"Is Muslim population (Rohingya) in Arakan a relatively recent development?"

Written by Kaladan News
Published: 19 July 2007

“The Muslims have entered Arakan mostly during the British times and after the independence of Burma- Myth or Fact examine"
Abdus Samad, Australia

Introduction

We the Rohingyas of Arakan firmly believe that the arrival of the Rohingya in Arakan has predated the arrival of many people and races in Arakan and other parts of Burma and that the Rohingyas are natives of Arakan and constitute one of the many indigenous races of Burma. Our conviction is that we have our own history, culture, civilization, language and literature, settled territorial area and a sizeable population, we are distinct from other sectors of the society. We the Rohingyas are also determined not only to preserve and develop our ancestral history and our ethnic identity but also to transmit it to our future generations as the basis of our continued existence as a people in Arakan.

Historical Points on Rohmgya's Ancestry

The area known as North Arakan had been for many years before the 8^th century the seat of Hindu dynasties. In 788 AD a new dynasty, known as the Chandras, founded the city of Wesali; this city became a noted trade port to which as many as a thousand ships came annually; the Chandra kings were upholdedrs of Buddhism, their territory extended as far north as Chitlagong, Wesali was an easterly kingdom of Bengal. Both government and people are Indian. In support of this D.G.E. Hall also mentions, "The Burmese do not seem to have settled in Arakan until possibly as late as 10~ century AD. Hence earlier dynasties are thought to have been Indian, ruling over a population similar to that of Bengal. All the capitals known to history have been in the north near Akyab.1

The Arab Muslims first came into contact with Arakan through trade and commerce during the 8^th century AD. In the Arakanese chronicles it is recorded that during the reign of king Mahatyaing Chandra (780-810) several kula or foreign ships were wrecked upon the island of Rarnree, and the people who boarded on them were said to be Muslims. These ship wrecked Muslim sailors settled in the villages of Arakan as the Arakanese king ordered when they were taken before him.2

There are frequent references to the Arab-Muslim settlers in coastal regions of Arakan from the 8^th century onward. To quote: "To the maritime Arabs and Persians the various ports of the land of Burma , and specifically the coastal regions of Arakan ...were well known. Naturally, therefore, when from the 8^th century onwards, Muslim traders and navigators were spreading over the eastern seas from Egypt and Madagascar to China, and forming settlements at points of vantage, the coastal regions of Arakan and Burma were not over looked."3

With the passing of time, the number of Muslims in Arakan began to increase. Gradually, these Muslims have established very good and cordial relations with the local people and inter-mixed by marrying local women. It was a long established custom that foreign residents and even visitors to Arakan and Burma, either by ship-wreck or for commercial reasons, were encouraged to from matrimonial alliances with the women of the country, but on the strict condition that when they left the country their wives and children might not be taken away with them. They differ but little from the Arakanese except in their religion and in the social customs which their religion directs; in writing they use Burmese, but amongst themselves employ colloquially the language of their ancestors.4

Muslim merchants from Arabia, Iraq, Persia and other regions of central Asia had started coming to Chittagong from the 9^th century and some of them settled there for commercial purposes. Along with them Muslim preachers and saints, who penetrated deep into the country and proceeded down the coast to Arakan, which also had a Muslim settlement.5 These sufi saints used to call the masses to the fold of Islam and their influence in this region is deep rooted. The spread of Mohamadanism which by 13 century had dotted the coast from Aassam to Malaya with curious mosques known as Badr mokarn and other places of famous saints. The shrines of Babazi Shah Monayam of Ambari and Badr Mokarn situated on the coast of the Bay of Bengal at Akyab bear evidence of the arrival of Muslim saints in Arakan in the early period of history.6

Even anterior to 1784 AD the Arakanese kings had been taking people captives from Bengal and horded them away to Arakan. Chittagong rose in rebellion once in 1128 AD. The Arakanese went there and put down the rebellion. Again in 1246 AD Chittagong rose in rebellion once more. This time the Arakanese going up to Lauchipura not only quelled the rebellion but also captured and carried 47500 peoples as captives to Arakan. Bengal became Muslim in 1203 and consequently all these captives were said to be Kulas or Muslims.7

Actually Arakan served to a large extent as a bridgehead for Muslim penetration to other parts of Burma since from 9^th century AD although the Muslims never attained the same degree of importance as they did in Arakan.8 Arabs gave Arakan its name, and their influence continued into the 17^th century. They named rivers and islands - Kaladan, Kala- Pansi, Naaf, Rarnree Island, Chaduba Island - and built a port city they called Akyab, the "place where a river meets the sea." Most important contribution to the Rohingyas' identity and extension in Arakan came as a consequence of the Burman invasion of Arakan in 1406. Narameikhia, king of Arakan (1404-1434) was forced to flee the Burmese to Gaur, the capital of Bengal where he took refuge and stayed for 24 years. In 1429-1430 Sultan Nasiruddin Shah of Gaur sent 20,000 troops under Gen. Wali Khan to drive off the Burmans and the Mons and restored Narameikhia. A year later, at the request of king Narameikhia, the Gaur king dispatched another 30,000 troops, this time under Gen. Sandi Khan, to disarm Gen. Wall Khan. Narameikhia succeeded in re-conquering Arakan, took the title of Solaiman Shah, founded a dynasty and built a new city, Mrohaung also called Mrauk-U which remained the capital until 1784- 85 when Arakan was conquered by Burma. For 100 years from 1430 -1530, Arakan paid tribute to Muslim Bengal and learned its history and politics. Contact with the people of Gaur had a significant impact on Rohingya life. The foundation of the Rohingyas' unique culture and traditions was laid. Rohingya writers and poets wrote their history in their own language. Muslim influence in Arakan, then, may be said to date from 1430, the year of Narameikhia's return. As a result of the close land and sea ties between the two countries which continued to exist for a long time thereafter, the Muslims played a decisive role in the history of the Arakan kingdom.9

Arakanese kings introduced and adopted the system of coins bearing kalima as used in Bengal since the Muslim conquest of 1203. Arakan kings also adopted Muslim names and titles which they received form Bengal sultans. Nine kings received Muslim titles. Even after becoming independent of the Bengal sultan, the Arakan kings continued the custom of using the Muslim title in addition to the Burmese or Pali title. This was because they not only wished thought of as sultans in their own right, in imitation of the Moghuls, but also because there were Muslims in ever-large numbers among their subjects. Court ceremonies and administrative methods followed the customs of the Gaur and Delhi Sultanates. Muslims also held eminent posts despite the fact that the kingdom remained Buddhist.10

From early 17^th to end of the 18^th centuries there were regular Arakan-Portuguese raids and forays on Bengal and the capture and enslavement of prisoners was one of the most lucrative types of plunder. Half of the prisoners taken by the Portuguese and all the artisans among them were given to the king; the rest were sold on the market or forced to settle down in the villages near Mrohaung. In 1644 alone, the army of Narapatikri (1638-1645) brought about 60,000 Bengalis who were resettled in Arakan as royal service groups. Quite a big number of these captives were Muslims. The Muslim slaves retained their religion whereas the captive Hindus hastened to assimilate among the Buddhists of Arakan. Some of these captive slaves were settled in special areas guarded by Muslim soldiers. This captive Muslim population of the country alone form about 15% of the whole population. A. P. Phayre mentions, "the Mossalmans, are of an entirely different race being of Bengalee descent."11

