Aman Ullah

RB Article

August 12, 2016

“Muslims of Arakan certainly belong to one of the indigenous races of Burma, which you represent. In fact, there are no pure indigenous races in Burma and that if you do not belong to indigenous races Burma; we also cannot be taken as indigenous races of Burma.” President Saw Shwe Thaik,

The International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples, celebrated each year on 9 August, marks the day of the first meeting, in 1982, of the UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations of the Sub-commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.

This year, the International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples is devoted to indigenous peoples' right to education, given the persistent gaps between indigenous and non -indigenous students in terms of access to education, school retention and graduation rates in all regions of the world. 

“On this International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples, I call on Governments everywhere ... to improve access to education for indigenous peoples and to reflect their experiences and culture in places of learning," said United Nations Secretary -General Ban Ki -moon, adding, "Let us commit to ensuring indigenous peoples are not left behind as we pursue the vision of the Sustainable Development Goals.” 

The right of indigenous peoples to education is protected by the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which in Article 14 states that “Indigenous peoples have the right to establish and control their educational systems and institutions providing education in their own languages, in a manner appropriate to their cultural methods of teaching and learning.” 

The adjective indigenous is derived from the two Ancient Greek words indo= endo/ "ενδό(ς)", meaning inside/within, and genous= (γέννoυς), meaning birth/born and also race, etymology meaning "native" or "born within".

James Anaya, former Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, has defined indigenous peoples as "living descendants of pre-invasion inhabitants of lands now dominated by others. They are culturally distinct groups that find themselves engulfed by other settler societies born of forces of empire and conquest". 

They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal system. 

In 1972 the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations (WGIP) accepted as a preliminary definition a formulation put forward by Mr. José R. Martínez-Cobo, Special Rapporteur on Discrimination against Indigenous Populations. This definition has some limitations, because the definition applies mainly to pre-colonial populations, and would likely exclude other isolated or marginal societies.

“Indigenous communities, peoples, and nations are those that, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing in those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop, and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal systems.”

Thus, Indigenous peoples were the descendants of those peoples that inhabited a territory prior to colonization or formation of the present state.

The Rohingyas are Muslims who are living in Arakan generation after generation for centuries after centuries. They are nationals as well as an indigenous community of Burma. They are equal in every way with other communities of the country. Their arrival in Arakan has pre-dated the arrival of many other peoples and races now residing in Arakan and other parts of Burma. They developed from different stocks of peoples and concentrated in a common geographical location forming their own society with a consolidated population in Arakan well before the Burman invasion in 1784.

Mr. M.A. Gaffer, from Buthidaung, was a member of 1947 Constitutional Assembly, an Upper House MP from 1951 to 1960 and also a Parliamentary Secretary in Health Ministry. 

He wrote, in his Memorandum, which was presented to the Regional Autonomy Enquiry Commission dated the 24th May, 1949, that,

“We the Rohingyas of Arakan are a nation. We maintain and hold that Rohingyas and Arakanse are two major nations in Arakan. We are a nation of nearly nine lakhs more than enough population for a nation; and what is more we are a nation according to any definition of a nation with our own distinctive culture and civilization, language and literature, art and architecture, names and nomenclature, sense of value and proportion, legal laws and moral codes, customs and calendar, history and traditions aptitude and ambitions, in short, we have our distinctive outlook on life and of life. By all canons of international law the Rohingyas are a nation in Arakan." 

Mr. Sultan Ahmed, from Maung Daw, was a member of 1947 Constitutional Assembly, a Member of Parliament from 1951 to 1960 and was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Minorities, Ministry of Relief and Resettlement, and the Ministry of Social and Religious Affairs, with the status of Deputy Minister. He was one of the longest serving parliamentary secretaries. 

According to him, “when section 11 of the constitution of the Union of Burma was being framed, a doubt as to whether the Muslims of North Arakan fell under the section of sub-clauses (I) (II) and (III), arose. In effect an objection was put in to have the doubt cleared in respect of the term ‘indigenous’ as used in the constitution. But it was ithdrawn on the understanding and assurance of the President of the Constitutional Assembly, at present His Excellency the President of the Union of Burma, who, when approached for clarification with this question, said, ‘Muslims of Arakan certainly belong to one of the indigenous races of Burma, which you represent. In fact, there are no pure indigenous races in Burma and that if you do not belong to indigenous races Burma; we also cannot be taken as indigenous races of Burma.’ Being satisfied with his kind explanation, the objection put in was withdrawn.”

Being indigenous peoples, they have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, economic, social and cultural characteristics, as well as their legal systems, while retaining their rights to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of State. Not only have they had the right to a nationality but also the rights to their lands, territories and resources, which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spirituals traditions, histories and philosophies. 

Under any cannons of international law and human civilization the Rohingyas are much more than a national minority. They are a nation with a population of more than 3 million (both home and abroad), having a supporting history, separate culture, civilization, language and literature, historically settled territory and reasonable size of population and area. They share a public culture different from the public culture of those around them. They are determined not only to preserve and develop their public culture, but also to transmit to future generations as the basis of their continued existence as people, in accordance with their own cultural pattern, social institution and legal system. 

Being indigenous peoples, they have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, economic, social and cultural characteristics, as well as their legal systems, while retaining their rights to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of State. Not only have they had the right to a nationality but also the rights to their lands, territories and resources, which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spirituals traditions, histories and philosophies. 

Thus, during the colonial rule the British recognized the separate identity of the Rohingyas and declared north Arakan as the Muslim Region. Again there are instances that Prime Minister U Nu, Prime Minister U Ba Swe, other ministers and high- ranking civil and military official, stated that the Rohingyas people like the Shan, Kachin, Karen, Kaya, Mon and Rakhine. They have the same rights and privileges as the other nationals of Burma regardless of their religious beliefs or ethnic background.

