra dynasty. The dark skinned

Rohingyas called by the Rakhines as "Kalas" are the indigenous Rohingyas. Rohingyas look like Bengalis but aren't Bengalis. Like the Rakhines (moghs) are racially like Burmese, so racially Rohingyas are like Bengalis. This is clearly because Arakan is a racial faultline. It is for this reason that there are Rakhines, Chakmas, Thanchaingas, Moghs, who are racially mongoloid people in Bangladesh. They are now Bangladeshi citizens. In contrast the Rohingyas in Arakan, Burma were denied of their citizenship in the 1982 constitutional reform by the racist military government of Burma. This change was done unfortunately (on record) with the help of some Arakani xenophobs like Aye Kyaw, Aye Chan and Ashin Nayaka who enjoy freedom and democracy in abroad but keep racist skeletons at home in Arakan; calling the Rohingya people as the "Influx Viruses". In this act of suffering of a people, causing genocide and crime against humanity, the xenophobes even call themselves as democrats-ofcourse, it is acceptable in Burma to the military's Burmese way to democracy. Thus Rohingya issue remains unresolved and the suffering of these racially different Burmese people living in the faultline continues.

References:

(1) O, Malley, Chittagong Gazettier, p.20, Abid Bahar, Burma's Missing Dots, p.54, D.H.L. Hall, Burma, 37, Phayre, History of Burma, p. 172
(2) Francis Buchanon,"A Comparative vocabulary of some of the languages spoken, in the Burmese empire"SOAS, p. 40-57.
(3) Abid Bahar, Burma's Missing Dots, 23-50.
(4) Abid Bahar, Dynamics of Ethnic Relations in Burmese Society. An Unpublished thesis on Burma 1982.

(Dr. Abid Bahar is a playwright and public speaker teaches in Canada)

Dear Arakan Readers:

At first when I began reading Aye Chan, I thought he was a scholar but as I went into details I found out that he has problems dealing "with multiple sides of issues" as is normally the case with xenophobes. You would notice here Aye Chan comments to Dr. Siddiqui and says:


"Main theme is 'Whether these Muslims who call themselves Rohingya are the immigrants from Chittagong District or not.'


I have proved 'They are.' Don't avoid the main topic, Siddiqui, the liar." Aye Chan also identifies himself as "A Challenger for life on this topic." It seems that Aye Chan is more of a Rakhine crusader on this topic than an academician. Unfortunately, the Rakhine extremists use him as a true "academician."

A detailed review of Aye Chan's claims that "Muslims who call themselves Rohingya are the immigrants from Chittagong District" is done in the following article "

"Aye Chan's Enclave with Influx Viruses Revisited."

and the same is also available as chapter 3 in my book "Burma's Missing Dots" 2010. After reading the review, readers will certainly find Aye Chan that he is not intellectually honest and essentially an anti- Rohingya xenophob. Due to his beliefs, his claims were selectively chosen to prove that Rohingyas are originally from Chittagong.

Article:
Aye Chan's Enclave with Influx Viruses Revisited."
Read here
Some other related articles:
Origin of the Tribes of Chittagong Hill Tracts
Read here

Mystery behind the Chakma and the Rohingya s linguistic similarities.
Read here

THE ENEMY #1 IN BURMA by Dr. Bahnar

“The armed forces have not being created for the purpose of persecuting people, nor for the purpose of exercising power with weapons. The army is the servant of the country. The country is never the servant of the army.” (General Aung San)

(Part of this excerpt is from chapter 1 of Abid Bahar’s book Burma’s Missing Dots)
Burma is a land of bountiful resources and abundant natural beauty, but the country’s real beauty resides in its multiethnic composition. To a tourist, Burma, with its smiling government officials and monks passing by in their yellow robes and its silent minorities occupied in their daily chores, gives the appearance of innocence and calm—the perfect Burma the military wish to portray. Situated in South East Asia between China, India, Bangladesh and Thailand, Burma has a sample of ethnic groups from each of its sister countries within its borders, the legacy of a series of conquests, first by its medieval kings and later by the British. More precisely, Burma has approximately 135 ethnic groups each with a distinct, ethnic identity. These groups have been kept under tight control by the military dictatorship for the past half-century. As Sui Khar notes: “Each of the ethnic groups taken individually might seem small, but together, …[they] constitute 40 percent of the population and occupy 60 percent of the land.” (1) Given this multiethnic makeup, Burma could have been the Switzerland of South East Asia if it had followed multiculturalism as its official policy. Unfortunately, after close to half a century of military rule, Burma, in spite of its resources and its beauty, is bleeding.