In 1660-61 the Magul prince Shah Shudja fled to Arakan to take refuge. This event brought a new wave of Muslim immigrants to the kingdom of Arakan, which also gave rise to the influence, character and number of the Rohingya in the kingdom. When Shah Shuja was chased by Aurangzeb, he and his family and thousands of his soldier followers fled from Dacca to Chittagong. Sandathudama, king of Arakan,(1652-1687) granted him permission to continue to Mrohaung and gave a dwelling near the town. Shah Shuja was murdered and those of his followers who escape the massacre were later admitted into the king's special archers unit. Writers and poets appeared amongst the Aerakanese Muslims specially during the 15^th to 16^th centuries and there were even some Muslim court poets at the courts of the Arakanese kings. These poets and writers wrote in Persian, Arabic or in the mixed language, Rohinga, which they developed among themselves and was a mixture of Bengali, Persian, Urdu and Arakanese. These artists also developed the art of calligraphy. The Muslim who came to Arakan brought with them Arab, Magul and especially Bengalese music and musical instruments. Persian songs are sung by Arakanese Muslims to this day. That is how the Rohingyas preserved their own heritage from the impact of the Buddhist environment, not only as far as their religion is concerned but also in some aspect of their culture.12

Dr.Than Htun former Professor of History, Rangoon University and member of the Burma Historical Research Commission wrote: The kings of Arakan had Muslim titles. The Muslim kings mentioned in the inscription might be Rohingya, from the Mayu River, the eastern part of the Naf River, who claimed over thousand of years of their existence. Their existence might be from the time of 1202 CE when the Muslim conquered Bengal that is 800 years ago. ln the Kyaukza or stone inscription of 1442, it was written that some Muslim kings of Arakan were the friends of king of Ava. They used to visit Ava.13

Bodowpaya's 40 years of rule over Arakan was marked with untold tyranny and cruelty. Two-thirds of the inhabitants of Arakan were said to have been deserted their native land. About half of the population of Arakan fled to Chittagong to escape Bunnan persecution. At the lime of invasion the population was around 250,000 which steadily lost up to 50% as mentioned by both G.E. Harvey and H. Bumey. Mr. Robertson, the first British civil ruler of Arakan, reported Arakanese population in 1824 was around 100,000 out of which 60000 Arakanese Buddhists, 30000 Arakanese Muslims and 10000 Burmans. 14

The above historical facts are clearly revealing the fact that the present day Rohingyas in the Akrakan state of Burma are the direct progeny of those early Muslim settlers as an indigenous ethnic race. They are the descendants of the Arabs, Persians, Turks, Mughals,Moors, Pathans, and Bengalis who came mostly as traders, saints, prisoners of wars) preachers, warriors, sailors, artisans, court poets, royal guards, and administrators through over-land and sea-route since from the 8^th century AD. Rohingyas (the word comes from Rohang, the old name of Arakan) were the kingmakers of Arakan for more than 350 years. Theirs was the imperial power from which the Burmans (Bodowpaya ) took over on December 28,1784.15
Many words, usages and vocabularies found in Burmese transliteration of the 8^th century Anandasanda Stone Pillar inscription in Mrauk-U are exactly the same or close to Rohingya words and vocabularies in one hand and on the other they have no similarity at all with Rakhine vocabularies and usages. This testifies the native indigenous status in Arakan of the Rohingyas. Besides, in the inscription the name of Arakan (country) was written "Arakandesh". (Dr. Saw Tun Aung: Shittaung Phara Stone Pillar's Nothem side Inscription, Rakhaine Welfare Association’s 25 Anniversary Magazine, pp 48-53) Arakandesh is simply a Rohingya word and usage and not the Rakhaine usage. They call it ‘Rakhaing Pray’. Here one may reach to a conclusion that the Rohingya existence preceded the Rakhaine existence in Arakan and the word Arakanese attributed to the Rakhaine alone is contrary to evidence.16

We also read that the Rakhaing are of Mongoloid stock, sprung from the Tibeto-Buirnan group along with the Burmese and other proto-Burmese races who migrated from central Asia. D.G.E. Hall mentions, "the Burmese do not seem to have settled in Arakan until possibly as late as 10^th century A.D." The Mongolian invasion of Vethali in 957 put an end to the Chandra dynasty in Arakan. The invasion brought a number of Tibeto- Burmans who created the Mongoloid stock known as the Rakhaing Arakanese. The date 957 may be said to mark the appearance of the Rakhaing in Arakan and the beginning of a fresh period. Whereas, in contrast one can trace the settlement in Arakan of the ancestors of Rohingyas during the reign of Arakanese king Mahatying Chandra (780-810) A.D.17

It is unclear from whence the terms 'Rohingya ' and 'Rakhaine' were originally derived. Probably the terms were not mutually exclusive ethnonyms. Either one could have derived from the other. There is phonetic proximity between Rahan, Rohang, Rakan, Arakan and Rohingya and Rakhaing. But it is crystal clear that the term 'Rohingya' is not the creation of the colonial period. Francis Buchanan, who was, in 1795, attached as surgeon to the British Embassy in Ava, the capital of Burma wrote: "I shall now add three dialects, spoken in the Burma Empire. The first is that spoken by the Mohammadans, who have long been settled in Arakan and who call themselves Roainga or native of Arakan." Francis Bchanan, "The Languages of Burma", Asiatic Researches (Calcutta) vol.5, 1801

The SLORC/ SPDC governments bring forth the issue of 135 indigenous races in Burma, some of whom consists of only a few hundreds people. Kuki-Chin, Naga in the west, Myaung Ze, Lisu, Ging Paw in the north, Wa, Kokang in the east despite their ethnic majority across the borders, have been designated as indigenous. Even in Arakan Baruwa(Marma), and Chakma who are similar in every respect with their ethnic majority across the border are designated as indigenous. This logic or norm is not applied to the Rohingyas in spite of their long history in Arakan.

Let me touch on the subject of the British era settlers. As we know Arakan, Bengal and Burma were three different sovereign countries which were colonized by the same master the British. There were no political borders at all between them under the colonial rule. This situation enabled the migration of tens of thousands of Burmans/Burmese from Burma into Arakan as well as the Chittagonians from Bengal. It is observed that the Burman/ Burmese migrants into Arakan of the colonial era have been well received and absorbed by the main stream population of Arakan with no objection or any difficulty. Keeping this precedence in view, I may argue that the Chittagonian migrants into Arakan of the colonial period may also be received and absorbed by the main stream population of Arakan. After all, it was not us who took them in; our master the Britishers brought them in.

We may find many contradictions to this SLORC/SPDC propaganda gimmick against the Rohingyas. Even some of their administrative agency reports and records prove that this propaganda gimmick is a myth. For example, ARAKAN DIVISIONAL SECURITY AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE'S BRIEF HISTORY 1974 page 40: recorded that there were 1192 foreigners in Arakan in 1972. Again in ARAKAN STATE PEOPLE'S COUNCIL 2^ND THREE MONTHLY REPORT 1975-76 the number of foreigners in Arakan was reported 1037 person only. If the SLORC/SPDC postulate is not a myth their local administration agencies would have found tens of thousands of foreigners in Arakan state. Why around a thousand only? Again if that postulate is true, why the successive military governments took back more than two hundred thousands refugees each time in 1978 and 1992 Rohingya exodus? The repatriation of these refugees by the SLORC/SPDC governments manifests the Muslim population, Rohingya, are age long old native residents in Arakan and bonafide citizens of Burma. Otherwise, what else could be the reasons for their repatriation by the same government which denied them and drove them out in the first place?

