The more than 800,000 Rohingyas that live in Myanmar today, most in western Rakhine state, are denied citizenship by the government and face a range of abuses including forced labor, marriage restrictions, and unlawful detention. Their suffering is so severe that many have sought refuge across the border in Bangladesh, while others have fled on dangerous voyages by boat to Thailand and Malaysia. Amnesty International July 20 noted that both security forces and Buddhists in Rakhine state have been carrying out “primarily one-sided” attacks, including massive security sweeps, detentions, and killings, against the Rohingya in the weeks after a wave of communal violence erupted between the area’s Buddhist and Muslim populations.

During the recent communal violence, the country’s news outlets engaged in base fear-mongering, equating Rohingyas with “terrorists,” and the government did nothing to dispel these assertions. Officials and most commentators from Myanmar’s majority Burman ethnic group insisted that the Rohingyas are recent migrants from Bangladesh and do not qualify as one of the country’s roughly 135 ethnic minorities. Immigration Minister Khin Yi said this week that they will not be included in the country’s 2014 census. Popular Myanmar News Journal has reported that he told Bangladesh’s ambassador to Myanmar that Rohingyas are not citizens because they only began migrating to the country after 1824.

The impossible situation in which Rohingyas find themselves has been on display since the eruption of violence nearly two months ago. Many have attempted to flee to Bangladesh with their families, where they have been stopped at the border and refused entry. Those who made it across the border face detention and deportation back to Rakhine state. Myanmar’s president Thein Sein announced that only those Rohingyas with proof of citizenship would be permitted to return to their homes, but the government has long denied Rohingyas the right to legal documentation of any kind. The president said Myanmar will not accept “illegal immigrants” and has requested that the United Nations refugee agency either place the Rohingya in refugee camps or deport them to a third country, which the UN understandably refused.

On the opposition side, the widely respected Aung San Suu Kyi has avoided the subject. During her June trip to Europe, which coincided with the outbreak of communal violence in Rakhine state, she said only that the country must clarify its citizenship laws. Whether such clarification would embrace or dispossess the Rohingya was left unclear. In her first parliamentary speech July 25, Suu Kyi spoke of soaring poverty rates and other roots of violence in “ethnic states,” but did not mention the deadly violence in Rakhine state or the government’s treatment of Rohingyas. Other leaders of her National League for Democracy have made clear that they are of one mind with the government in declaring the Rohingya squatters on their own land.

Some international commentators argue that the opposition’s position is to be expected since the issue is politically sensitive and most citizens hold extremely hostile views toward the Rohingya. But that is no excuse for silence in the face of killing, rape, and abuse of a helpless people. Some have argued that Suu Kyi herself has her arms tied now that she is an elected member of parliament from a conservative district. This wildly underestimates the influence of “the Lady.” Suu Kyi is much more than a parliamentary opposition leader; she is the scion of the nation’s greatest hero, the symbol of resistance to what was until recently one of the world’s most repressive regimes, and to many of her countrymen a bodhisattva, one on the path to enlightenment and Buddhahood.

The government of Myanmar needs to snap out of its denial and confront the Rohingya issue head on. The nearly million Rohingyas in Myanmar are the country’s responsibility, and proper rights must be accorded to them. President Thein Sein should also have a frank and practical discussion about repatriation issues with his Bangladeshi counterpart during his upcoming visit to Dhaka.

Aung San Suu Kyi must break her silence on the issue. She cannot change the collective opinions of an entire country over night, but her voice is critical in getting the ball rolling. Even if the government tomorrow decreed the Rohingya citizens of Myanmar, most of the population would still see them as intruders. Only Suu Kyi’s opinion can carry enough weight with the Burman majority to make a dent in that prejudice.

The international community also should play a stronger role. It is encouraging that ASEAN secretary-general Surin Pitsuwan has taken a “personal interest” in the issue and spoke directly to Myanmar and Bangladesh during ASEAN meetings in Cambodia in July. However, the organization and its member states can do much more to facilitate a solution. A good opportunity will be at an upcoming international conference on the Rohingya in August, where progress can hopefully be made toward allowing access for aid that is currently being blocked by the government. The conference was announced by the Malaysian International Islamic Cooperation Institute, but the exact location remains undecided.

