Who are the Rohingya? Contested claims of their origin.
WHO ARE THE ROHINGYA?
Figure : Map of Rakhine (former Arakan) state of Myanmar
(Source : Map of Rakhine State-Wikipedia)
The question is simple, but answering it is complex. The Rohingya are an ethnic, religious, and linguistic minority group from the northern Rakhine state (Harvard Divinity School, 2021). They are distinct from the major Burman group and share cultural traits that are more similar to those of South Asia (Matisoff, 2023). The Rohingya are predominantly Muslims who claim to be the descendants of Indo-Aryans but assert their indigeneity to western Myanmar, having lived there since precolonial times (Blakemore, 2019). However, their origin and identity are highly debated among scholars.
C. R. Abrar citing Nicolaus (1995) argues that the influx of Muslim traders from Afghanistan, India, Persia, Turkey, and the Arabian Peninsula merged with the previous Muslim community to form the Rohingya community, which brought about a distinct dialect known as the Rohingya language. It is worth mentioning that the Rohingya language shares similarities with the Chittagongian language in Bangladesh (M. Rahman, 2018).
The Rohingya population is widely regarded as one of the most oppressed groups globally. (UNHCR, 2021). They have been subjected to decades of ‘structural and direct violence’ in Myanmar, being denied citizenship rights, freedom of movement, and other basic rights that amount to genocide and crimes against humanity (A. A. Rahman & Rahman, 2019). Moreover, the Myanmar military and the majority of Buddhists typically view them as ‘terrorists’ and ‘illegal immigrants’ (Walton & Jerryson, 2021). Instances of the influx of people into present-day Bangladesh predate modern state formation, dating back to as early as 1796 (Albert, 2017). Since the establishment of Myanmar based on the Westphalian System, the Rohingya people have experienced various forms of direct, systemic, and structural violence and persecution, which have forced them to flee their homeland on several occasions. Some of the major instances of displacement occurred in 1948, 1978, 1991, 1992, 2012, 2016, and the most recent and massive wave in 2017 (UNHCR, 2021).
CONTESTED CLAIMS OF ROHINGYA'S ORIGIN
History is contentious; it is almost always debated and formulated. Where we start our account of history is essentially political. Since history is a product of human creation, it can never be objective or neutral because the author's structure or worldview always influences it.
Essentially, it is politics that dictates where we start our history, what we want to include, and what we deliberately exclude from our narrative. To portray a picture of the emergence and history of the Rohingya is a critical task of political narration. At this juncture, a quote from Edward Said’s Orientalism (1978) about how “Knowledge, …….[is]used to justify the difference between classes, races, sexes, and nations” becomes especially relevant. Since the formation of “Burma” in the 1947 constitution, the Rohingya community has been “denied citizenship, freedom of movement, access to education, health care, and other basic rights” (Abrar, 1995). Furthermore, they are subjected to ‘religious persecution’ as a Muslim minority in the country (Abrar, 1995). The justification of these heinous acts of violence and discrimination has connotations in the history and emergence of the Rohingya. Myanmar’s government, whether military, civilian, military-civilian, or autocratic, has held that the Rohingya are ‘illegal Pakistani’ and later ‘illegal Bengali immigrants living in the territory of Myanmar (Abrar, 1995; Sohel, 2017). Prompting this narrative is the general belief among the Myanmar population, among a few other minority groups along with the major Burman population, that they are indeed ‘illegal Bengali migrants’(Leider, 2018). Whether this resulted from years of ‘brainwashing’ or ‘propaganda’ or resentment for the special patronage of the earlier colonialists is a matter of debate. This imputed identity is not in concert with the version of history the Rohingya ascribe to themselves, and this provides our premise. The literature regarding the Rohingya’s ascribed identity to themselves refers to various places, times, and historical timelines.
Although this study is not free from the above-mentioned preconceptions and historical structures, I strive to portray an accurate version of their emergence. To provide a credible historical account of their emergence and to examine all the claims of their background and context, I will try to briefly review the most relevant postulations of their origin and development.