The Distinct Ethnic Features of Rohingyas Differing from Bengalis

"The Musulman Arakanese generally known as Bengalis or Chittagonians, quite incorrectly...To look at, they are quite unlike any other product of India or Burma that I have seen. They resemble the Arab in name, in dress and in habit. The women and more particularly the young girls, have distinctive Arab touch about them.. .As a race they have been here over two hundred years." Anthony lrwin, Burmese Outpost (London: Collins, 1945) p.22.

"The Rohingyas preserved their own heritage from the impact of the Buddhist environment not only as far as their religion is concerned but also in some aspect of their culture." Moshe Yegar, The Muslim of Burma: A Study of a Minority Group, p.25

"There is after all, very little in common - except common religion - between the Rohingya of Arakan and the Indian Muslims of Rangoon or Burmese Muslim of the Shwebo district. These are different groups that do not identify with each other, do not share the same goal and aspiration." Moshe Yegar, op. cit. p. 111

"They (Muslims) differ but little from the Arakanese except in their religion and in the social customs which their religion directs, in writing they use Burmese, but amongst themselves employ colloquially the language of their ancestors." R.B. Smart, Burma Gazetteer-Akyab District Vol. A. 1957

The Burmese famous writer of our time U Thein Hpei Myint too has mentioned the difference between Bengalis and Rohingyas. He describes: "He is by age round about 25...As he converses with Ko Htun Win in Rakhaine dialect I could not understand. When I ask about him, U Htun Win says, "he is our Rakhaine Muslim Rohingya." Almost all Bangalis grow moustaches, Rohingya do not keep moustaches. Wedding programs, marriage arrangements, feeding customs, foods and drinks are all differed. Instrumental music, musical instruments, and music etc. are differed. Hereditary festivities of boat-racing, paddy transplant competition, wrestling, riddles, bullfight, buffalo-fight, etc. are held as Rohingya own traditional festivities. The culture of ‘collective labour volunteering' exists among the Rohingya till today. Difference is more vivid in trade and profession. Haircutting, blacksmith, goldsmith, silversmith, laundry and shoe-making are very rare among the Rohingya as they conceive these are lowly and inglorious professions." Thein Hpei Myint, "From Myohaung to Paletwa", 1978 Ahte’tan Pinjin Zagabjei Le'jwei:zin (A High School Burmese Textbook)

Points attributed to recognition of Rohingya as an ethnic indigenous minority by the Burmese Governments

1. There was a mass massacre of Rohingyas by Buddhist Maghs in 1942 when British forces withdrew from Burma to India. As a result more than 100000 Rohingyas had to take refuge in Rangpur Refugee Camp in Bengal. Bogyoke Aung San, who then became Prime Minister in 1946 repatriated these refugees, which was the first acceptance of Rohingyas' entity by Burmese Government.
2. The former Prime Minister of Burma, U Nu, in a speech over Radio Rangoon at 8.00 pm on 25 September 1954 amongst other things stated that: "The Arakan Division is situated towards the south-west of the Union. Buthidaung and Maungdaw townships are included in the Akyab District of the Arakan Division. These two townships are bordering East Pakistan. The majority of the people in these two townships are Rohingyas who profess the Islamic faith."
3. Again the Burmese Defense Minister and Prime Minister U Ba Swe at mass rallies for the people of Buthidaung and Maungdaw on the 3^rd and 4^th November 1959 said: "The Rohingyas are equal in every way with other minority races like the Shan, Chin, Kachin, Kayin, Kayah, Mon, and Rakhaine. They have lived in Myanmar Naing Ngan for ages, accordingly to historical facts. They are of the Islamic faith. There is historical evidence that they have lived faithfully and harmoniously with other races of the Union."
4. On September 25, 1960 Prime Minister of Burma U Nu announced on national radio that the Rohingyas of Arakan are one of the ethnic races of Burma.
5. The permission to form ‘University Rohingya Students Association’ by Dean of Students, University of Rangoon in 1959-60 and 1960-61 academic years respectively. (Foreign students are not allowed to form association under Burmese Universities Act.)
6. The speech of Deputy Chief of Army Brigadier General Aung Gyi, The New Light of Myanmar Daily, July 8, 1961.
7. Khit Yee Journal, Vol.l2, No.6, July 18, 1961 published by Defence Ministry of Burma.
8. Rohingya language program, along with other indigenous races, was allowed to broadcast from Burma Broadcasting Service from May 1961 to March 1965.
9. An article on Rohingya in Burmese Encyclopedia, 1964, Vol. 9 page 89 published by General Ne Win Government.
10. Roliingya representations along with other indigenous races in the annual Union Day celebrations, which are still to be found in Union Day Exhibition Hall (Envoy Hall) on U Wisara Road, Rangoon.
11. The High School Geography of Burma, Ministry of Education 1978, indicating the settlement of minorities in a map where North Arakan was shown as Rohingya area.
12. From 1948 to 1990 in all organs i.e. executive, legislature and judiciary of the state Rohingyas have been allowed to represent. For Example: Mr. Sultan Mahmud from constituency one, Buthidaung, Arakan was Health Minister in 1961 in Pa Ta Sa Government. Mr. Abul Basher from constituency two, Buthidaung, was Parliamentary Secretary. In Pa Sa Pa La Government i.e. U Nu's post independence government, Mr. Abdul Gaffar from Buthidaung and Mr. Sultan Ahmed from Maungdaw enjoyed the posts of parliamentary secretaries. Daw Aye Nyunt (Zohra Begum) was a Member of Parliament from Maungdaw and Mr. Subhan was from Akyab-north. Haji Abul Khair was also a Member of Parliament from Maungdaw on nomination of AFPFL. In the time of U Ne Win's Ma Sa La (Socialist) regime, Dr. Abdul Rahim and Mr. Abdul Hai alias U Tun Aung Kyaw from Maungdaw constituency and Mr. Abul Hussein from Buthidaung constituency were also Pyithu Hlutow (parliament) members.
13. The SLORC Government allowed the Rohingyas to elect and to be elected in their multi-party democracy parliamentary election held in 1990. Five Rohingya members from northern Arakan got elected to the uncalled Parliament of Myanmar (Burma) .They were U Kyaw Min, constituency I, Buthidaung: Mr. Fazal Ahmed, constituency 2, Maungdaw: U Tin Maung @ Mr. Noor Ahmed, constituency 2, Buthidaung: U Chit Lwin, constituency I, Maungdaw and U Shwe Ya, constituency I, Akyab.
14. Under 1949 Burma Population Registration Act and its 1950 Burma Population Registration Rules, Rohingyas were issued National Registration Cards (NRCs) which itself is a proof of their genuine nationality because section 30 of the above rule excluded foreigners from being registered under the rules.
15. On July 4, 1960 the Burmese Government created Mayu Frontier District to assist Rohingya development which was abolished by Ne Win Government on Feb. 1. 1964.