Being one of the indigenous communities of Burma, the Rohingyas were enfranchised in all the national and local elections of Burma. Their representatives were in the Legislative Assembly, in the Constituent Assembly and in the Parliament. As members of the new Parliament, their representatives took the oath of allegiance to the Union of Burma on the 4thJanuary 1948. Their representatives were appointed as cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries. They had their own political, cultural, social organizations and had their programme in their own language in the official Burma Broadcasting Services (BSS). As a Burma’s racial groups, they participated in the official “Union Day’ celebration in Burma’s capital, Rangoon, every year. To satisfy part of their demand, the government granted them limited local autonomy and declared establishment of Mayu Frontier Administration (MFA) in early 60s, a special frontier district to be ruled directly by the central government.

In spite of that the Rohingya are the worst victims of human rights violations in Burma. They were displaced. Their identity was polluted. Their population was diluted. Their right to nationality was arbitrarily deprived. Since 1948, expelling the Rohingyas from their ancestral land and properties has become almost a recurring phenomenon. About 2 million uprooted Rohingyas have taken shelters in many countries of the world since the anti-Muslim pogrom of 1942 in Arakan. 

Since 1942, the Rakhine Buddhists pushed the Muslims from the southern Arakan to the northern Arakan. 

Since 1962, successive military regimes denied their citizenship right by labeling that they are illegal immigrants from Bangaladesh.

Since 1982, the regimes completely denied the citizenship rights of the Rohingyas by enacting the most controversial Citizenship Law -1982.

Since 2012, the Thein Sein regime rejected their identity and forcefully making them Bengali. 

Since then, the Rohingya have been backed into a corner, their lives made so intolerable that tens of thousands have fled by sea, seeking safety and a sense of dignity elsewhere. Surviving the perilous journey to Bangladesh, Thailand or Malaysia is, too often, seen as the only way to finally be free from persecution. 

Campaigns of terror, crimes against humanity and extermination have been perpetrated against the Rohingya in a systematic and planned way. The restrictions on freedom of movement, marriage and education have dashed any future hope of development for the Rohingya, including forming families, all while they live in subhuman conditions amidst abject poverty. Humiliating restrictions on movement—even on travel from place to place within the same locality—have affected all normal activities in all fields, crippling the Rohingya socially, economically and educationally. The Rohingya have been singled out for systematic destruction.

Today, this group is increasingly jobless, homeless, without land of their own and the most illiterate section of Burma’s population. They are not tolerated and are systematically excluded and rendered ‘stateless’ in their own homeland because of their religious belief and ethnicity. They are not only denied their nationality but also their citizenships rights. They are now a people without a country dying alive and facing ‘slow-burning genocide’.

Aman Ullah 

RB Article
August 10, 2016

“If we want the nation to prosper, we must pool our resources, manpower, waelth, skill, and work together.’ General Aung San

We live in a time of great change, a time of new beginnings. We live in a time when many things are coming to an end.

In the evolution of democracy we are coming to the end of that phase of democracy that we think of as representative democracy. For centuries we have elected people to represent us, to give us voice in far-off forums, and then we have judged how well they represented us. Now the world is shifting from the long period of representative democracy to the direct democracy.

The world today is about the individual, not the state. It is about self-organization, just business has experienced the shift to self-management. The world is being run by the collective judgments and actions of individuals. The deployment of power is shifting from state to individual, from vertical to horizontal. Politics will reemerge as the engine of individualism. 

The world’s trends point overwhelmingly toward political independence and self-rule. The new era is an ear of self-rule for the peoples around the world. Self-rule is the pillar of democracy. People all over world are beginning to seize that opportunity. Many people of the world today want self-rule and everyday they see others getting self-rule, or moving toward it.

The Union of Burma was born on 4th January 1948 out of the joint efforts of all peoples of the country, on the basis of the Panglong Agreement signed on 12th February 1947 between General Aung San and leaders of ethnic nationalities to take independence together. The effort and contribution of every people, big or small, was equally important and great. Thus, the spirit of Panglong is very important for the perpetuation of a strong and stable Union of Burma. The Panglong Agreement was a Union Treaty to build an independent Burma — a Federal Union based on the agreed upon principle of “unity in diversity”. Unity in diversity means the people are different from one another. Their languages are different, their cultures are different, their religions are different, and their lifestyles are different. But they are all united to establish a union for a common purpose, for the common good, for sustainable development, and, above all, for the future of their people. “This Panglong Agreement assured the people of Burma of federal democracy, human rights, and equality. 

Unfortunately, a few months before Burma’s independence, General Aung San and almost all of his cabinet members were assassinated. Then, the Union of Burma was formed on the foundation of the 1947 semi-federal Constitution. And the rights the ethnic states which were granted were nominal than real. 

The identities and equality of the ethnic people were slowly eroded away. Nationalism, Burman control, and Buddhism have continued to be essential elements of political legitimacy and the endeavor to create national identity under all regimes. Almost immediately upon the independence, Burma was thrown into a series of brutal ethnic wars that have continued with varying intensity to this day. Thus, the Union of Burma today is facing unprecedented crisis- economic, social and political. Even the survival of the Union is also at stake.

The crisis in the Union of Burma today is rooted in political problem, specially a constitutional one that rooted in question of self-determination for non-Burman nationalities. Thus, these differences can be resolved through political means and through political process, i.e. through political dialogue, negotiations and compromise, and through establishing a genuine Federal Union of Burma, which will guarantee democratic rights for all citizens, political equality for all nationalities and the rights of self-determination for all member states of the Union. A federal system that combines and balances between “self-rule” for ethnic national homelands and a “shared-rule” for the Union is federal system.

General Aung San was a visionary leader who fully understood and accepted the aspirations of all the peoples of Burma including non-Burmans. The Union of Burma would not have been created without him. However, his assassination ended the vision he had. Now his daughter Daw Aung San Suu Kyi caught his vision and has said that we need a 3rd Panglong Conference. Now she is going to convene the 3rd Panglong conference which she terms as 21st Century Panglong Convention.

We, the Rohingya people warmly welcome this Convention and believe that in order to establish a stable, peaceful and prosperous nation, the process of rebuilding the Union must be based on a democratic process. We also believe that all political and democratic processes in Burma should be all-inclusive, and the Rohingya should be part of it. Time has come to practically revive and strengthen the Panglong spirit of ‘unity in diversity’ and diversity is strength not weakness. 