The state of Arakan is imbued with the history of Rohingya. Arakan (present-day Rakhine) is the long stretch of land in the South-West of Myanmar at the crossroads between South and East Asia (Abrar, 1995; Hasan et al., 2022). The name Arakan has both Persian and Arabic origins, while the name ‘Rekkha Pura’ was given to Arakan by ancient Buddhist preachers (Mohajan, 2019). The state of Rakhine extends 560 km from the coast of Bangladesh to Irawaddi state in Myanmar (Sultana Niti, 2020). It is often described as a ‘special case’ as it was neither included in the mainland nor Burma proper (Uddin, 2012). Rather, many historical accounts refer to it as ‘extended Bengal’ (Uddin, 2012). The major ethnic group in the region is the Rakhines, also known as the Arakanese. The Rakhines are an ethnic group constituting 6% of Myanmar’s population (Sultana Niti, 2020). The bulk of Arakanese Scholars contend that Arayans from the West first settled in the area, while others maintain that the Tibeto-Burman group were the first settlers in the area (Maung, 1989).
The coastal region of Arakan in present-day Myanmar has been a site of conflict and migration for centuries. However, starting from the 7th century up until the 14th century, traders from a range of geographical locations stopped at the coast of Arakan on their voyages to China and Southeast Asia and settled in the region (Tha, 1965). It is claimed that the region was then introduced to Islam and impacted by various cultures drawn from Arabs, Moors, Persians, and Turks, who formed the staple of these voyagers. Reflecting the common trend of a voyage in that era, they traversed the area principally for three reasons: proselytizing, trade, and to conquer or wage war.
This is one of the several periods where many Rohingya trace their ancestral origins. It is noteworthy that the historical evidence of the claims before the 15th century Arakan is scarce and disputed, but not negligible (Galen, 2008). This claim is not widely accepted and is sometimes vehemently opposed by the Myanmar government, which holds that Rohingya’s origins before 1824 are obsolete, and the major Muslim group that ties to this supposed claim are the Kaman ethnic groups (Blakemore, 2019). A significant observation to make here is that the Kaman group is also a Muslim population in Myanmar, who, unlike the Rohingya, share similar cultural traits with the major Burman group and are included in the nation’s 135 official ethnic groups which attribute Citizenship to the Kamans (Leider, 2018, Chapter 9).
Another source of the claim of Rohingya’s emergence refers to the period between the 13th and 19th centuries (B B C News, 2017a). These are claims that as early as the 10th century AD( specifically since the 13th century) to 1580, Arkan was under the influence of the Muslim Sultanate of Bengal (Galen, 2008). This is a period where many Rohingya and historians claim their origin (Farzana, 2017). Along with previous claims, these are also repressed and denied by the Myanmar government. This claim is expanded by the bunch, who claim that they are descendants of Arab traders from the 18th century. Further, it is supplemented by the claim that the word “Rohingya” which is thought to derive from the Arabic word Rahm, which signifies mercy (Mohajan, 2019). There are significant stories that go along that Arab settlers settled on the Ramree Island of Myanmar. Some versions state that the Arakanese monarch caught the traders when their ship ran aground on the island and gave the order to have them killed (Sohel, 2017). The merchants then shouted "Rahma" in a cry for forgiveness, which eventually became the name of the area and the populace. While other historians claim that the Arakanese king welcomed these traders, granted them important posts, and let them intermarry with the native populace and the traders altered the region's culture and language while also introducing Islam (Sohel, 2017).
Further dispersing and complicating the claims to origin, some state they are descendants of slaves that were brought in the 16th century(Abrar, 1995). During the 16th century, the Arakanese learned the basics of sailing techniques through interactions with Portuguese settlers, who were engaged in piracy along the coast of the present-day Bay of Bengal(Abrar, 1995). They brought slaves from lower Bengal, who were then used as slaves for farming and other labor. Although the Arakanese and Rohingyas refer to these enslaved people as Heins, which means low-caste, Nicolaus suggests that they identify as Rohingyas(Abrar, 1995).