Historians approach Burma from two perspectives –that of its history of dictatorial rule, from the tyrannical medieval kings to its contemporary military rulers, to that of the people with their all-too-brief experience of democracy. (2) Scholars find in the latter a gentle, humorous but racially and culturally diverse people aspiring toward a multicultural society and in the former, a xenophobic military whose collaborators create “fear” and use “force” to rule the nation. Interestingly, their decades-long experience of army rule has accustomed the people to looking for enemies. It has inculcated a medieval tribal mentality. Depending on who is asking, there is no limit to the number of enemies to be found within the 135 ethnic groups. This number does not include certain ethnic groups who could be considered the most dangerous enemies of all. Not surprisingly, some surveys conducted in Burma by members of certain ethnic groups found considered the Burmans as their enemy, while other surveys found the minority Muslims, who form only 4% of the population as the number 1 enemy, and the list goes on. (3) The military, in its attempts to mobilize the population against the “danger within” have caused over a million refugees to flee across the border into neighboring countries.

Since the military leadership’s identification of the “real” enemy, ultranationalist activities have been constantly on the rise. Stateless people continue to look for shelter and genocidal activities continue unabated. The international community is deluded about Burma’s progress toward democracy. As a result of years of suppression, the ethnic minorities are too timid even to confess that they follow the “three monkeys rule,” (See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.) This has become one of their only means of survival. Revolutionary students protest in vain.

The flip side of Burma’s story is that it has also produced great leaders who have worked toward building the nation by creating alliances among groups. These include Aung San, U Razzak, U Thant, Aung San and Suu Ki, to name only a few.

Burma’s history is a long story of misfortune. Perhaps the greatest of these was the assassination of Aung San. During World War II, Aung San, along with Ne Win, returned to Burma from Japan, where they had been receiving military training to fight the British. Realizing the ethnic diversity of Burma, Aung San worked with the country’s leaders to promote a western model of a federal state. This culminated on February 12, 1947 with the signing of the Panglong Agreement. A very short time later, he and his entire team were assassinated. This unfortunate event took place just six months before the independence of Burma. Partly as a result of these tragic circumstances, Burma's fledgling democracy also suffered a premature death. From then on, under Ne Win, Burma began a history that can be summed up as a “lost half-century” spent in “poverty, paranoia and fear of the outside world.” (4) With the death of Aung San, Burma reverted to its melancholy medieval destiny. The catastrophic events of 1942, 1948, 1962, 1988, and 2007 have come and gone and yet the people’s suffering continues. Over the years, affairs have deteriorated so badly that in today’s Burma even trivial acts such as gossiping after a meal to break the tedium can land people in serious problems with the administration.(5)

The Western media primarily ascribe Burma’s problems to its prolonged military dictatorship; while substantially true, this interpretation is incomplete. There are missing dots in this type of explanation. Burma’s ultra-nationalist celebrities, for example fan the flames of division by emphasizing the aspects of the status quo that benefit them personally. They wonder aloud why anyone should change the military government when it has already made so many changes and kept Burma united. During the period of military rule, Burma was renamed “Myanmar,” Rangoon became “Yangon,” and many other towns and districts such as Akyab, (a Persian derived Rohingya word) was given the Rakhine Buddhist name “Sittwe.” All the new names were derived from Burman-related semi-mythical place names from earlier centuries. True, Burma has also changed in other directions. The aging military dictators are being replaced by a younger generation of military dictators. The ruling junta is made mainly of Burmans and Rakhines, a subgroup of the Burmese. The Burmese army increased from a mere few thousand in Aung San’s time to a force of 500,000 for a country of only 50 million people. Rakhine soldiers, both adult and boys, comprise 30% of the army out of a population of only 3 million. A 500,000-man army is needed to fight the ethnic minorities, the supposed enemy within. The military’s rule by force has kept Burma relatively unchanged. Amazingly, the regime has established its own human rights committees; the membership list of these committees, however, reads like a “Who's Who” of human rights violators in the country. (6)

The most lucrative job for the average Burman or Rakhine is that of a career soldier, as it offers the opportunity of supplementing one’s salary with the proceeds of black-marketing, bribery and taxing the movement of goods and humans. After over half a century of such widespread practice, the military now controls big business, the service sector and the bureaucracy. In line with this tradition, it preaches what it calls a “disciplined democracy,” a species of Fascism, whose propaganda is almost always directed against ethnic minorities. It propagates the myth that in the absence of the military rule, foreigners and ethnic groups will take over Burma, causing the country to disintegrate. Burma pursues its “war” against “the enemy” with imported military helicopters and fighter planes. The armed forces are on constant alert in the battle against ethnic groups and their allies, the democracy movement.