We, the Rohingyas, firmly believe that: 

1. The Rohingyas are an indigenous people characterized by objective criteria, such as historical continuity, and subjective factors including self-identification, which need to define an indigenous people, and entitled to have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. Being indigenous peoples, they have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, economic, social and cultural characteristics, as well as their legal systems, while retaining their rights to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of State. They have not only the right to a nationality but also have the right to their lands, territories and resources, which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spirituals traditions, histories and philosophies. 
2. The Rohingyas are much more than a national minority. They are a nation with a population of 3.5 million (both home and abroad), having a supporting history, separate culture, civilization, language and literature, historically settled territory and reasonable size of population and area – they consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the society. They are determined not only to preserve and develop their ancestral history and their ethnic identity, but also to transmit to future generations as the basis of their continued existence as people, in accordance with their own cultural pattern, social institution and legal system. 
3. The individual rights is not enough for us; we need our collective rights as a people, as an ethnic group, as a nationality who speak different language, who practice different culture, who worship different religion and who also has different historical background and, above all, all of us have territorially clearly defined homelands and nations since time immemorial. 
4. We want to rule our homeland by ourselves. 
5. We have to find a political and legal system which will allow us to rule our respective homelands by ourselves, and at same time living peacefully together with others who practice different religions and cultures and speak different languages. In other words, we have to find a political system which can combine and balance between “self-rule” for different ethnic groups and “shared-rule” for all the peoples in the Union of Burma. 

The ethnic Rohingya is one of the many nationalities of the union of Burma. They are fighting for their very survival as a people. They are struggling for their “ Rights of self-determination”: which will guarantees their collective rights; the right to rule their homeland by themselves, the right to practice their religious teaching and culture freely, the right to teach, learn and promote their language freely, and the right to up-hold their identity without fear and live peacefully together with others.

We, therefore, claims that the ultimate goal of our struggle is to establish a genuine Federal Union of Burma, which will guarantee democratic rights for all citizens, political equality for all nationalities and the rights of self-determination for all member states of the Union including the ethnic Rohingya. 

1990 Multi-Party Democracy General Elections And

The Rohingyas’ Enfranchisement 

Aman Ullah

RB Article

August 7, 2016

“The elections of 1990 are an important landmark in the modern history of Burma. After three decades... almost three decades...of military dictatorship, finally the people of Burma were going to be able to vote for a government of their choice. The elections of 1990 were free and fair. It was one of the freest and fairest that had taken place in this region at that time. But unfortunately, the results of the elections were not honoured”.

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi 

1990 Multi-Party Democracy General Elections, contested by 93 political parties, was sponsored by the military junta on 27 May 1990 after it took over the power of state on 18 September 1988. The people of Burma voted overwhelmingly for a democratic Parliament. It was free and fair and affirmed as such by the Burmese people and the world.

The people exercised their right to freely choose candidates to represent them in a Pyithu Hluttaw (People’s Parliament)in keeping with the democratic principles that “sovereign power lies with the people which is transferred by way of elections “.

In accordance with Article 2 (a) of the Pyithu Hluttaw Election Law (State Law and Order Restoration Council, Law No.14/89 of 31 May 1989), the elections held on 27 May 1990, is for the Pyithu Hluttaw (People’s Parliament) and not for a Constituent Assembly.

The Article 21 (3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that, “The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures”. The will of the Burmese people has been obviously expressed in the May 1990 elections in Burma.

In this election, among the 492 constituencies election was held in 485 constituencies where more than two thousand candidates participated. There were 20,818,313 eligible voters in 485 constituencies and 15, 112,524 votes casted where 13,253,606 votes were valid.

In this election the Rohingyas were not only allowed to vote but also, in their exercise of franchise, elected four Rohingya members of Parliament. U Chit Lwin (a) Ebrahim, Mr. Fazal Ahmed, U Kyaw Min (a) Shomshul Anwarul Haque, and U Tin Maung (a) Nur Ahmed have been elected as members of the Parliament.

National League for Democracy fielded 447 candidates. Of them, 392 got elected. There were altogether 485 constituencies. Shan Nationalities League for Democracy (SNLD) won 23 seats. Arakan League for Democracy (ALD) won eleven. National Unity Party (NUP) won ten. Mon National Democratic Front (MNDF) won five and National Democratic Party for Human Rights won 4 seats. 

In Arakan State NLD won in 9 seats; Arakan League for Democracy (ALD) won 11 seats; National Democratic Party for Human Rights (NDPHR) won 4, Kamans National League for Democracy and Mro or Khami National Solidarity Organization won 1 seat each. The total votes for NLD winners were 1,77, 999; the total votes for ALD and othe Rakhine Parties were 1,97,536; the total votes for NDPHR and other Rohingya parties including Kamans one were 2,05,367, and The Mro get 28,500 votes.

The candidates who won in 1990 election from the National Democratic Party for Human Rights (NDPHR) are as follows : -

1. U Kyaw Min

U Kyaw Min (aka) Shamsul Anowarul Hoque was elected from Buthidaung (1) Constituency with 30,997 valid votes from 41,668 valid votes, where 58, 449 eligible voters and 46, 065 voters were casted in the 1990 elections. The SLORC banned the NDPHR under order No. 8/92 on 18 March 1992, and at the time U Kyaw Min was a member of the party’s Central Executive Committee.

U Kyaw Min, son of Fazar Rahman, was born in the village "Mikyanzay" under Buthidaung Township in Arakan State of Burma in 1944. He was graduated from the Rangoon Institute of Economics in 1968 with a Bachelor of Economics degree and in 1983; he received a Diploma in Education from the Institute of Education Rangoon.

He joined to the Education Department of Burma in 1969 and served there as a Senior Assistant Teacher (SAT) up to 1985 in various state schools in Arakan. He was promoted to Headmaster of State Middle School in TanBazaar, Buthidaung, in 1985. However, he was dismissed from his post in 1989 due to his involvement in the August 1988 uprising. 