References

1. M.S. Coilis and San Shwe Bu, "Arakan's Place in the Civilization of the Bay,” Journal of the Burrma Research Society, 50^th Anniversary' Publication, No. 2, Rangoon, 1960, p.486. Hall, D.G.E., A History of South East Asia. (London: Macmillan, 1958) pp328, 389.
2. Sir Arthur P. Phayre, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol. XII, Part I, 1844, p.36. SLORC Government, Thathana Yong War Hmn Zay Poh. Rangoon, 1997, pp. 65-70. M.A. Rahim, Social & Cultural History of Bengal, Vol. I, Karachi, 1963, p.37. U Kyi, B.A. (History Distinction), Myanmar Jazawin Thi Hmet Bweya Apyapya, pp 156-157. The Glass Palace Choronicle, Vol. 2, p. 186.
3. M. Siddique Khan, "Muslim Intercourse with Burma," Islamic Culture, Vol. X, Hydrabad, July 1936, pp.416-419. U Kyi, Myanmar Jazawin Thi Hmet Bweya Apyapya. pp. 156-157. SLOR.C Government, Thathana Yong War Htun Zay Poh, Rangoon, 1997, pp. 65-70.
4. Hall, D.G.E.,"Studies in Dutch Relation with Arakan, Part I, Dutch Relations with King Thirithudhamma of Arakan", Burma Research Society Fiftieth Anniversary Publication, No.2, Rangoon 1960, p.72. R.B. Smart, Burma Gazetteer-Akyab District, Vol. A, Rangoon 1957.
5. Government of Pakistan, East Pakistan District Gazelfeer-Chittagong, 1970, pp.110-111
6. Sir Richard C. Temple, "Buddermokan", Journal of the Burma Research Society, Vol. XV Part 1, 1925, pp. 1-33. Harvey G.E„ History of Burma: From the Earliest Times to 10 March 1824 the Beginning of the English Conquest (London: Longmans, 1925) p.10. Col. Ba Shin, "Coming of Islam to Burma, down to 1700 AD", Lecture before Asian History Congress, (unpublished, New Delhi, 1961). SayaChei, Ancient Biography of Burma Muslims, p. 16. H.R. Spearman, British Burma Gazetteer, Rangoon, 1879. SLORC Government, Thathana Thathana Yong War Htun Zay Pho, op cit.
7. Research Department, All Burma Students Democratic Front, A study Record on Rohingya Problem & Refugees' Problem at Burma-Bangladesh Border, June 1992, p.8. Arakan Peoples' Democratic Front, Megazine: Bengalis From Arakan State & Their History Problem, p. 9. Amyothar Party, A Hand Bulletin for Amyothar Party Members, Vol.7, pp.29-31.
8. SLORC Government, Thathana Yong War Htun Zay Pho, pp. 65-70. Moshe Yegar, The Muslim a/Burma, p. 18.
9. Asia Week, January 10, 1992. All Burma Students Democratic Front, A Study Record on Rohingya Problem & Refugees Problem at Burma-Bangladesh Border, June 1992, p. 11. U Ba Than, Kjaun-Dhoun Myanmar Jazawin, pp. 193-196. Pou Hla Aung, Rakhine Naing Ngan Thamain Thi' from 3300 B.C. to 20^th century A.D., published from Liberation Area pp,23,25,26,30,86. Ban Maw Tin Aung, Koulouni Kht' Myanmar Naing Ngan Thamain, Rangoon, 1964, p. 40. Lan: Zin Party, Achei Pja Myanmar Naing Ngan Jei Thamain(Pa), pp. 386,366,401. Hall, D .G.E„ A History of South East Asia, 1964 (2nd Edn), p.217. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Bangladesh, Press Release, dated 03.12.1992, pp. 1-3. R.C. Majumdar, Hindu Colonies in (he Far East (Culcatta: General Printers and Publishers, 1944), pp.202,205-206. Human Rights Watch, New York, Vol. 12 No.3(C), May 2000.
10. M.S. CoUis and San Shwe Bu, "Arakan's Place in the Civilization of the Bay," JBRS, XV, no. 1 (1925) pp.39-43. Harvey, G.E„ History of Burma, op. cit. pp. 138- 140. M. Siddique Khan, Islamic Culture. XI (April 1937) pp.248-251. Col. Ba Shin, "Coming of Islam to Burma" op. cit. Sir Arthur P. Phayre, History of Burma from the earliest time lo the end of the First War with British India (London:Trubner, 1883) pp.77-78,173. U Myo Min, Old Burma as Described by Early Foreign Travelers (Rangoon, 1947) pp.7 3-74. Hall, D.G.E., A History of South East Asia, op. cit. pp.329-330. Sebastian Manrique, Travels of Fray. ..1629- 1643 Vol. I, Arakan (Oxford :Haklyut Society, 1927), pxxii.
11. Majumdar, The Delhi Sultanate, pp.202, 211-212. Maurice Collis, The Land of Great Image (New York: New Directions Paperbook, 1958),p.92. Harvey, O.E., op. cit. pp. 143-144. Ba Tha (Buthidaung),"Slave raids in Bengal or Heins in Arakan", Guardian Monthly (Rangoon), VII (Oct. 1960)25-27. Sir Arthur P Phayre, "Account of Arakan", Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol.X, 1841, p. 681.
12. H.R. Spearman, British Burma Gazetteer (Rangooni 880), 1, 293-294; Hall, D.G.E., Hisfoty of South Ease Asia, pp.338-341; W.S. Desai, A Pageant of Burmese History, Culsatta: Orient Longmans, 1961, pp-61-63; Harvey, G.E., op. cit. pp. 146-148; A. P. Phayre, History of Burma, cp.cit. p. 17 8; Ba Tha (Buthidaung) 'Shah Shuja in Arakan ", Guardian Monthly (Rangoon),VI, September, 1959 pp-26-28; S.W. Cork, A short History of Burma, London, Mac millan,1910,pp.203-204; Da Tha (Buthidaung), "Rowengya Fine Arts", Guardian Monthly (Rangoon), VIII (Feb., 1961),20-22; MosheYegar, The Muslims of Burma, p. 2 5.
13. K.alayar Magazine, August 1994, pp.27-28.
14. Pou Hla Aung, Rakhine Naing Ngan Thamain Thi ,p.86 Harvey G.E., Outline of Burma History, p?; M.S. Collis and San Shwe Bu, "Arakan's place in the Civilization of the Bay"JBRS, No.2, Rangoon 1960; Harvey G.E., History of Burma From the Earliest time to 10 March 1824 The Beginning of the English Conquest. (London: Frank Cass and Co. Ltd) 1967,p.282; Human Rights Watch, New York, op.cit.
15. M. Ali Kettani, Muslim Minorities in the World Today, Mansell Publishing Ltd., London and New York, 1986, p.141. Asia Week, op. cit. p.7; Frank Trager, Burma: From Kingdom to Republic (London; Pall Mall Press), 1996, p.26
16. Anandasanda Stone Pillar inscription: 8^th Century Rakhaing Vethali King,Universities Book Compiling and Publishing Committee, 1975, Chapter 6. Zaw Min Htut 2001, The Union of Burma and Ethnic Rohingyas, Tokyo: Maruyama, pp.57-58.
17. Tha Hia, "The Rakhaing", Rakhaing Guardian 1.1 (Spring 1997)1-5. Hall, D.G.E., A History of South East Asia, pp.328-389.Aye Chan, Rakhaing Tazaung Magazine, No. 14,1975-76. Abdur Razzaq & Mahfuzul Haque, A Tale of Refugees: Rohingyas in Bangladesh (Dhaka: Centre for Human Rights, 1995). Dr. Habib Siddiqi,Rohingya: The Forgotten people, 2005.