Through its use of xenophobia as an ideology, the military intentionally creates communal violence. In order to be effective, it even uses deception. A witness to the Pegu mosque attack of 1997 related that one attacker, supposedly a monk, “…did not put his robes on properly, and they later became loose and fell down. Onlookers nearby noticed he was wearing the army-issued underpants which are usually worn by soldiers. The group leader of the monks was seen holding some kind of mobile communication equipment.” (7) While members of minority groups reported that monks helped them to save their property, there was unfortunately no one to catch these frauds in saffron robes. The military’s prize captive is the celebrated Aung San Sui Ki, who in spite of being elected in 1988, saw the election result nullified and the repression continue. Even in the face of such outrage, the international community, beyond expressing muted formal disapproval and implementing ineffective sanctions, has made no headway towards improving the situation. Why?

COLLABORATORS OF THE ARMY

Most contemporary works on Burma blame the military for the present state of affairs in the country. I consider this type of interpretation to be ridiculously incomplete. A far more fruitful line of inquiry is to ask questions about the circumstances and conditions that keep the army in power. Burma’s problems are even deeper than they appear. What needs to be understood is what validates the power base of the Burman and the Rakhine state population from which the army is mostly recruited. The leaders of Burma’s never-ending quest for democracy, who are themselves members of the ethnic majority, are shackled by their practice of favoritism and by the fact that they fail to expose collaborators in their midst.

The smiling anti-Rohingya drs. of Rohingya genocide are Dr. Aye Kyaw and Dr. Aye Chan. Both intellectuals were originally from the state of Arakan. The former is the self confessed military’s collaborator who enjoys his US citizenship but helped in the drafting of the 1982 xenophobic Burmese Citizenship Act thar declared Burma’s Rohingyas as the noncitizens of Burma. Dr. Aye Chan is a former student of Aye Kyaw also a US citizen, now teaches in Japan is the coauthor of the anti- Rohingya book, Influx Viruses, which dehumanizes Rohingyas as if viruses needing extermination from Burma. Admittedly, from 1948 to 1962, Burma had democratic government. The question needs to be asked: What actually went wrong to cause the military to come to power? There are also several other related questions; in a future democratic Burma, what will the status of the minorities be? How citizenship will be determined? Is this going to be defined in a way that guarantees both the individual and the collective rights of the ethnic communities or will the Suu Ki experiment be a temporary triumph for the Burman majority and lead to a repetition of the tragedy of military rule? If democracy returns to Burma, can Suu Ki thrive if the conditions for the military’s success in remaining in power are not removed? Can the country avoid the vacillation between civilian and military rule that has characterized the history of Pakistan?

In this regard, it is not that there are no Burmese leaders with strength and foresight. Emphasizing the ethnic dimension of the problem, Harn Yawnghwe states, “The military came to power because of its disagreement over a constitutional matter. The talks will have to deal with constitutional matters. When this happens, the process needs to be expanded to include all stakeholders, especially the ethnic nationalities.”(8) Burma is a country beset with ethnic problems, and more work has to be done to understand this side of the real Burma.

One continues to wonder: unlike in Eastern Europe after the cold war and Indonesia, Iran, Nepal, where popular protest led to profound changes in the way the countries are governed, why in Burma, with so many of its citizens earnestly yearning for democracy, has the army continued to rule a population of 50,000,000 million for so long? Surely, there must be other important factors present. Again what are the circumstances and conditions that keep the army in power? Are there networks of rank and file civilian members who collaborate with the army? There are reports that in parallel with the democracy movement demonstrations, vast numbers of Burmese people also gather in cities and townships to show their continued support for the military. Even more disturbing is the phenomenon of imposters, who infiltrate, not only the rank and file, but also the leadership of the democracy movement. On record is a monk originally from Arakan who supported the military’s genocide in that province, who is now a leading democracy movement leader in New York. This charlatan even managed to get an “Asia leadership award.” (9)


In Burma, everybody loves the slogan word “democracy.” Almost everybody except Than Shaw, who can’t hide from his real identity, claims to be either a democracy movement leader or the supporter of the democracy movement. The word democracy is so popular in Burma that Than Shaw even calls his version “disciplined democracy.”