He joined the Committee Representing the People's Parliament (CRPP) in 1998 at the invitation of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to represent the Rohingya ethnic minority. The National Unity Party (UNP) also invited him to join NUP to support military backed national convention after resigning from CRPP. But he did not agree and this has caused serious wrath of the military rulers and the ultimate consequence was the handing of 47 years imprisonment. 

In 1992, he was put in detention for 3 months in the custody of the military intelligence during operation Pye Thaya. In 1994, then the military intelligence again put him in detention for 45 days. Finally, in March 2005, he was arrested from his residence in Rangoon and was charged under Section 18 Citizenship Law 1982 and section 5(j) Anti State Emergency Law. He has been sentenced to 47 years imprisonment and at the same time his wife Daw Tiza, his two daughters Kin Kin Nu and Way Way Nu and his son Maung Aung Naing have also been sentenced to 17 years imprisonment respectively. 

2. U Tin Maung (aka) Nur Ahmed

U Tin Maung (aka) Nur Ahmed was elected from Buthidaung (2) Constituency with 20,045 valid votes from 40,143 valid votes, where 55,095 eligible voters and 46,037 voters were casted in the 1990 elections. U Tin Maung was the Chairman of the NDPHR when the SLORC banned the party in 1992.

U Ting Maung, son of U Saiful Mulluk , was born in 1928 in Phone Nyo Lake village of Buthidaung. His early education was at Buthidaung State High School. After matriculation he attended to the two years Health Assistant Training Course in Insein, Rangoon from 1954-1956. After the training he joined to the department Anti-Malaria Unit in Buthidaung as Unit Head. Later he served as a Health Assistance Officer in Buthidaung and Sandoway Township till 1968. Then he abandoned his job and joined to the Rohinya Independent Force (RIF) as a full time member but back to Buthidaung 1n 1978. 

3. U Chit Lwin (aka) Ibrahim

U Chit Lwin (aka) Ibbrahim was elected from Maungdaw (1) Constituency with 20,045 valid votes from 64,019 valid votes; where 87,174 eligible voters and 73,633 voters were casted in the 1990 elections. U Chit Lwin was Vice-Chairman of the NDPHR when the SLORC banned the party in 1992.

U Chit Lwin, son of Master Siddique Ahmed, was born in 1946 in Myuthugyi village of Maungdaw. His early education was at State High School Maungdaw. He was graduated with a Bachelor of Commerce degree from the Rangoon Institute of Economic, in 1967. He also received a Post-Graduate Diploma of Economic Planning in 1977 from the Institute of Economics in Rangoon. Later he pursued Register of Account and Register of Law (RL) also. He is a certified accountant and auditor also.

He joined t the Ministry of Planning and Finance and served there from 1967-1983. Since 1984, he practices law as an advocate at the High Court.

4. U Fazal Ahmed 

U Fazal Ahmed was elected from Maungdaw (2) Constituency with 24,881 valid votes from 58,230 valid votes; where 84,166 eligible voters and 58,230 voters were casted in the 1990 elections. . He was a Central Executive Committee member of the NDPHR when the SLORC banned the party in 1992.

U Fazal Ahmed, son of U Mohammed Kalu, was born in 1941 in Basuba village of Maungdaw. His early education was at State High School Maungdaw. After finishing his High School education, in 1960, he joined to Deputy Commissioner’s Office in Maungdaw as a clerk and he served in various offices in Maungdaw, Buthidaung, Kyauk Taw, Kaukpyu, Taungup, and Sittwe in Arakan State. Later he passed the higher grade pleader (HGP) examination and he started working as a private lawyer.

KAMANS NATIONAL LEAGUE FOR DEMOCRACY (KNLD)

U Shwe Ya

U Shwe Ya was elected from Akyab / Sittway (1) Constituency with 9,821 valid votes from 30,332 valid votes; where 49,899 eligible voters and 36,441 voters were casted in the 1990 elections. The SLORC banned the KNLD on 11 March 1992. Following the 1990 election, the ALD candidate for Sittwe 1, U Maung Thazan, accused U Shwe Ya of cheating in the election. The Election Commission subsequently launched an investigation into the matter but the case was dismissed.

U Shwe Ya, son of U Shwe Maung, was born in Akyab town in 1955. He is a Kaman Muslim. His early Education was at State High School Kyaukpyu. After Matriculation he joined in the General Administrative Department in Myebon , Arakan State, in 1974. Later he pursued his L.L.B degree as a correspondent student from Rangoon Art and Science University. After obtaining his LLB degree he joined to the court as a lawyer. 

The elections of 1990 were free and fair. It was one of the freest and fairest that had taken place in this region at that time. But unfortunately, the results of the elections were not honoured. The people exercised their right to freely choose candidates to represent them in a Pyithu Hluttaw (People’s Parliament)in keeping with the democratic principles that “sovereign power lies with the people which is transferred by way of elections“.

The Rohingyas were not only permitted to vote but also to form their own political parties during the May 1990 election. Two parties were formed the Students and Youth League for Mayu Development and the National Democratic and Human Rights (NDPHR).The NDPHR won all four seats in Maung Daw and Buthidaung constituencies, and in each constituency votes for the two parties counted for 80 per cent of the total votes cast. Moreover, the turnout in both constituencies equaled the national average, at 70 per cent of eligible voters. The NDPHR also fielded candidates in four other constituencies; Kyuk Taw-1, Minbya-1, Mrauk U -2 and Sittwe -2, and they gained an average of 17 per cent of the votes while the Government- backed National Unity Party got only 13 per cent. 

Although the name of Rohingya was not permitted to use in the party title, the NDPHR was allowed to produce a booklet in Burmese called ‘Arakan and the Rohingya people: a short History’ on August 31, 1991. According to the NDPHR sources, the permission to print this booklet was rescinded two months later. 

This election was held under the Constitution of 1974 and according 1982 Citizenship Law. Under the1989 election law ‘all citizens, associate citizens and naturalized citizens are permitted to vote, but only the citizens are allowed to stand for election. No foreign residents were allowed to vote.’ Thus, allowing taking part in the national elections was clearly indicated that these people were eligible voters and full citizens. In other words we can say that the then government clearly recognized these Rohingyas as citizens till 1990 in accordance with the Constitution of 1974 and 1982 Citizenship Law. 