This paper was submitted at First Rohingya Consultation: Working together to find a solution, on 2-3 August 2006, Sigha Dum Conference Room, Faculty of Political science, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand, Organized by Centre for Social Development, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University, In cooperation with the National Reconciliation Programme (NRP)

1982 Citizenship Law of Burma: Is or Isn’t It Applicable Today?

By M.S. Anwar May 5, 2013, rvisiontv.com

 

 

A lot has been said and written about and against 1982 Citizenship Law of Burma. Many, in fact, the whole world excluding few racist bigots and fascists in Burma, say that the law clearly violates the Article No. 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The Article No. 15 says ““everyone has the right to a nationality and that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.” Let’s not forget that Burma itself was a signatory country that voted in favor of the adoption of UDHR in the United Nation General Assembly on 10^th December 1948. After the introduction and implementation of this discriminatory law, the identity of a whole community was wiped out and more than a million people were stripped off their citizenships who otherwise were the legitimate citizens of Burma under The Union Citizenship Act (Election), 1948 and The Union Citizenship Act 1948. 1982 Citizenship Law repealed Union Citizenship Act (Election), 1948 and The Union Citizenship Act 1948. These Acts were put forward by the pioneers of Burma’s independence according to the will of the people of the time and for the betterment of the nation.
Gen. Ne Win, the late dictator of Burma, with the support of some of his close allies, coined and introduced one of world’s most discriminatory and malicious laws in the history of mankind. He was an egoistic, self-centered and malicious leader that the history of Burma has seen. He saw every different thing to be the enemy of himself as well as the state. Hence, he can be called the founder of the institutional racism and fascism in Burma today. Being an extremist leader himself, he, naturally, ended up meeting with other extremist Rakhine leaders, who were his relatives-in-law through one of his wives. The trap called 1982 Citizenship Law that he together with his relatives-in-law coined was specially designed for the expulsion of an ever naive cum unfortunate people called ROHINGYAS.
There are three categories of citizens in this 1982 Citizenship Law of Burma. They are:
1)       Citizens,
2)      Associate Citizens
3)      Naturalized Citizens (For more info on this citizenship law, please visit:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b4f71b.html)
To be a citizen of Burma, one, if he or she is not one of ethnic groups recognized by the STATE, needs to prove the existence of their fore-parents in Burma anterior to1823 C.E.
Though there are still plenty of collective evidences that prove Rohingyas to be indigenous, their ethnic identity was revoked by Gen. Ne Win by means of using authoritarian power and hence clearly violating the UDHR. NO elderly people (at their 60s or 70s who have enough knowledge about the country) or historians in their right minds will deny that Rohingyas were recognized as citizens and as an ethnic group by U Nu’s government, the first and ever fairly and democratically elected government in the history of Burma.
So far as the individual Rohingyas are concerned, it has been always difficult for them to individually prove the existence of their fore-parents before 1823 C.E. Because
1)      Their individual documentary evidences have either been systematically destroyed or
confiscated by the rulers in the country.
2)      Most of Rohingyas have either been uneducated or been made so. They couldn’t keep these
evidences in their hands.
3)      For decades, Rohingyas have been made to move from place to place. They have lost their
documents meanwhile. There could be many reasons on top of that.
However, the fact remains is that they require these evidences to qualify them as the citizens. Since Rohingyas have lost their collective as well as individual identities, according to the law, most of them will find hard to even qualify as naturalized citizens today. Yet, the core problem that makes Rohingyas from citizens to stateless is not the law itself alone. It is the double-standard nature in the implementation of the law. The law has been discriminating and exclusively applied against Rohingya community.
If the law is, without any discriminations, applied to the staunch supporters of the law today, Rakhine people, more than three fourth of them will be disqualified as the citizens of Burma. There are two reasons for it.
1)      More than half of Rakhine populations in Arakan state today are immigrants from Bangladesh
settled during Ne Win’s era.
2)      The original Rakhines themselves, too, can hardly show any individual evidences that can
prove the existence of their fore-parents in Burma before 1823.
Therefore, the supporters of this law today can turn into the opponents of the law tomorrow. And I wonder how many of Burmese in general will be disqualified as the citizens of Burma if the law is equally applied to them, too!
Moreover, Section 16, Chapter II, 1982 Burma Citizenship Law says “a citizen who leaves the State permanently, or who acquires the citizenship of or registers himself as a citizen of another country, or who takes out a passport or a similar certificate of another country ceases to be a citizen.” Therefore, those racist Burmese living in exiles holding citizenships of other countries, passports or any other travel documents are no longer citizens of Burma. So, they should stop interfering in its affairs and yelling slogan against Rohingyas whether or not they are citizens of the country. And Rakhines in Arakan who are holding dual citizenships of both Bangladesh and Burma should know that they are living in Arakan illegally.
Coming back to the main question whether 1982 Citizenship Law of Burma is applicable today or not, a look back into the law itself is necessary.
1)      Section 4, Chapter 2- The Council of STATE may decide whether any ethnic group is national
or not.
2)      Section 70 (b), Chapter VII- The decision of the Council of Ministers is final.
3)    Section 75, Chapter VII- The Council of Ministers, shall, for the purpose of carrying out the
provisions of this Law, lay down necessary procedures with the approval of the Council
of STATE.
In short, the STATE has the ultimate power over this law. And in section 2 (a), Chapter I, it defines STATE as the SOCIALIST REPUBLIC of The UNION of BURMA (SRUB).
1)      Today, the State as SRUB is non-existent.
2)      The state has transformed from “SRUB” to “the Union of Myanmar (UM)” to “the Republic
of the Union of Myanmar (RUM) today.”
3)      The non-existence of the State called SRUB automatically NULLIFIES the 1982 Citizenship
Law. It is an ineffective and inapplicable law today.
Therefore, to make the law effective and applicable, RUM needs:
1)      To crawl back to the state of SRUB
2)      To withdraw its Vote and signature of the approval of UDHR.
3)      To even withdraw its membership from UN because Myanmar is neither a sole planet itself
nor non-member of UN. So, Myanmar needs to abide by UDHR adopted by UN.
Without doing so, the implementation of this law today in any form is illegal to the government of Myanmar itself because they have denounced the SRUB government of Ne Win. And it is violation of the article No.15 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights and an insult to UN itself. Reports have it that the government of Myanmar has started implementing the law against Rohingyas in Arakan nowadays so as expel them out of Myanmar. Many Rohingyas have been being killed in the ongoing state-sponsored ethnic cleansing. They have lost their houses, properties and almost everything. In such a vulnerable situation, the imposing this violent law by the state will be adding more violence against them.

M.S. Anwar is an activist. He can be reached at: arakan@email.com

- See more at: http://www.rvisiontv.com/1982-citizenship-law-of-burma-is-or-isnt-it-applicable-today-2/#sthash.sOAn2ojb.dpuf

The Rohingya and Their Identity

--- 

Burma Times: By Aman Ullah 31 July 2014

“They are generally known as Begalis or Chittagonians, quite incorrectly, and took at they are quite unlike any other product of India or Burma that I have seen. They are resemble the Arab in name, in dress and in habit. The women, and more particularly the young girls, have distintictive Arab touch about them” wrote Anthony Irwin in his Burmese outpost (1946).

“They are called Rohingyas. They are same par in the status of nationality with Kachin, Kaya, Karen, Mon, Rekhine and Shan. They are one of the ethnic races of Burma,” anounced U Nu, the Burma’s first elected Prime Minister on September 25, 1954 at 8:00pm from BBS Rangoon.