Under the circumstances, as the waiting game for democracy continues, the military keeps its elite club functioning by dispensing privileges. “A … military-led middle class with a corrupt, authoritarian mindset, as its benefactors or protectors, has developed over the past 45 years under military dictatorship. It operates at a level of skewed superior profits, which are distributed among a small group of beneficiaries along the corrupt military chain and do not therefore put purchasing power to a wider public, which could have an impact on the economy. Corrupt superior profits have a marginal effect on the economy of the country, as they are hoarded by the givers and recipients alike as insurance, when one is removed from the corrupt chain.”(10) In the same fashion, democracy movement leaders also reserve their exclusive “pure ethnic” club membership for themselves and maintain a distance from racially and religiously different Burmese ethnic minorities. Some of the movement’s members even accept the military’s definition of who is a native (“taingyintha” in Burmese translated as “native of a country) and who is a “foreigner.” There have been complaints that many high ranking democracy movement leaders even espouse the military’s anti-ethnic Rohingya agenda. No doubt, the situation within the democracy movement leadership is complicated by the presence of ex-military infiltrators, xenophobic intellectuals and leaders in high positions who surreptitiously prevent individuals from deprived minorities from gaining access to the leadership. This is the ugly face of ethnic discrimination in Burma.


These are the circumstances under which military rule through xenophobia is carried out in Burma, and the world’s longest civil war continues. Refugees continue to cross international borders exacerbating an already grave humanitarian crisis. Here, contrary to what Aung San, the founding father of Burma decreed, the army is no longer the servant of the country. The country has become the servant of the army. While Burma’s ethnic leaders discuss these important issues in the world’s foreign capitals in order to determine exactly who is the real enemy, the military leadership is merely buying time because it already knows who the enemy is. As a Burmese proverb popular among government supporters recommends, when faced with a deadly snake and an ethnic at the same time, don’t kill the snake first. (11) From our vantage point, we see several very important “dots” still remain to be joined before the real enemies of Burma are fully revealed.

The multiethnic Burma give the impression of being like a Russian motyoshka doll: inside each layer of ethnic groups is another, which has another inside it and so on. In reality, however, Burma is a far more complex society than this surface would suggest. In consideration of the above, this book will primarily deal with problems of democratic development in western Burma. As a Sociological worh, it will deal with classical Buddhism which is opposed to the anti-ethnic malevolence in Burma such as prejudice, racism, and in particular it will locate the ideological roots of anti-Rohingya Burman-Rakhine chauvinism, and the solemn issue of stateless people from Arakan of Burma.

Endnotes:


(1) Quoted in SAJAI JOSE, 'Democracy can only be a transition in Myanmar' Fri, 30 Nov 2007 09:23:35 -0800 http://www.tehelka. com/story_ main36.asp? filename= Ws081207Burma. asp# TEHELKA - Friday, 30 November 2007 TEHELKA “Shan-EUgroup” Shan-EUgroup@yahoogroups.com

(2) Joshua Eliot and Jane Bickersteth, Myanmar (Burma), (England: Footprint handbooks Ltd., 1997), p.7.
(3) A survey was done by Arakan Information Website which gave the readers choice between Muslim Rohingyas or the Burmans as the enemy. Reading the survey felt like I was reading a medieval text.
(4) Robert Horn, “Orbituary: The Puppet Master of Burma, Ne Win made his nation what it is today: poor, paranoid and oppressed,” Time Asia, http://www.time.com/time/asia/covers/1101021216/newin.html
(5) The corrupt Nasaka, Burma’s border security force takes money from people on any excuse. In this case, a group of people gossiping in a house to get rid of boredom after having food in Tin May village in Arakan State were being penalized for the act, the excuse that they were gossiping against the military government. Kaladan Press: Nasaka extorts money for gossiping Tue 7 Nov 2006 Filed under: News, Inside Burma http://www.burmanet.org/news/2006/11/07/kaladan-press-nasaka-extorts-money-for-gossiping/
(6)Aliran Kesedaran Negara, Oral Intervention at the 

UN Commission on Human Rights, Item 18: Effective functioning of human rights mechanisms, (b) National institutions and regional arrangements, (Delivered by Deborah Stothard, April 19, 2001, 2310 Geneva time)
(7) SAJAI JOSE, 'Democracy can only be a transition in Myanmar' Fri, 30 Nov 2007 09:23:35 -0800 http://www.tehelka. com/story_ main36.asp? filename= Ws081207Burma. asp# TEHELKA - Friday, 30 November 2007 TEHELKA “Shan-EUgroup” Shan-EUgroup@yahoogroups.com

(8) Images Asia Report: Muslims in Burma, strider@xxxxxxxxxxx Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 01:56:00