Mohajan (2019) infers that the origin of the word “Rohingya” is the Ruha people, who came from Afghanistan. He further suggests that the word “Rohingya” could be derived from the Sanskrit word “Roh”, meaning “mountain”, from a mountainous region in northwest India called Roh.
Some historians and activists suggest that the Rohingya identity is a political invention and a play of identity politics based on a common religious identity. They argue that the term was coined by Muslim leaders in the 1950s who were in Rakhine State and sought an autonomous Muslim region and political rights (Tha Hla, 2009). They assert that the Rohingya do not constitute a distinct ethnic group but rather a collection of different Muslim groups that migrated primarily from Bengal and other regions at different times. This has some similarity with Nicolaus’ suggestion that the Rohingya “are the descendants of Muslim Arabs, Moors, Persians, Turks, Mughals, and Bengalis who came mostly as traders, warriors, and saints through overland and sea routes” that morphed to form the Rohingya community (Abrar, 1995).
According to Mohajan (2019), there exists a classification of Muslims residing in Arakan that may be divided into four distinct groupings.
- The Chittagonian Bengalis who currently reside on the Mayo Frontier region.
- The descendants of the Muslim community of Arakan during the Mrauk-U Period (1430–1784) who currently inhabit the Mrauk-U and Kyauktow townships.
- The offspring of the Arab mercenaries originating from Ramree Island.
- The Muslim population from the Myedo area of Upper Burma who chose to remain in Arakan subsequent to the Burmese conquest in 1784.
The military junta of Myanmar makes a claim that is distinct from all others. The government of Myanmar asserts that the Rohingya people do not possess indigenous status in Myanmar but are rather ‘illegal migrants’ from Bengal who have no historical or legal claim to citizenship or political rights (OHCHR, 2023). They further deny that the word Rohingya has a historical or linguistic origin in Rakhine State. Contrary to Myanmar’s claim, there are indeed many historical remnants of the Rohingya people’s origins in the region before 1824 (Smith, 2021).
As Arakan has been a crossroads between kingdoms and cultures for centuries, historically, the region, along with parts of present-day Bangladesh, has changed hands quite a lot between Assam, Bengal, and Arakan rulers (Hasan et al., 2022). Within the lenses of constructivism, porous borders can shape the identities and norms of states by allowing them to exchange and adopt ideas from each other. In this case, it can thus be said that cultures and kingdoms are not static or predefined units with fixed interests but rather social agents that are affected by their relations with others. Consequentially, the interaction has considerably altered the culture of the region to make it more South Asian than other parts of Burma, especially the north-western part of Arakan (Barnett, 2018). It is significant, however, that the region had the most interaction with the West, now Bangladesh, which, argumentatively in theory, poses threat to the modern concept of nation-state for Myanmar.
I find that the Rohingya’s search and struggle for independence and resistance to Burman rule can at least be traced to the 16th century (Abrar, 1995). Until the 16th century, Arakan was an independent Kingdom, made unstable by King Chandrasudharma’s death in 1684. However, until the period when Arkan was conquered and put under Burman kingship, the Muslims in the region had considerable influence in the ‘making and overthrowing’ of kings in the region (Abrar, 1995). Recounting the historical work of Phayre (1884) Chowdhury says that Arakan was a sovereign kingdom until 1784 AD (Abrar, 1995, p. 23). It is one of the period that the Rohingya assertion of their political rights was threatened. The Burmans were ruthless in their pursuit of Arakan and futile attempts at breaking the Burman rule since 1985 were met with ruthless and murderous reprisals. The onset of such ruthless reprisal led to the first influx from Arakan to British-administered Bengal, as the settlers of the present Cox’s Bazar area are thought to be descendants from this period. Even the name of the region derives from the superintendent of rehabilitation of refugees Hiram Cox (Abrar, 1995). The incorporation of Arakan into the Burman kingdom juxtaposed it with British India. The refugees that settled in the region waged guerilla warfare against the Bhama King and provoked Burmese incursions into British Indian territory which