However, the present Thein Sein government vehemently denies the existence of a Rohingya ethnicity, referring to the group, even in official documents, as “Bengali.” Ultra-nationalist Rakhine Buddhists vehemently reject this view, framing the Rohingyas as illegal immigrants who migrated from East Bengal during the British rule of Burma and/or after Burma and Pakistan’s independence in 1948 and 1947, respectively.

Although the Government did not convince President Obama and the US Government to use ‘Myanmar’ instead of ‘Burma’, now they have success to convince not to use the word ’Rohingya’ to the new United Nations Special Rapporteur on Myanmar, Ms Yanghee Lee, who has visited to gather the first-hand information on the country at the invitation of the Government.

The President’s Office said in a July 29 statement that the UN special rapporteur for human rights in Myanmar, Ms Yanghee Lee, needs to pay “serious consideration to [using] the term” if a “long-term solution” to problems in Rakhine are to be achieved. “While the people of Myanmar are ready, and as it has been the case, to accept those who meet the criteria of the 1982 Citizenship Law as citizens, we do not accept the term ‘Rohingya’ which has never existed in the country’s history,” the statement said. “The term has been maliciously used by a group of people with wider political agenda. The people of Myanmar will never recognize the term.”

On her briefing at Yangon International Airport, on 26 July 2014, Ms Lee said that, ‘issues around terminology and citizenship are particularly sensitive. I was repeatedly told not to use the term ‘Rohingya’ as this was not recognized by the Government.’

‘Yet, as a human rights independent expert, I am guided by international human rights law. In this regard, the rights of minorities to self-identify on the basis of their national, ethnic, religious and linguistic characteristics is related to the obligations of States to ensure non-discrimination against individuals and groups, which is a central principle of international human rights law. I also note that various human rights treaty bodies and intergovernmental bodies, including the Committee on the Rights of the Child, which I chaired for four years and of which I was a member for ten years, the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly use the term Rohingya,’ she added.

Ethnic identity is an essential human need that provides a sense of belonging and historical continuity and created a foundation on which to build a concept of self. It is an individual’s self-concept developed from knowledge of membership in a cultural group. Ethnic identity and self-identity has supported a strong relationship between the two.
According to Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ‘All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.’ For the ‘equal in dignity’ the right to self- identification is important. It is very significantly important to know differentially the incomparable difference between “ethnicity or ethnic group and ethno-religious group”. “Ethnicity or ethnic group” is a specific term to identify the ancestral background of each community who are eligible to belong an ethnicity—particular language, distinct culture, racial dress, populous territory.

The Rohingya 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.

The term

is widely used by the international community to identify a group of Muslims of Arakan. According to Dr. Ganganath Jha of Jawaharlal Nehru University of India, the term Rohingya is derived from Rohang the ancient name of Arakan. The Muslims of Arakan called their country, in their own language, ‘Rohang or Roang’ and called themselves as Rohangya (Rohang+ya) or Roangya (Roang+ya) means native of Rohang or Roang. In Burmese it is ‘ရိုဟင္ဂ်ာ’, in Rakhine’s pronunciation it will read as ‘Rohangya’ but in Burmese pronunciation it became ‘Rohingya’ and now it’s established as ‘Rhinggya’. Like other peoples of the world, they have needed to identify as Rohingya to some degree for centuries.

In the work of Arab geographer Rashiduddin (1310 AD) it appears as ‘Rahan or Raham’. The British travelers Relph Fitch (1586 AD) referred the name of Arakan as ‘Rocon’. In the Rennell’s map (1771 AD), it is ‘Rassawn’. Tripura Chronicle Rajmala mentions as ‘Roshang’. In the medieval works of the poets of Arakan and Chittagong, like Quazi Daulat, Mardan, Shamser Ali, Quraishi Magan, Alaol, Ainuddin, Abdul Ghani and others, they frequently referred to Arakan as ‘Roshang’, ‘Roshanga’, ‘Roshango Shar’, and ‘Roshango Des’. Famous European traveller Francis Buchanam (1762-1829 AD) in his accounts mentioned Arakan as “Rossawn, Rohhawn, Roang, Reng or Rung”. In one of his accounts, “A Comparative Vocabulary of some of the languages spoken in the Burman Empire” it was stated that, “The first is that spoken by the Mohammedans, who have long settled in Arakan, and who call themselves Rooinga, or natives of Arakan.” . The Persians called it ‘Rekan’.” The Chakmas and Saks from 18th century called it ‘Roang’. Today the Muslims of Arakan call the country ‘Rohang’ or Roang’ or ‘Arakan’ and call themselves ‘Rohingya’ or native of Rohang.

Rohingya is not simply a self-referential group identity, but an official group and ethnic identity recognized by the post-independence state. In the early years of Myanmar’s independence, the Rohingya were recognized as a legitimate ethnic group that deserved a homeland in Burma.

• On 31st December 1942, Brig-Gen C E Lucas Phillips of 14th British Army declared the North Arakan as “Muslim National Area” As per Public Notice No. 11-OA-CC/42. Then formed a Peace Committed headed by Mr. Omra Meah and Mr. Zahir Uddin Ahmed and entrusted for administration of the area. On 1st January 1945 Brigadier C.E Lucas Phillips became the Chief Administrator of the area and appointed members of Peace Committee as administrative officers of the area. The British recognized the Muslims of Arakan as a distinct racial group and the British officer-in-command promised to grant more autonomy in North Arakan.

• In 1947, Hon’ble Bo Let Ya the Deputy Prime Minister, came to visit Maungdaw, to expound the principles laid down in the constitution of the Union of Burma, but it appeared on the “New Times of Burma” that he addressed the inhabitants of Maungdaw as “Chittagonians” which was objectionable and contradictory in relation to the Muslims of North Arakan forming parts and parcel of Indigenous races of Burma. The Prime Minister U Nu expressed regrets for the use of wrong terms “Chittagonians” and as per letter No.153/22 PM 48 dated; 20 February 1948, instructed that it should be either “Arakanese Muslims” or “Burmese Muslims”. The term ‘Burmese Muslims’ published in the form of Press communiqué issued by His Excellency Sir Domon Smith, the Governor of Burma, on 27th September 1941.

• On 30th 1949, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued a Burma Gazette Extra Ordinary, as par letter No. 282/ HD- 49, in which it was, mentioned that the Arakanese Muslims of Maungdaw and Buthidaung townships of Akyab district as indigenous peoples of Burma.

• On September 1954, U Nu, the first elected Prime Minister of Burma, in his radio address to nation, announced that, “The people living in northern Arakan are our national brethren. They are called Rohingyas. They are on the same par in the status of nationality with Kachin, Kayah, Karen, Mon, Rakhine and Shan.”

• On 3rd and 4th November 1959, U Ba Swe, Prime Minister and Minister of Defense Affairs, in the public meetings of Maungdaw and Buthidaung, announced that, ‘The Rohingyas are equal in every way with other minority races like Shan, Kachin, Karen, kayah, Mon and Rakhine. They have lived in Burma ages according to historical facts. There is historical evidence that they have lived faithfully and harmoniously with other races of Burma.’