By Dominic Bossi

The Sydney Morning Herald

July 31, 2016

Hamid Ullah's face lights up when he has to present his identification card at the start of every game. Like the 20 players of Lakemba's all age division nine team, having a recognised identity was as far-fetched as playing registered football when he was growing up as a Rohingya in Burma. The closest they got in their native country were social games held in secret deep inside rice paddies, far from the sight of authorities.

"The Buddhists don't let us play because they say it's not our country, it's their country," Ullah says.

Ullah, like all of his teammates, is a refugee from the Rohingya Muslim minority in Burma who are among the most persecuted people in the world. They have not been recognised by the state since the 1982 Burmese Citizenship Law. It denies them the right to citizenship, identification, health, education and legal services.

They have no state and no home, despite having lived in Burma for generations. What started as oppression soon led to allegations of ethnic cleansing.

"If we were in our country, we could have been killed by now," Ullah says. "They're killing people everywhere, the monks, the Buddhists, the police and the military are hanging Rohingya people with a rope from a tree, they're stabbing people."

The mental anguish means few want to retell their stories. Even less can while they are yet to be granted permanent asylum, such is the fear of being returned home.

"If I'm by myself, I will cry," Mohammed (not his real name) says. His family remains in Burma where the persecution is administered daily in his village and livelihoods taken at every opportunity. "We had goats, chickens, roosters and they [police and military] just take it or kill them, and then hit you and beat you ... It's like that every day."

Usman* is one of the youngest in the team, but he is already labelled a star, a tag he humbly rejects. He has a gifted touch, a burst of pace and a vision that makes him the X-Factor. He is light and carefree on the field, a stark contrast to the weight of the world that was once all that filled his pockets.

"The military came into my village and tried to catch all the people," he says. "I saw with my own eyes, they were killing people."

As a teenager, he was forced to leave his family and take the dangerous, lonely and uncertain voyage to Australia: two days by boat to Bangladesh, five days by sea to Thailand without food or water before spending 18 days in jungles enroute to Malaysia. From then, he dodged authorities in urban areas before braving the Indian Ocean to reach Christmas Island, but nothing on that journey prepared him for the hell of indefinite detention.

"When we first got there ... everyone was crying, scared; it was really hard," he says.

His story is all too familiar among his team, where all but one arrived by boat. They found solace at Parry Park in Lakemba, bonding over one thing they longed to do – play football. It was social at first before their refugee case manager at Settlement Services International, Javier Paul Ortiz contacted a local club, Lakemba Sports, hoping to give them purpose.

Most are on bridging or temporary protection visas and unable to find regular work. The club didn't hesitate in covering the registration costs of the players, worth more than $5000 for the 20-man squad, providing them with their first identification cards and playing kits. The players tried to raise funds through sausage sizzles in appreciation of their football identity.

"They've been excellent," Lakemba treasurer Mohammed Harris says. "Every time we come and watch them they've got a lot of supporters there and they're helping out with the club, setting out the fields, training at least three times a week and there's always a positive vibe amongst them."

The respect for the opportunity isn't lost on the players. Their coach, Mohammed Younus, thought he would make a good winger if given the chance in Burma, but his heart condition forced him to call the shots from the sideline, wearing a club jacket with a sense of pride that is as humbling as it is charming.

"I'm thankful," he says. "All the things I did in three years in Australia, I couldn't do in 40 in Burma."

Lead by captain Younis*, the team has since inspired a community. The crowd of Rohingya nationals grows each week at Parry Park, regardless of the results.

"We just want to work hard, we just want to play and we want to get to a higher level," he says.

The team photo is proudly displayed throughout their community's shops and throughout Lakemba as the players have become local stars of a team affectionately dubbed "The first Rohingya national team".

That they're probably not, but for people who have spent their whole lives in hiding, no dream is suddenly too big.

It's why Usman has gone from being the secret star of rural rice paddies to boldly asking a question he previously never dared ask: "How far do you think I can go?"

*Not their real names

Aman Ullah

RB Article

July 29, 2016

“The Holocaust did not start with the gas chambers and the Rwandan genocide did not start with the slayings, both started with the dehumanization of a specific group of persons.” Adama Dieng, a UN special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide 

In recent Rakhine news, it is said that a delegation of Rakhines’ leader will go to United Nation (UN) for the purpose of decolonization of Arakan. The delegation will be led by Dr. Aye Chan as historical expert, Dr Aye Maung, as political expert, Advocate U Aung Kyaw Sein, as legal expert and a veteran political leader U Khine Aung Kyaw who is now in US, as international expert. The delegation will go to UN by December of this year and will submit a paper on Arakan history. 

A Un-declonized Arakan

Arakan with an area of about 200000 square miles was neither purely a Burmese nor an Indian Territory until 18th century. Chiefly for its location, it had not only remained independent for the most part of history. Being separated from the rest of Burma by a long and high impassible hill range of Arakan Yoma, the peoples of Arakan neither drank from the same water with Burmans nor dependant on them for trade and commerce. Neither of a single river flows from Arakan to Burma nor Burma to Arakan. Its relation with Chittagong is influenced by geographical, cultural and historical considerations. Hinduism and Buddhism spread from India, whereas Islamic civilization began influencing Arakan from the 7th century. As such, her relation with western Muslims states is millennia-old.

The history of Independent Kingdom of Arakan came to an end by the invasion and occupation of Burmese king, Bodawpaya, in 1784. After 40 years of Burmese rule the British colonialist annexed Arakan to a British India in the first Anglo-Burma war of 1824 and it remained under British administration till Burmese independence on January 4, 1948.

The British colonial power transferred the sovereignty of Arakan on January 4, 1948, into the newly formed ‘Union of Burma’ without the wish of the peoples of Arakan. The concept of ‘Union of Burma’, which was invented by the colonialists and based on the sanctity of the illegal boundaries of the colonial empire, was established by conquests. It is a state that is based on colonialist conquered territories without reference to the conquered peoples, their cultures, languages, histories, identities, and inalienable rights. Union Burma is thus admittedly a state based solely on British colonialism—without decolonization. Hence, Arakan became un-decolonized and Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGT).