culminated in the start of a spiral of three separate wars. In the 1st Anglo-Burmese War(1824-26) the British annexed Arakan and Tennasserim (Pollak, 1974). It ended with the Treaty of Yandaboo (Pollak, 1974). The 2nd Anglo-Burmese War (1852 –1853) followed after Burma allegedly violated the Yandaboo treaty, in which the British annexed the Pegu province, the entire lower Burma (Pollak, 1974). The 3rd Anglo-Burmese War erupted in 1885 with British suspicion of emerging relations between the French and Burma, chiefly on account of the underlying British desire to complete the annexation of Burma (Pollak, 1974). Through the 3rd War, the British gained control over the entire Burma. In these wars, the British were aided in their pursuit by the Rohingya. The Rohingya received education and employment opportunities in colonial administration, police, and the military; they received land grants in exchange for their loyalty and service (Albert, 2017; M. R. Islam et al., 2020). There was widespread resentment among the other ethnic groups in Myanmar, who viewed the Rohingya as traitors and foreigners. The British ruled Myanmar within British India up until 1937, when it became a separate colony. However, the Rohingya equation became a strategic priority to the British with Japanese incursions in the area during the 2nd World War as “the Rohingya were loyal to the British, rendering valuable services in work units, reconnaissance, and espionage, while their Buddhist counterparts, the Rakhines, look the side of the Japanese” (Abrar, 1995, p. 6). There is a wrangling of viewpoints in the literature over the assertion that the Rakhines were pro-Japanese and the Rohingyas were pro-British during the war and that both groups committed massacres against each other (Sarkar, 2019). Some sources state that the Rohingyas were loyal to the British and received arms and training from them, while the Rakhines and other Burmese nationalists welcomed the Japanese invasion as a way of ending British colonial rule (Sarkar, 2019). However, it may also be argued that both the Rakhines and Rohingyas were subjected to the consequences of British divide and rule strategies as well as Japanese empire expansionist aspirations that later continued through the military regime's Burmanization policies.
In 1948, Burma got its independence from the British (Saha, 2001). As decolonization of former colonies was often hectic and, on many occasions, left matrices of violence along ethnic and religious lines. In the case of Myanmar, as it later turned out, it left out genocidal intent, which started unfolding with the military regime. Abrar, citing Yeager, claims that during the second world war the British promise the Rohingya an autonomous region in return for their assistance, which the British had no intention of fulfilling. Although this was never officially confirmed or fulfilled by the British (Abrar, 1995).
As previously mentioned, the Second World War created a rift between the Arakan and the Rohingya people. In 1949, U Nu assumed the position of prime minister (M. M. Rahman, 2017). Despite his prior role as the foreign minister of Ba Maw's pro-Japanese government during the war, he demonstrated a departure from his previous association by recognizing the Rohingya as an ethnic minority within Myanmar. (Rohingya History, 2018). In 1960, before being re-elected to office, he promised state status to the Arakan Party, which represented the Arakanese Buddhists. This was opposed by the Rohingya people, who had fought against the pro-Japanese force and historically held animosities against the Arakanese Buddhists (Ibrahim, 2016; Uddin, 2021).
To resolve this conflict, Burmese health minister Sultan Mahmud of U Nu’s government, elected as an MP from Buthidaung North, proposed a state for the Muslims of ‘Bengali origin’ in the northern part of Arakan, where the Rohingya were concentrated (Uddin, 2021). He proposed the utilization of the Kaladan River as the demarcation line between the Arakan regions with a Muslim majority and those with a Buddhist majority. Subsequently, the idea was formally presented to the Statehood Consultative Committee. Mahmud posited that individuals of Bengali descent who identify as Muslims would be amenable to the notion of a unified state alongside Arakanese Buddhists, provided that sufficient safeguards and inclusive political representation were in place. In the event that sufficient safeguards were unattainable, Mahmud suggested the direct administration of a distinct northern Arakan zone from the country's capital, Rangoon (Rohingya History, 2018).