Other concerned actors ranging from the United States to the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) should also hold Myanmar’s feet to the fire on this issue since it remains an enormous blemish on the country’s path to reform. The United States and Europe have spent decades condemning the treatment of the country’s other minorities, particularly the Karen and, more recently, the Kachin. Their response to the plight of the Rohingya has been, by comparison, remarkably muted. At the very least, they should support the call by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights for an international inquiry into the widely reported abuses against the Rohingya by security forces in Rakhine state.

UN special rapporteur on human rights for Myanmar Tomas Ojea Quintana traveled to Rakhine state this week to assess the situation. He was told dismissively by Immigration Minister Khin Yi that “this is just a regional but not an international issue . . . so I don’t think the government will accept the call to open an inquiry as if this were an international issue.” The international community must make clear that the problem will not simply go away. The plight of the Rohingya may well constitute crimes against humanity, according to a June report by respected researchers at the Irish Center for Human Rights. Myanmar’s civilian government, its democratic opposition, the country’s neighbors, and the global community all have an obligation to confront this reality and ensure that it is rectified. (This Commentary first appeared in the August 2, 2012, issue of Southeast Asia from the Corner of 18th and K Streets.)

Gregory Poling is a research associate with the Southeast Asia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. Prashanth Parameswaran is a researcher with the CSIS Southeast Asia Program.

Commentary is produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).

Source here

Indeed, “Amnesty International and the Human Rights Watch have protested that instead of stopping the violence by the Rakhine gangs, the Burmese military has joined them in killing, setting thousands of homes on fire and conducting mass arrests of Muslims. President Thein Sein, lately being lionized by the West as a reformer, has a simple solution to the problem: Expel all the Rohingya or turn them over to the UN as refugees!” This statement leaves no doubt that, this massacre is indeed state sponsored. According to a New York based Human Rights Watch report, Myanmar security forces openly fire on Rohingya Muslims, committed rape and stood by to watch the Buddhists killing Muslims. According to this organization, Myanmar security forces have, “unleashed a campaign of violence and mass roundups against the Rohingya.” After the recent genocide of the Burmese Muslims, even United Nations considers that, Rohingya Muslims are, “one of the worlds’s most persecuted minorities.” UN resolution of 11 December 1946 declares, “genocide, whether committed in time of peace or war, is a crime under international law, and that all signatories of UN convention will cooperate to prevent genocide in order to liberate the mankind from such an odious scourge.”

Unfortunately, neither UNO nor the civilized world of 21st century has initiated any action or raised voice against this worst human massacre in Burma. All major world human rights organizations are silent, despite watching the horrific videos and pictures of this unprecedented genocide of Muslims at the hands of Buddhist terrorists. So much so, the Myanmar Pro-democracy western darling, Aung San Suu Kyi, did not condemned these acts of brutal killings of the Muslims by Burmese military and the Buddhist terrorist. This Nobel Prize winner said in a press conference in London that, “ethnic conflict plaguing the country” should be investigated and “dealt with wisdom.” She also believes that this Muslim community should be pulled out from the country.

Though Amnesty International has demanded the Myanmar Government and the Parliament to amend or repeal the 1982 Citizenship Law, so that, Rohingyas should get citizenship of a country, where they have lived for centuries. However, this is unlikely to happen. The reason is obvious, the Burmese Military Junta, the Buddhist Monks and civil political parties appears to be unanimous on this aspect that, Rhingyas Muslims have to be pulled out from Myanmar. UN Charter guarantees the basic right to live to all human beings. Rhingyas Muslims are living in Myanmar since centuries. How can they be dislodged from this country and which other country in the world will accept them as its citizens, if not acceptable to Myanmar.

The need of the hour is that, should not UNO, hold emergency session of either UNSC or UNGA over this Muslim massacre. Had there been any other religious entity affected, there would have been outcry all over the globe with possible UN (US) humanitarian intervention by now. Since US, EU and all major global players have their interests in the natural resources of Myanmar, thus, no one would like to displease the current ruling Junta, which is all set to bring democratic reforms, desired by US and West. On its part, Myanmar rulers found this most convenient time to unleash reign of terror on the Muslims of Burma, as it knew that, the so-called western and U.S human rights organizations will be mum along with their Governments. Nevertheless, the blood of Muslims is on sale, thus, everyone can shed it. Amazingly, together with rest of the world, Muslim Ummah has become insensitive too, which is a real tragedy.