(9) Quoted in SAJAI JOSE, 'Democracy can only be a transition in Myanmar' Fri, 30 Nov 2007 09:23:35 -0800 http://www.tehelka. com/story_ main36.asp? filename= Ws081207Burma. asp# TEHELKA - Friday, 30 November 2007 TEHELKA “Shan-EUgroup” Shan-EUgroup@yahoogroups.com

(10) Ashin Nayaka, who preches anti ethnic sentiment in his native Arakan province even forwarded a xenophobic work “Influx Viruses” identifying certain Burmese born ethnic members as being the “viruses” shows his anti democratic xenophobia, but lately managed to receive the award. Link: http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&y=Search&fr=ush2-mail&p=ashin+nayaka%2F+asia+leadership+award

(11) 5-2-08 PDP'S REPLY TO JAMES LUM DAU, 5th February, 2008.
(12) Joshua Eliot and Jane Bickersteth, Myanmar (Burma), (England: Footprint handbooks Ltd., 1997), p.7.
Abid Bahar, PhD

( Part of the essay is adapted from Abid Bahar's book "Burma's Missing Dots," 2010) 

Burma is a medium-sized country; rich in mineral resources and agriculture, and the majority of its people are followers of the Buddhist faith. With such material and spiritual assets, it should be a peaceful and prosperous nation, but the reality is different. Burma has become a despotic country with a world-wide reputation for human rights violations and producing refugees. It is now clear that from the time of Burman King Anawrahta’s accession to power, through the advent of military rule in the 1960s until the present day, Burmese rulers have treated ethnic and racial minorities as subject peoples or even aliens. This is the most important idiosyncrasy in Burma’s history; even at the present time, it is causing massive refugee movements to neighboring countries. Seen in this light, Burma’s problem is not primarily a democratic predicament but an ethnic one. In this work, I hope to provide the missing dots to the derisory understanding of Burma presented in the popular media. 
Burma became independent in 1948, but it squandered its opportunity to become a truly modern nation. It has become clear from this research that in the last couple of centuries, Burma has developed two distinctive models of rule: the military’s model of rule by force and the democratic model of leadership with citizens’ participation. The tradition of the Kings is indigenous to Burma. In the new jungle capital, Nayapyidaw (City of Kings), it is not the statue of Aung San or U Nu that tower over the city, but those of the three kings who sought to keep Burma together through their genocidal rule. 

The Burman model of ruling by force while still claiming to be good Buddhists began in the time of the Pagan King, Anwardhta (1044 -77). Anwardhta was a usurper who deposed and banished his elder brother, and then took over power in mainland Burma and began occupying the territories in the South, North and East. Anwardhta also made Burma a Buddhist Theraveda kingdom. The King founded Buddhism as the state religion and appointed himself defender of the faith. He also proclaimed himself ruler of the newly-annexed territories, two-thirds of which today are inhabited by minorities. He made Buddhism a political ideology. This model of brutal oppression of minorities was so diligently practiced by Burmese rulers that, referring to the tradition of another Burmese king of the late 18 century and its effect on 19th century politics, Harvey says “The reasoning on which Bodawpaya acted was not peculiar to himself. It was the regular policy of most Burmese kings...It was not unlike the policy of European countries in former times, but they outgrew it.”(1) The traditional belief among ethnic Burmans - that they are the citizens of Burma and the minorities are only the strangers in their land - is a direct result of the model established by the Burmese kings. This type of chauvinistic mentality forms the basis of xenophobia in Burma, and persists even among some representatives of the so-called modern democratic leadership movement. Meanwhile, the suffering of the minorities continues. 

Despite strong commitment to the traditional kings’model, there was one point in its history that Burma experienced a marked shift toward the model of democracy. Burma’s British colonial history was brief –
from 1824-1948— and during this time, Burma did not manage to evolve a system comparable to that in western democracies. Burma’s move toward democracy received its greatest setback when Aung San, the leader of the liberation movement, who wanted to terminate the traditional Burman understanding of minority peoples as subject peoples, was assassinated along with his entire team, by ultranationalists. This occurred only six months before the country’s independence. Thus, without Aung San, Burma missed its first great opportunity to become a modern nation. 