• On 4th July 1961, Brig-General Aung Gyi, Deputy Chief of Staff, officially explained that, ‘On the west, May Yu district borders with Pakistan. As is the case with all borderlands communities, there are Muslims on both sides of the borders. Those who are on Pakistan’s side are known as Pakistani while the Muslims on our Burmese side of the borders are referred to as ‘Rohingya.’ Here I must stress that this is not a case where one single race splits itself into two communities in two different neighbouring countries. If you look at the Sino-Burmese border region, you will see this kind of phenomenon, namely ‘adjacent people’. To give you a concrete example, take Lisu of Kachin state, or La-wa (or Wa) and E-kaw of the same Kachin State by the Chinese borderlands. They all straddle on both sides of the borders. Likewise, the Shan can be found on the Chinese side as well as in Thailand – and they are known as ‘Tai’ or ‘Dai’ over there…They speak similar language and they have a common religion.’

• 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 4th January 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.

Thus, the Muslims of Rakhine region over the centuries have had many terms by which to identify themselves, including the terms Rakhine Muslim, Arakan Muslim, and Rohingya, the last of which has become more prominent in recent times.

However, the Rakhine nationalist claims that, the term Rohingya was created in the 1950s to promote the political demands of the Bengalis in Myanmar.

Ethnic identity is not a God-given thing, but different forms of identities are invented and reworked thorough space and time. That’s why the process of identity formation is known as ‘social construction’. And Ethnicity is not just a ‘thing’ but also a ‘process’ in which the state actors impose identities, and the people themselves actively articulate their own identities for the sake of political and material livelihood.

As Burma and Arakan state are the products of the nation-sate formation through a relatively long, history, The name ‘Rakhne’ and the place ‘Arakan’ have been “invented” at particular points of time, just like the name “Rohinggya’ was invented another points of time. If Rohingya ‘migrated’ from Bangladesh of somewhere else at one historical point of time Rakhines must have ‘migrated’ at similar or another historical points of time. But immigrating earlier of later does not negates the problematic reality that both groups have migrated from somewhere else. None of these groups fell from the sky. The claim that the name ‘Rohingya’ is invented is unacceptable and completely contradicts the very foundational understanding of ethnicity and ethnic identity.

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

The Rohingya Muslims of Arakan, both home and abroad, believed that they belong to Burma and they are parts and parcel of indigenous races of Burma. They never try to be Bengali. At present there are more than 3 million Roghingyas both home and abroad. Their only blood related community is the Roai people, a third and fourth generation Rohingyas, who strongly believed that their ancestors were from Arakan or related to Arakan. Their population is round about 10 million lived in Cox’s Bazaar district and southern Chittagong district. These peoples are morally concerned to the Rohingyas Muslims of Arakan.

However, the present Thein Sein Government and Ultra- Natiionalits Rakhines are going to forcefully making the Rohingya to Bengali. Then the Bengali peoples became concerned to the case and cause of the Rohuingyas. In Bangladesh, there are 160 million Bengali, in India also about 100 million Bengali and other parts of the world also more than 40 million Bengali. So there are more than 300 million Bengali throughout the world. In the case of the Rohingya has forcefully became Bengali then they will be parts and parcel of other Bengali peoples, and the world’s over 300 million Bengali will try to stand behind the ill-fated 3 million Rohingya people. The Government is playing with a great risk that will not good for the country and for the peoples of Burma, particularly for Arakan.

The Arakan problem can be easily solved to the satisfaction of all the stake holders if the Rakhine Buddhist is simply follow the golden rule of “Live and let Live”. This will definitely put an end to all the mutual ill-feeling and mistrusts; and there lies mutual happiness for all.

Denial of the Citizenship Right of Rohingyas on the ground of religious minority and their plight in their own land- Arakan, Burma