What is Decolonization?

The Oxford English Dictionary defines decolonization as "the withdrawal from its colonies of a colonial power; the acquisition of political or economic independence by such colonies." The term refers particularly to the dismantlement. However, decolonization not only refers to the complete "removal of the domination of non-indigenous forces" within the geographical space and different institutions of the colonized, but it also refers to the "decolonizing of the mind" from the colonizer's ideas that made the colonized seem inferior. 

The Britishers violated this principle of separate juridical status of colonial territories, when they transferred their legal ‘sovereignty’ over Arakan to the Burma Union.

There can be no compromise between the concept of ‘Union of Burma’ and the principle of ‘decolonization’, because the one goes directly against the other. Decolonization requires ‘liquidation of all colonial empire’ with specific steps and definitive procedures, but Union of Burma exists on the principle of the total preservation of the territorial integrity of the previous colonial empire; an empire is not liquidated if its integrity is preserved. ‘Union of Burma’ is still an un-liquidated and un-decolonizes colonial empire with Burma replacing Britishers as the colonial masters. 

In addition to these, there is no legality and judicial values of the Treaty on the transfer of ‘sovereignty’ between British and Burma signed on October 7, 1947, especially concerning the transfer of ‘sovereignty’ over Arakan to Burma for the following reasons: -

1. The glaring incompatibility of the Treaty with the decolonization principles of the UN, that had been imposed universally. 

2. This Treaty clearly violated the right to self-determination of the people of Arakan.

3. The Treaty was neither signed by any representative of the people of Arakan nor given mandate from them. 

4. The power and authority of the people of Arakan was arbitrarily ignored in the Treaty.

5. The transfer took place without consulting the people of Arakn through plebiscite or referendum, and doing it outside all established procedures of the United Nations Decolonization Law and precedents set up by the International Court of Justice.

It is irony of the fate that the portion of time preceding Burmese independence was a very dark period for the people of Arakan. The people of Arakan hardly believe that the Burmans govern them; but they strongly feel that they are colonized. After being integrated into Burma the people of Arakan have been a part of unitary state of the Union of Burma during which time they have been subjected to brutal and inhuman treatment such as; human rights abuses, killings, rapes, ignorance, poverty and social injustice and have been subjected to virtual ethnic and cultural genocide.

It is a Positive and Welcoming Step

In a vast political reshaping of the world, more than 80 former colonies comprising some 750 million people have gained independence since the creation of the United Nations. At present, 17 Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGTs) across the globe remain to be decolonized, home to nearly 2 million people. Thus, the process of decolonization is not complete. Finishing the job will require a continuing dialogue among the administering Powers, the Special Committee on Decolonization, and the peoples of the territories, in accordance with the relevant UN resolutions on decolonization.

In 1990, the General Assembly proclaimed the first International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, including a specific plan of action. The Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples, the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960). 

Under the General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, it is declared that: -

1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.

2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.

6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

7. All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity.

The Special Committee annually reviews the list of Territories to which the Declaration is applicable and makes recommendations as to its implementation. It also hears statements from NSGTs representatives, dispatches visiting missions, and organizes seminars on the political, social and economic situation in the Territories. Further, the Special Committee annually makes recommendations concerning the dissemination of information to mobilize public opinion in support of the decolonization process, and observes the Week of Solidarity with the Peoples of Non-Self-Governing Territories.

Thus, the step that is going to take by the Rakhine leaders is a welcoming step and there is still, hope for Arakan to be recognizes as one of the Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGTs), may get a chance to be decolonized and will become an Independent State where all the peoples of Arakan have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Denying the existence of Rohingya and dehumanization of them

Across the last two thousand years, there has been great deal of local vibrancy as well as movement of different ethnic peoples through the region. For the last millennium or so, Muslims (Rohingyas) and Buddhists (Rakhines) have historically lived on both side of Naaf River, which marks the modern border with Bangladesh and Burma. In addition to Muslims (Rohingyas) and Buddhists (Rakhines) majority groups, a number of other minority peoples also come to live in Arakan, including Chin, Kaman, Thet, Dinnet, Mramagri, Mro and Khami etc.

With the passage of time, both Rohingya and Rakhine come to exist into two distinct and compact communities in Arakan out of some heterogeneous races and tribes. Both had been peacefully coexisting in Arakan over the centuries. Both are indigenous people characterized by objective criteria, such as historical continuity, and subjective factors including self-identification which need to define an indigenous people and to have the right of self-determination. It means that, if Rakhines have historic rights in Arakan the Rohingyas have also the same right in Arakan. If the Rakhines freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development, the Rohingyas have also the same rights to charter their destiny by their free will, by virtue of their rights to self-determination.

However, today, the greater number of Rakhines, under the patronization of the successive regime, is hostile to Rohingyas. They are main instruments of Rohingya oppression over the decades. Even many Rakhines today claim Arakan to be the ‘historic land of Rakhine Buddhists’. Denying the existence of Rohingya, they state that Arakan belongs to them alone and the Rohingyas have nothing to do with it and have no right to use the word ‘Arakan” and even ‘Rohingya”. This chauvinistic claim of ‘exclusive ownership’ of Arakan by the Rakhine is the root cause of the problem in Arakan causing constant communal violence and tension between the two major communities.

Since 1970s, the anti-Rohingya Rakhine leaders have instilled in Rakhinese society against the Rohingya. They presented the Rohingya as the problem in their society in literature and teachings. Anti-Rohingya Rakhinese falsified history by labeling the Rohingya as foreigners to Burma who were brought in during British colonial rule. The central government’s support of this false story has served to bolster Buddhist hatred toward the Rohingya. 

Since 2012, the Rohingya have suffered horrific violence, whipped up by hate speech preached by extremist Buddhist nationalists. Every aspect of their lives, including marriage, childbirth and ability to work, is severely restricted. Their right to identity and citizenship is officially denied. They have been systematically uprooted, with 200,000 held in internal displacement camps and unknown thousands have taken to sea as refugees. The UNHCR estimates that more than 120,000 people have left the area by boat from the Bay of Bengal since June 2012. The government even denies humanitarian agencies unfettered access in their internal displacement camps. Their homes, businesses, and mosques have been destroyed. Amid the destruction, many Rohingyas have been unfairly imprisoned, with some tortured to death while behind bars. 