Chris Lawa comments: “Arakan is no less than a microcosm of Burma with its ethnic conflicts and religious antagonisms, and is by far the most tense and explosive region of the country.” (2) The Western media concentrates mostly on Burma’s eastern border ­with Thailand based on information gained from NGOs. This book focuses on the Western frontier where human rights violations based on racial discrimination are rife. What is even more serious is that there have been systematic efforts to exterminate Burmese-born Rohingya citizens. Based on the military’s interpretation of history, Rohingyas are not Burmese citizens because they are not considered indigenous people of modern Burma, where an ethnic group is called "taingyintha" which translates as "native of a country." As a result, Rohingyas are denied their birthright. The International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states: "Every child has the right to acquire a nationality."(3) In its attempts to scare away the Rohingyas, the military conducts intimidating night raids against the villagers, ostensibly to verify their citizenship. Marriages have been banned, forced labour has been imposed, and destruction of villages and rape has been used as a weapon of war against minorities, particularly the Rohingyas. These are some of the medieval practices that the military has utilized without any remorse. 

Although the rulers of Burma are mostly responsible for the genocide, their numerous collaborators are equally answerable for their crimes. The Convention on Genocide spells this out unequivocally in Article IV: “Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.”(4) And in the post-Nuremberg world, genocide is no longer the internal business of individual national governments, but of the entire international community. 

The defiant junta attempts to excuse itself by claiming that Rohingyas entered Burma after 1824, the year the British occupied Arakan. According to this interpretation, only the ancestors of people who settled prior to 1823 are the indigenous people of Burma and those who arrived later are not citizens. To the military rulers, it is up to the present so-called noncitizens such as the Rohingyas to prove the residence status of their ancestors. This is unfortunate for the Rohingyas, since all their ancestors born before 1824 are long dead. The other criterion to justify citizenship, that they should speak good Burmese, is also not helpful to Rohingyas since most inhabit the border regions where Burmese is rarely spoken. This situation is not peculiar to Rohingyas, Burma is a vast country of peasants and fisherman of multi ethnic and racial backgrounds. Like the Rohingyas, not all of its people situated in fringe areas speak Burmese. To qualify for citizenship, one also needs to be educated. Rohingyas, however, are mostly peasants, and even worse, no schooling is now allowed for Rohingyas. They are poor and mostly uneducated; which alone disqualifies them from Burmese citizenship. Another criterion for gaining citizenship is to be of good character and of sound mind. It is scarcely surprising that underprivileged Rohingya, who are largely stateless and unemployed, will have difficulty satisfying this criterion in the eyes of the Burmese elite. To remove the traces of Rohingya existence in Arakan, Burma’s Arakan state has even been renamed the Rakine state. All these gradual tightening measures finally led to the new 1982 Constitutional Act that declared Rohingyas to be stateless people.

Rohingyas have distinct racial features that set them apart from Burmese and Rakhines, and discrimination against them is simply racist. The military’s policy in dealing with Rohingyas is termed by scholars and human rights groups as “genocide through intimidation.” (5) The military government’s policy has been assimilation, also known as “Burmanization” for minorities that are racially and religiously similar to the Burmans, and extermination for groups like the Rohingyas. As a result of the intimidation policy, close to a million Rohingyas are stateless today. (6)

The Rohingya/Rakhine/Burman Triangle 

What is more difficult for the Rohingyas is that they are caught in a triangle between the Burmese military and the Rakhine population of Arakan. The Rakhine population in general sees Rohingyas as a threat to their exclusive claim to Arakan, and therefore supports the military’s extermination policy. Likewise, since 1962, the Burmese military has oppressed the Rohingyas in an attempt to gain the support of the local Rakhine population. Surprisingly, in this scenario, self-styled pro-democracy writers such as Aye Chan, Aye Kyaw or the monk Ashin Nayaka, spread xenophobia at home in Arakan but preach democracy abroad. In spite of such flagrant contradictions, they continue to be counted among the heroes of Burma’s high-flying democracy movement. Not surprisingly, on the question of the military’s grave human rights violations against stateless Rohingya people, the democracy movement leaders have no clear plan. For the military, the human rights issue is a purely domestic question. However, the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews during World War II has made this interpretation of sovereignty untenable. As a result of the prosecution of Nazi leaders as war criminals, the newly defined legal category of “crimes against humanity,” and the creation of the United Nations, human rights practices within states came to be defined as “legitimate sources of international concern.” ((7) 


Rohingya Genocide Rohingyas who don’t want to leave Burma are being used as forced labor to build highways or to carry loads for the military. Under the circumstances, Rohingyas leave Arakan for other countries in the region. Historically speaking, what triggered the Rohingyas' statelessness is not that Rohingyas are foreigners in Burma. In fact, Rohingyas have a history in Burma dating back to the 8th century. Their status was even recognized by Burma’s democratically elected U Nu government in 1954. (8) 




Arakan, situated between South Asia and South East Asia, is both an extension of Burma and of Bengal and the Rakhines and the Rohingyas are the expressions of this historic reality. But in the Burman-Rakhine general definition, Rohingyas are categorized as noncitizens, even “influx Viruses” according to a phrase coined by Rakhine intellectuals. So instead of recognizing the historic fact of chronic Burmese invasion and occupation of Arakan, resulting in the rise of the many non-Bengali settlements in Chittagong, Rohingyas are now being labelled by Rakhine intelligentia as foreigners who deserve to be exterminated. 