Sources Here:

One photograph shows a Burmese monk in saffron robes, looking austere and intelligent in wireframe glasses. On his palm are the words "ROHINGYA NO," written in English. The Rohingya Muslims are an ethnic minority in Burma's western Rakhine state, and are considered by the United Nations to be among the world's most persecuted minorities. Since ethnic violence erupted last month, state-sanctioned and publicly supported oppression has driven thousands of Rohingya across the border into Bangladesh, where they are treated not as refugees but as illegal asylum seekers.Interviews with survivors in unofficial refugee camps describe how the Burmese army has systematically gone through villages, murdering men and raping women. To justify their actions, the Burmese government has attempted to portray the Rohingya as Muslim radicals, despite consistent lack of evidence, but the "anti-Rohingya campaign [also] wraps itself in calls for ethnic purity, defense of sovereignty, and protection of Buddhism."

Hannah Hindstrom at The Independent writes, "In recent days, [Buddhist] monks have emerged in a leading role to enforce denial of humanitarian assistance to Muslims, in support of policy statements by [Burmese] politicians." The same monks who campaigned against the brutal former regime are advocating against a stateless people, for what appears to be no other reason than their race and religion, "[failing] to practice compassion for all victims of violence." How can we make sense of this, and where do we go from here?

The history of eastern religions in the West is a strange and serendipitous one, where the experience of those faith traditions is often divorced from the cultural, historical, political and even religious contexts from which they emerged. Hinduism, Buddhism, Islamic Sufism and other faiths transformed in the crucible of cultural revolution that began half a century ago, taking on new relationships with race and class in the United States. Pop-spirituality, the secularization of meditation and yoga, and the democratization of spirituality have both enhanced our religious and spiritual landscape while simultaneously limiting what we know about global religion and culture.

At the same time, Islam and Muslims are frequently portrayed as the new enemy, Islamic lawcreeping into our courts, the Muslim Brotherhood infiltrating our government -- despite hard evidence indicating that American Muslims seek neither to impose sharia on Americans nor are they fomenting revolution. While this is evidence of a greater need for religious literacy, it also suggests some of the processes by which we construct categories of religions that are "good" and religions that are "bad."

The cognitive dissonance produced by Burmese monks actively preventing humanitarian aid from reaching one of the world's most persecuted minorities is real, and is worth picking apart. In the West, we conceive of certain religious groups as being inherently more "violent" or more "peaceful" or more "compassionate" than others. The victimization of Buddhists in Tibet at the hands of the Chinese state and the popularization of the Tibetan cause in American culture have uni-dimensionally reinforced the notion that Buddhists are, and can only be, nonviolent actors at the mercy of their oppressors.

My point is not to say that Buddhists aren't or can't be those things, but that all religious groups -- simply because they are made up of human beings -- are all of those descriptors while being none of them. The history of Buddhism is bloody, too. If we choose to frame history in terms of violent conflict and oppression, then the same can be said of Islam or any other belief system, including secularism.

Naturally, we can lob back and forth accusations of one religious group causing more suffering than another all day long and to no effect, entirely missing the point that the best of religious thought -- in Buddhism, Islam and elsewhere -- persistently demands compassion. Both Islam and Buddhism underscore that human nature and ego must be overcome through self-discipline and practiced compassion in order to become our best selves.

Cognitive dissonance generates questions. Ideally, stories like this can challenge us to think about one another in less monolithic, more nuanced ways. It allows us as news readers and members of pluralistic societies to complicate our understandings of The Other, whether that "Other" lives in another country or across the street. With greater attention, we can begin to be attuned to diversity and debate within religious traditions, both contemporary and historical, and to acknowledge that they are just as complicated as our own. The case of the Burmese monks also creates room for dialogue between Buddhists and Muslims, and reminds Muslims to be sensitive to the needs of vulnerable Muslim and non-Muslim ethnic and religious minorities in Muslim-majority countries. Lastly, the story opens spaces for Buddhists worldwide to put their faith into action on a global level, and to be a voice for compassion in Burma.
_________________________________________________________
Krystina Friedlander is the Senior Editor at islawmix, a project of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School. She is a co-founder of Beyond Halal, a project examining relationships between Islamic law, Islamic ethics, the treatment of animals, and ethical meat consumption. She is also a childbirth doula and women’s health advocate. She holds a B.A. in Middle Eastern Studies and Anthropology, and an M.A. in Cultural Anthropology from Tulane University in New Orleans, where her research focused on intersections between Islamic authority, new media, and emerging virtual publics. A New Orleanian at heart, she currently lives in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
 

Follow on twitter @yallayagirl, @islawmix and @beyondhalal

This is perplexing. When the Pope lectures the world about morality, few non-Catholics pay attention. When Ayatollah Khamenei of Iran instructs the world about good and evil, most people who aren’t Shiite Muslims just shrug. But Buddhist leaders are given more respect, because most people think that Buddhism really is a religion of tolerance and peace.