A 2015 study by the United States Holocaust Museum counted 19 early warning signs of genocide in Myanmar since the start of sectarian violence. Another study by the International State Crime Initiative concluded that the Rohingya had already passed the first four stages of genocide, including dehumanization and segregation and is now on the verge of mass annihilation.

Successive Regimes dehumanized the Rohingya in their official propaganda and depicted as amoral or dangerous to society. Officials falsify history and present justifications for why the entire group, to include the elderly, women, and children, must be viewed as guilty. 

A radical Buddhist groups have characterized the Rohingya as “a most dangerous and fearful poison that is severe enough to eradicate all civilization.” Citing Adolf Hitler, a Rakhine political party has said that crimes against humanity, even the Holocaust, are justified “in defense of national sovereignty” and “survival of a race.”

They have frequently been likened to snakes, savages, and mad dogs. Important government officials have referred to them as ‘viruses’ and ‘foreign entities’. And many important Buddhist leaders have fuelled this kind of sentiment using social media and anti-Muslim rallies. In Rwanda, the Tutsis were called “cockroaches,” and during WWII, Jews were compared to “vermin.”

One of the predominant causes of violence against minority groups is the belief that those of the minority group are lesser human beings; hate speech is a tool that helps fuel this belief. The complete dehumanization of the Rohingya has become commonplace throughout Burma and the region, and has infiltrated political and religious discourse.

What is the term Dehumanization?

Dehumanization refers to the process of stripping a person’s human traits and reducing him to a lesser value or treating him like an animal, vermin, insects or diseases. It amounts to deliberately degrading people by taking away their individuality. Dehumanization overcomes the normal human revulsion against murder. At this stage, hate propaganda in print and on hate radios is used to vilify the victim group. Governments, nation and political leaders often skillfully use dehumanization to manipulate the public. Enemies are projected as people less than human and worthy of punishment. As a result destroying or dehumanizing them is considered to be morally justifiable. Dehumanization ultimately leads to oppression and genocide.

According to Adama Dieng a UN Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, “Genocide begins with ‘dehumanization, the Holocaust did not start with the gas chambers and the Rwandan genocide did not start with the slayings. It started with the dehumanization of a specific group of persons.” 

Hence, Decolonization is a political process but dehumanization is a genocidal crime. Decolonization needs a political settlement but dehumanization needs combating and intervention. In combating the dehumanization, incitement to genocide should not be confused with protected speech. Genocidal societies lack constitutional protection for countervailing speech, and should be treated differently than democracies. Local and international leaders should condemn the use of hate speech and make it culturally unacceptable. Leaders who incite genocide should be banned from international travel and have their foreign finances frozen. Hate radio stations should be shut down, and hate propaganda banned. Hate crimes and atrocities should be promptly punished.

As repression in Burma continues unabated, it is reasonable to expect that calls for intervention will continue to be heard from around the world.

The willingness and ability of the international community to get involved will continue to be crucial elements in resolving Burma's problems. The political will of the UN must be regarded as a particularly important factor in determining how and when Burma will finally shed the burden of repressive rule. The creation of an independent international commission on intervention would be a promising move.

By Maryam Ramadan 

Al Jazeera

July 26, 2016

MA BA THA: WHO HATE THE ROHINGYA 

Concluded Part

Ma Ba Tha and Hate Speech

Aman Ullah 

RB Article

July 26, 2016

Genocide is often preceded and accompanied by widespread hate speech. The leaders who planned mass killings in the Holocaust, Rwanda, and Srebrenica disseminated ideologies of hatred to spur their followers to act, to cow bystanders into passivity, and to justify their crimes.

A campaign of hate speech that actively dehumanizes Muslims plays a key role in sustaining violence across Burma. This is not limited to the Rohingya, and in fact, anti-Muslim sentiment has evolved to the point that a range of anti-Muslim prejudices have now normalized in mainstream Burmese discourse. A tense inter-faith atmosphere has resulted in Muslim grievances finding an unreceptive ear even among many liberal and pro-democracy activists, and small triggers rapidly escalating into mob violence. The most recent such eruption was in Mandalay, Myanmar’s second-largest city, in July 2014, where a mob destroyed several Muslim businesses, and resulted in the deaths of two people. 

Burma’s Rohingya Muslims, one of the world’s most vulnerable minority groups, have frequently been likened to snakes, savages, and mad dogs. One of the predominant causes of violence against minority groups is the belief that those of the minority group are lesser human beings; hate speech is a tool that helps fuel this belief. In Rwanda, the Tutsis were called “cockroaches,” and during WWII, Jews were compared to “vermin.”

Many hate speech disseminators, including prominent monks of Ma Ba Tha and politicians, maintain Facebook accounts that cater to a large audience and publish original content on a regular basis. 

Monk Wirathu’s anti-Muslim tirades constitute some of the most flagrant examples of hate speech. He has compared Rohingya (whom he derogatorily refers to as illegal Bengalis) to African carp, which he describes as violent, cannibalistic, and rapidly breeding, and he preaches that Buddhists ought to be relieved of the “burden” of Burma’s minority Muslims.

Wirathu’s vitriolic hate speech has directly contributed to mass violence against various Muslim groups throughout Burma, including both Kaman and Rohingya Muslims in Arakan State, and Burmese Muslims in central Burma. Far from intervening in Wirathu’s anti-Muslim propaganda, Burmese President Thein Sein has defended him, censoring publications that criticized his bigotry and calling him the “son of Buddha.”

The UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Burma has documented how hate speech was wielded against Muslims via sermons and the distribution of videos and leaflets prior to the Meiktila violence in March 2013 that killed dozens of Muslims, including at least 32 schoolchildren. He also saw police intentionally failing to intervene during the first two days of violence to protect local Muslims and control the violent mobs.