Leafing through the pages of the infamous xenophobic book: Influx Viruses written by Arakani intellectuals, one of Voltaire’s sayings naturally comes to mind: “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” These writings provide the Arakani hoodlums with pseudo-intellectual justification for their genocidal acts in Arakan. The Military leaders are even more convinced by these writings. In reply to a question about the Rohingyas’ citizenship in Burma, the Burmese Ambassador to Bangladesh, Thane Myint, lately said, chuckling: “Many people are claiming they lived in Rakhine [Arakan] state a long, long time ago. Some of them are, or have been, living in Myanmar [Burma]. Some of them may not be [from Burma].”(9) What is frustrating to human rights groups is that to avoid controversy neither the military nor the democracy movement leaders will say no outright to the Rohingya’s claims of Burmese citizenship in one-on-one encounters. But they will do nothing about it. Indeed, this is a typical manifestation of Burmese “democracy,” which in reality is a blatant case of xenophobia in action. 
Buddha visited Burma


Burmese people are so devoted to Buddhism as a national identity that most people believe that Buddha actually visited Burma; an Arakanese would say he only got as far as Arakan. In the present hopeless situation, if Buddha actually visited Burma, he would doubtless have a great impact and might succeed in bringing about some radical changes. Unfortunately, Buddha never visited Burma, not even Arakan. Burmese Buddhists, unfortunately, have not yet learned to be compassionate toward minorities. In this book we have seen Buddhist monks led by the military government vandalizing Mosques in Mandalay. Here, Christian and Chinese minorities occasionally become targets of ultra-nationalist forces, some of which were led by the monks themselves. Due to the nationalist strain in Burmese Buddhism, Burma’s Buddhist monks have a history of involvement in ethnic violence. (10) Buddha would be mortified at such behaviour. 



It seems Buddhism in Burma is inextricably interwoven with the political ideology of domination by the Burman majority. Thus, it is evident that both the military and the democracy movement leaders use religion to their own advantage. This is also true because unlike classical Tibetan Buddhism, Burma’s Theraveda Buddhism has a history of involvement in secular affairs. It is interesting to note that Burmese nationalism first began with the formation of the Young Men’s Buddhist Association. 



Under the present circumstances in Burma, both the democratic leadership and the military remain hugely uncommitted to minority rights. What is needed by the democracy movement leaders is to be open to sincere debate, defending human rights, and uniting the many ethnic minorities. It seems that the leadership needed to bring about democratic change in Burma is practically nonexistent. There are several reasons why this is so; one is Aung San Suu Ki is in jail and is unable to lead the nation. In addition, the peaceful demonstrations staged by Buddhists have tended to achieve no practical results. All that has happened in this very confused “Burmese way to democracy,” or what the Burmese military calls its “way to disciplined democracy. 



Ideally, Buddhism should help to promote human rights and the dignity of human beings. Indeed, according to Buddhism, “each human being has unique value, which should be protected and cultivated.”This emphasis on the uniqueness and intrinsic importance of individuals is, in turn, directly compatible with, and conducive to, a universalistic concept of human rights that seeks to guarantee the security and integrity of every human being.”(11) It appears that long years of military rule created authoritarian institutions and a deeply ingrained tradition of intolerance toward minorities. In such a context, the leaders of the opposition democratic movement could not develop an effective, parallel model to challenge the military. Demonstrating the recent growing confidence of the army, a poem, entitled “Armed Forces Day resolve” states “With secure Road Map, March we in unity” and “Skyful of lies and slanders, Low-breds overseas, And foreign-relied traitors.” (12) 

Conclusion 

In contemporary Burma, people tend to look for enemies. They normally pick on Muslims as easy targets and public enemy number one. But in our search for the greatest public menace in Burma, we found that the Swindlers were the most dangerous enemy of the Burmese people. These are the civilian collaborators of the military and are the hidden enemy of the democracy movement. What is the nature of this collaboration? The swindler fights only with the mask of the devil. He sees democracy as only applicable to his own group and provides justifications for the military to commit genocide. What is needed in Burma is not so much a democracy movement as human rights education because a full understanding of human rights entails both rights and obligations. While Burman-Rakhines are entitled to have human rights, they should also respect the human rights of others. 