When the Dalai Lama speaks out about injustice, people listen. Most of them don’t share his beliefs, and they probably won’t act on his words, but they listen with respect. But he hasn’t said anything at all about what is happening to the Rohingyas — and neither has any other Buddhist leader of note.

To be fair, the Dalai Lama is Tibetan, not Burmese, but he is not usually so reserved in his judgments. As for Burma’s own Buddhist monks, they have been heroes in that nation’s long struggle against tyranny — so it’s disorienting to see them behaving like oppressors themselves.

Buddhist monks are standing outside the refugee camps in Arakan, turning away people who are trying to bring food and other aid to the Rohingyas. Two important Buddhist organizations in the region, the Young Monks’ Association of Sittwe and the Mrauk U Monks’ Association, have urged locals to have no dealings with them. One pamphlet distributed by the monks says Rohingya Muslims are “cruel by nature.”

And Aung Sang Suu Kyi, the woman who spent two decades under house arrest for defying the generals — the woman who may one day be Burma’s first democratically elected prime minister — has declined to offer any support or comfort to the Rohingyas either.

Recently a foreign journalist asked her whether she regarded Rohingyas as citizens of Burma. “I do not know,” she prevaricated. “We have to be very clear about what the laws of citizenship are and who are entitled to them.”

If she were honest, she would have replied: “Of course the Rohingyas are citizens, but I dare not say so. The military are finally giving up power, and I want to win the 2015 election. I won’t win any votes by defending the rights of Burmese Muslims.”

Nelson Mandela, with whom she is often compared, would never have said anything like that, but it's a failure of courage on her part that has nothing to do with her religion. Religious belief and moral behavior don’t automatically go together, and nationalism often trumps both of them. So let’s stop being astonished that Buddhists behave badly and just consider what’s really happening in Burma.

The ancestors of the Rohingyas settled in the Arakan region between the 14th and 18th centuries, long before the main wave of Indian immigrants arrived in Burma after it was conquered by the British empire during the 19th century. By the 1930s the new Indian arrivals were a majority in most big Burmese cities, and dominated the commercial sector of the economy. Burmese resentment, naturally, was intense.

The Japanese invasion of Burma during the World War II drove out most of those Indian immigrants, but the Burmese fear and hatred of “foreigners” in their midst remained, and it then turned against the Rohingyas. They were targeted mainly because they were perceived as “foreigners”, but the fact that they were Muslims in an overwhelmingly Buddhist country made them seem even more alien.

The Rohingyas of Arakan were poor farmers, just like their Buddhist neighbors, and their right to Burmese citizenship was unquestioned until the Burmese military seized power in 1962. However, the army attacked the Rohingya and drove some 200,000 of them across the border into Bangladesh in 1978, in a campaign marked by widespread killings, mass rape and the destruction of mosques.

The military dictator of the day, Ne Win, revoked the citizenship of all Rohingyas in 1982, and other new laws forbade them to travel without official permission, banned them from owning land, and required newly married couples to sign a commitment to have no more than two children. Another military campaign drove a further quarter-million Rohingyas into Bangladesh in 1990-91. And now this.

On Sunday former general Thein Sein, the transitional president of Burma, replied to UN human rights chief Navi Pillay: “We will take responsibilities for our ethnic people but it is impossible to accept the illegally entered Rohingyas who are not our ethnicity.” Some other country must take them all, he said.

But the Rohingyas did not “enter illegally”, and there are a dozen “ethnicities” in Burma. What drives this policy is fear, greed and ignorance — exploited, as usual, by politicians pandering to nationalist passions and religious prejudice. Being Buddhist, it turns out, doesn’t stop you from falling for all that. Surprise.

— Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.