Social media and mass protests in Burma have propagated hate speech against Muslims as well. Freedom House’s 2013 “Freedom on the Net” report noted that people in Burma are using Facebook as a tool to spread hate speech against Rohingya. At a February 3 protest in Arakan State, an Arakan crowd demanded that Rohingya be stripped of voting rights and access to humanitarian aid, and demanded that police forces be given authority to use force against Rohingya.

The previous Burmese government complicity endorses these public forms of hate speech, and it also actively supports hate speech by means of the legal code. Laws such as the 1982 citizenship law, which does not recognize Rohingya as citizens, propagate a legal discourse that says that Rohingya are not worthy of basic human rights. Other discriminatory policies against Rohingya include strict travel, construction, education, and marriage restrictions, denial of land ownership, and a two-child limit in certain areas of Arakan State.

The UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief writes in his December 26 report that in corrupt authoritarian political environments, one of the main remedies to hate speech is reconciliation through forums of discussion. 

It is important to note that what the Ma Ba Tha propagates is often not explicitly ‘hate speech.’ However, “Hate speech is [no longer] necessary in order to construct a narrative of Muslim threat.” Instead, a range of anti-Muslim fears and prejudices are so ingrained in Burmese Buddhist society today that many see a credible existential threat from a population that by most current estimates is unlikely to exceed 5 to 10 percent. This fear has significantly lowered the barrier for potential mass violence against Muslims by rationalizing a need to ‘protect the Burmese race and religion’ from imminent threat and mobilizing support behind a series of restrictive and discriminatory policy measures. The proliferation of anti-Muslim stereotypes and narratives has propelled sectarian tension where small triggers in the form of rumors and false information can quickly become ‘viral’ and incite mob violence. For example, the Meiktila riot of March 2013, which was one of the country’s worst incidences of sectarian violence, began with a petty brawl at a gold shop and resulted in at least 45 and up to 100 deaths, and 1,500 destroyed homes. 

There is no universal definition of hate speech. The American Bar Association defines it as, “Speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits.” Narrower definitions associate hate speech specifically with the incitement of violence. Harvard University’s Susan Benesch, who is one of the leading scholars on hate speech, coined the phrase “dangerous speech,” as examined in the context of mass violence, and identified it as, “Speech that has the potential to catalyze collective violence.” Her examination created a fairly simple framework to identify such speech and noted three framework components: “targeting a group of people, containing a call for action, and utilizing a dangerous speech hallmark”. Hallmarks of dangerous speech include comparing the targeted group to non-humans, as well as suggesting that they constitute a serious threat or that they are defiling a group’s integrity. 

As a way to distinguish speech that is offensive from speech that can lead to harm, Susan Benesch, the Edith Everett Fellow at the Center for the Prevention of Genocide, presented her research on how to recognize “dangerous speech,” a subset of hate speech that has been shown to lead to violence, including genocide, in past cases. Dangerous speech, she said, is often characterized by dehumanizing language; targeted populations are called “rats” or “cockroaches”—or other reviled vermin—as a way to justify violence against them.

In Burma, there is no shortage of outright hate speech directed against the Rohingya and other Muslim groups. This is especially true in unfiltered online discourse, where incitements to violence and deeply offensive and derogatory terms are common. However, even offline, various derogatory terms targeting Muslims are common in everyday speech, most notably kalar (a particularly derogatory term for Muslims), mus (a less derogatory term), and Bengali (a widely used term that is not strictly derogatory, but implies a lack of belonging in Myanmar). Many of these terms are regularly employed during violence. It is becoming increasingly clear that certain types of hate speech can serve as both a warning sign and a catalyst of genocide and mass atrocities. 

However, these hate speech campaign in Burma cannot be banned or remedied solely through inter-faith dialogues and seminars on cross-cultural understanding. These soft power strategies may be effective for long-term reconciliation, but in the short-term, the Burmese government must enforce justice and accountability measures to protect the rights of Rohingya.

Without justice and accountability measures, soft power strategies are powerless to stymie anti-Muslim violence and promote community and religious reconciliation. Hate speech will remain state-condoned. Burma must immediately provide legal redress for victims, arrest and prosecute perpetrators, and impartially investigate violent incidents.

CONCLUSION

After a year of dizzying gains, the Ma Ba Tha is entering a far more uncertain 2016. The November electoral outcome has come as a shock. The NLD landslide decimated the USDP, which had strongly allied itself with the Ma Ba Tha, and left no space for third-party candidates that had used religious nationalism as a central plank. The defeat is embarrassing to an organization whose key leaders had openly advocated against the NLD, but it may prove to have little material impact over the long run.

To date, the Ma Ba Tha has proven itself to be an adaptive organization. It learned from the mistakes of the 969 and is continually evolving and professionalizing its messaging, activities, and narrative dissemination. Today, the Ma Ba Tha has built a strong foundation of highly active and motivated monks who oversee a vast network of ground activities and partnerships, as well as a powerful communications and lobbying apparatus, all with proven results. The Ma Ba Tha is likely to continue to retain a significant base of support because its messaging endorses a range of anti-Muslim prejudices that resonate in the broader Burmese society. Much of what is considered ‘ultra-nationalist’ in the international media is closer to ‘center-right’ in Myanmar, and core Ma Ba Tha issues such as the denial of rights for the Rohingya, enjoy popular mainstream support. No electoral outcome or new government can easily change these deep-rooted prejudices, but it is possible to better understand their core themes and develop better counter-messaging and early warning strategies.

This is very likely that, the Ma Ba Tha is likely to remain a powerful force in Burma’s politics for some time to come despite the State Sangha Maha Nayaka Committee (Ma Ha Na) has recently disowned them. Furthermore, the organization is likely to remain centered around the guiding principles of its key personalities, which currently consist of anti-Muslim monks, such as Ashin Wirathu, Ashin Wimala, Ashin Parmoukkha, and other charismatic junior monks who are currently driving the message and overseeing Central Committee activities.. Several years of tolerance for their activities has made them powerful actors in their own right, but a concerted push by Myanmar’s government and senior and more measured members of the Sangha could begin to curb their excesses. 

(Concluded)