Finally, what are the conditions that keep the military in power in Burma? This study shows that it is the military leaders’ deep commitment to keeping “true Burma” together by force and driving “extrinsic” elements out. The democracy movement leaders” model of Burman democracy, which should be a model of multi-culturalism, is less committed to protecting minority rights than the military is to eradicating them. Thus, before the democracy movement can truly progress in Burma, these are the central contradictions that need to be understood and resolved. 



Suffice it to say, the history of Burma is the history of its ethnic groups’ struggle against the Burman majority’s attempt to keep them a subject people. From our vantage point, Burma's missing dots are not to be found in the differences between the military regime and the democracy movement, but in the deeply rooted question of ethnic intolerance that lies at the heart of self-identity of all Burmese, authoritarian and “democratic” alike. When the radically ethnic nature of this dilemma is properly brought to light, only then will we be able to connect the dots and discern the emerging face of genocide that has underlain Burmese internal policy for so long. 
Democracy is about citizenship and the military’s exclusionist model of defining the indigenousness of ethnic groups negates the notion of citizenship. Burma was born with deep structural problems. Ever since its independence, the military has continued to apply its medieval method of nation-building by the eradication of its ethnic members and their heritage.

The democracy movement leadership in provinces like Arakan and elsewhere is very weak. Similar manifestations of xenophobia aimed at exterminating the Christian minorities persist in Kachine and Karanni states. In Arakan state, no measures have yet been taken even to condemn the racist anti-Rohingya stances of so-called democracy movement leaders such as Ashin Nayaka, Aye Kyaw and their organization, the ANC. In consequence, the genocide continues. 




As the years slip by, Burma faces a growing demand for change. The findings of the present research suggest that to fight a winning war, the democracy movement as a whole should undergo dramatic internal changes in outlook. In a country with a large ethnic population such as Burma, nationalism ought to seek a compromise with pluralism. It should not look for enemies. What is needed is to replace some of the spurious leaders who in the name of spirituality preach xenophobia, ethnocentrism and ultranationalism. 



Contrary to the above, true revolutionaries are not shy people. They know the difference between democracy-lovers and the reactionaries. As a matter of duty and also to discourage the reactionaries and their pretensions, true democrats should bring these people to public attention. Thus, what Burmese revolutionaries need is to look for not the enemies in ethnic groups but friends. In fact, unlike the military’s xenophobic approach of finding friends only in the Burman and Rakhine ethnic groups, in order to live in the present, true democrats should find friends in all the people of Burma otherwise Burma continues to live in the past. 

______________ 



Endnotes 

(1) Harvey, G.E. Harvey, History of Burma: From the Earliest Times to 10 March 1824 The Beginning of the English Conquest, (London: Frank Cass and Co. Ltd), 1967, 153)" 

(2) Chris Lewa, Conflict, discrimination and humanitarian challenges in Northern Arakan State” Forum Asia, Bangkok, livered at the EU – Burma Day 2003 Conference, Brussels, 8 October 2003



(3) The international covonant of civil and political rights (ICCPR) Article 24 (A) 



(4) Ibid 


(6) The figure was disclosed to me by Chris Lewa in Geneva. Lewa works closely with the Rohingyas in Chittagong and in the Arakan province, estimates that about 200,000 undocumented Rohingya refugees now live in Bangladesh and another 500,000 Rohingyas now live in all over the world. 



(6) Chris Lewa, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)Bangkok, Thailand, pyright @ 2003, rum Asia, biblio.org/obl/docs/KICKEDTOBURMA-Final-3.htm

(7) Prime Minister of Burma, U Nu and his democractic government recognized the Rohingyas as an indigenous ethnic community of Burma. On 25th Sept. 1954 at 8:00 p. m., the Prime minister, in his radio speech to the nation declared Rohingya as an indigenous ethnic community of Burma.



(8) James Smith, quoted in “What is Genocide?” http://efchr.mcgill.ca/WhatIsGenocide_en.php?menu=2


(9) Clive Parker, “The Rohingya Riddle, June, 2006. http://www.rohingya.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34&Itemid=32


(10)Photos of Pegu riot shows monks even entered inside Mosques to carry out destruction. 

(11), Reeta Chowdhari Tremblay, James Kelly, Michael Lipson and Jean F. Mayer (2008) Human Rights: Origins, Concepts, and Critiques. Toronto; Thomson-Nelson Publishers, P.11, 93




(12) Junta reaffirms noble history of military
http://www.mizzimab urmese.com/ content/view/ 838/1/



Rohingya Exodus