Rohingya is a term derived from Rohang, the ancient name of Arakan – the most Westerly Division of Lower Burma, lying between the Arakan Yoma Range and the Bay of Bengal. The Muslims of Arakan, amounting to approximately 3.5 million, are ethnically called Rohingya or Rohingyas. Arakan, with an area of 20,000 square miles, was an independent kingdom ruled by Muslims, Hindus, and Rakhine Buddhists until Burman King Bodaw-hpaya occupied it in 1784. Historical researches show that the Rohingyas trace their ancestry to Arabs, Moors, Pathans, Moghuls, Central Asians, Bengalis and some Indo-Mongoloid people. Since pre-Islamic days while it was a Hindu land, Arab seafarers used to visit Arakan on their onward journey to the Far-East and China. Within 50 years after the advent of Islam in Mecca, the Arab traders introduced Islam to its inhabitants. Since then, Islam was fast spreading in the region and remained rooted in the territory of Arakan. There had been large-scale conversion of the Hindus, Buddhists, animists to Islam who constitute part and parcel of the Rohingya Muslim community today. Hence, early Muslim settlements in Arakan dated back to 7th century A.D.; they left their traces in Sandihkan Mosque at Mrohaung, in the Buddermokan at Akyab, Sandoway-Shrines of Badr al-Din Awliya and Hanifar Tonqie (Shrine) and Khairapari Tonqie on the peaks of Mayu range in northern Maungdaw District.
. The other major ethnic race, the Buddhists of Arakan, is known as Magh or Rakhine; they arrived in Arakan from Magadah, in North and North-eastern India, after escaping persecution of Hindu revivalism in 8th century A.D. After Bengal became Muslim in 1203 A.D., Islamic influence grew in Arakan to the extent of establishing a Muslim rule in 1430 A.D. with the help of Bengal. The Muslim’s rule in Arakan lasted for almost 350 years – with the exception of some years of intermittent Buddhist rule – until the Burman King Bodaw-hpaya, with the collaboration of some disgruntled Rakhine Buddhist leaders, occupied it ending the Muslim’s rule and influence once for all.
The King Bodaw-hpaya whimsically ruled it for 40 years – letting-loose a reign of terror – in which the Rohingya Muslims irreparably suffered in everything, materially and culturally. Islamic shrines were razed to the ground; thousands of Rohingya were brutally killed while hundreds of thousands others fled to the then British colonial territory (now Cox’s Bazar, Chittagong). Cox’s Bazar takes its name from the British lieutenant, who
was sent to the area to organize and provide relief for the refugees. ‘One of the dissatisfied Rohingya groups, which fled to British’s controlled Chittagong led by Chin Bya, proceeded to conduct raids against the Burman King. In one incident, the King’s troops pursued the Rohingya insurgents into British territory. The incursions led to tension between the British colonial government and King Bodaw-hpaya over the King’s demands for the extradition of the Rohingya insurgents. Consequently, the British invaded the Burman colony –Arakan – and colonized it in 1824.’ Later, the whole Burma was occupied in 1885, and made it an administrative part of India. When Burma was separated from British-India in 1936, Arakan was made a part of Burma, however against the wishes of Arakanese people, thus finally becoming a province of independent Burma in 1948.
Human Rights Watch reported:” The Rohingya were once counted as a part of the Mrauk-U (Mrohaung) kingdom in Arakan which stood independent of both the Burman kingdoms in the Irrawaddy Delta and Central Burma as well as Bengal and the Moguls to the West. Muslim traders came to the area in the eighth century when the local dynasty was seated at Wesali, not far from contemporary Mrauk-U and some of the traders settled along the shores. More Muslim sailors made their way to the Arakan region during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries…In 1404, when Mrauk-U was invaded by the forces of the Burman kingdom at Ava, King Narameikhla sought help from Bengal and expelled the invaders after 26 years with help of a Muslim army”
Immediately after the separation, the nationalist Burmese who gained control of the local power – with an ulterior motive to exterminate Rohingyas, or to rid them out of Arakan – incited the Arakan Buddhists against the Muslims while depicting them as a threat to Buddhists and Buddhist cult/religion. In pursuance of this, Buddhists hatched a conspiracy during the Second World War when British army withdrew from Arakan in the face of sweeping Japanese Advance in 1942, leaving its security in the hands of nationalists. Taking advantage of the administrative vacuum, the Buddhists of Arakan in connivance with the Burma Independent Army (BIA) led by Bo Yan Aung, under the command of Bo Ne Win (later General Ne Win) orchestrated an anti-Muslim pogrom in which about 100,000 Muslims were massacred, about 50,000 others fled to East Bengal and 350 Rohingya settlements were devastated.
At the eve of the independence of Burma in 1948, the Rohingyas were treacherously kept at bay from all negotiations and parleys for taking opposite course and co-operation with the British when the Burmese Independent Army led by General Aung San organized anti-British movement and brought in Japanese Imperial Army to drive the British out of Burma. Some analysts say that the British might have difficulty in re-advancing into Arakan without the Rohingyas. As a revenge against the Rohingyas, when the historic Union Treaty was signed at Panglong Conference, Shan State, between the Burman Leader General Aung San and leaders of the other nationalities on 12th February 1947, Rohingya representatives were tactfully debarred from the conference whereas the entire people of Arakan were secretly represented by the Rakhine Buddhist leaders – thus joining hands in their diabolical plan, the two co-religionist-Buddhist leaders elbowed out the Arakan Muslims from future political role in Burma.
Sensing the great danger awaiting for the Rohingya community in future, Rohingya leaders demanded autonomy of northern Arakan in the future political set-up. Also, they frantically made an appeal to the leader of the Pakistan independence movement Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah to exert his influence on Burmese leaders to recognize the due rights of the Muslims. Consequently, General Aung San assured that the rights of the Arakanese Muslims to be constitutionally guaranteed.
Immediately after the independence in 1948, contrary to Aung San’s assurance ethnic cleansing-armed operations against the Rohingyas were carried out, branding them as doubtful citizens, devastating hundreds of their villages, massacring thousands of them, and triggering a huge refugee exodus to then Pakistan. As the sufferings continued unabated, the Arakanese Muslims organized armed resistance movement against the excesses of the racist regime.
In 1950s, the whole rural area of northern Arakan fell under the Rohingya resistance movement. Failing to contain the insurrection and realizing the threat posed by the armed struggle, the regime in power swiftly changed its tactics and political tones, declared that Rohingya is an indigenous race of Burma like other nationalities. The recognition accorded to Rohingyas as an indigenous-ethnic race of Burma was declared by Ex-Prime Minister U Nu in a radio speech given at 8.00 p.m. on September 25, 1954, and at a public speech delivered in Maungdaw township in 1959. The excerpts are follows:
“The majority population of the northern part of Arakan division are Rohingya nationals and Muslims. Ethnic Rohingyas are as equals as other minorities like Shan, Chin, Karen, Kaya, Mon and Rakhine”
The Frontier Administration office, under the Prime Minister, issued a declaration on 20.11.1960 in recognizing the Rohingya as a race of Arakan. The excerpts of which are as follows:
“Meyu Frontier district bordering East Pakistan is a district with large population. People living in this area are Rohingyas who are Muslims, Rakhine, Mrammagri and Dinnat are hill tribes”
The first elected president of the Union of Burma; Sao Shwe Thaike described Rohingyas as follows:
“Muslims of Arakan certainly belong to one of the indigenous races of Burma…In fact, there is no pure indigenous race in Burma; if they do not belong to indigenous races of Burma, we also cannot be taken as indigenous races of Burma”
Furthermore, as an indigenous race, ethnic Rohingya language programme was broadcasted from Burma Broadcasting Services (BBS), Rangoon with effect from May 15, 1961 till 24 October 1965; the then Minister of Information and Broadcasting U Kyaw Ngein remarked that:
“As per government decision keeping in view of the national unity four more languages – Mon, Pao, Lahu and Rohingya broadcasted 10 minutes each for a language in the indigenous citizen programme”
Upon recognition of Rohingyas as an indigenous-ethnic race, their fundamental rights had been restored to certain extent. Every year, Rohingya representatives particularly Rohingya wrestlers were invited to 12 February Union Day celebration. The regime also promised to grant Rohingyas in northern Arakan a limited local autonomy under the newly established Mayu Frontier Administration (MFA). Thus the Rohingya armed resistance movement (Mujahideen) laid down their arms in response to the peace overtures.
Burma’ s first written constitution of 1947, defined a citizen to be
11. (i) Every person, both of whose parents belong or belonged to any of the  indigenous races of Burma;
(ii) Every person born in any of territories included within the Union, at least one  of whose grandparents belong or belonged to any of the indigenous races of Burma;
(iii) Every person born in any of territories included within the Union, of parents of both  of whom are, or if they had been alive at the commencement of this Constitution,  would have been, citizens of the Union;
(iv) Every person who was born in any of the territories which at the time his birth was  included within His Britannic Majesty’s dominions and who has resided in any of the  territories included within the Union for a period of not less than eight years in the ten  years immediately preceding the date of the commencement of this Constitution or  immediately preceding the 1st January 1942 and who intends to reside permanently  therein and who signifies his election of citizenship of the Union in the manner and with  time prescribed by law.
Under the immediately foregoing legislation, Rohingyas are not only citizen but also an indigenous race of Burma. Dr. Aye Maung, one of the author of the 1947 constitution said, “a group of people who entered Burma before 1825 and settled in a defined territory are also indigenous race of Burma; this clause was especially written for Rohingya people” U Soe Shwe Thaike, the President of the Union of Burma said, while he was in the highest office that, “Rohingya is an indigenous race as he himself, and there is no difference between Rohingya and Shan in the case of nationality.” Subsequently, a new Citizenship Act was promulgated in 1948, which restricted Section (iv) to any person “from ancestors who for two generations at least have all made any of the territories included within the Union their permanent home and whose parents and himself were born in any such territories.”
However, the condition of the Rohingyas started to get worse when the infamous General Ne Win, the then chief of Armed forces, took over the power from the democratically elected government of Prime Minister (U Nu) on March 2, 1962. Subsequently, the military regime revoked rights and privileges of Rohingyas that were restored by the previous government; Rohingyas’ socio-cultural and political organizations were forcibly de-registered and abolished.
Following the 1962 coup, the military undertook a series of measures designed to force the Rohingyas to leave the country while withdrawing recognition of them as citizens of Burma, restricting their movement and launching military and immigration joint operations. In 1974, a new constitution was introduced to enshrine the so-called Burmese Socialist Programme Party (BSPP) – one-party state – that in fact, effectively existed since the coup d’e’tat.
The 1974 constitution had put the Rohingyas in a state of more vulnerability in Arakan State, for the regime granted Statehood of Arakan to its co-religionists, Buddhists of Arakan, in the name of “Rakhine State” in utter disregards of the existence of Rohingya Muslims in the state since time immemorial. Subsequently, the military regime promulgated Emergency Immigration Act, with an evil intention to drive Rohingyas out of the country. Soon after the promulgation of the new law, the military and immigration launched a joint operation what they called operation Nagamin (Dragon King) against the Rohingyas in 1977, resulting in several deaths, destruction of their settlements, mosques, economic bases and forcing a mass refugee exodus of nearly 300,000 in 1978.
‘Shortly after the last refugees were forcibly repatriated to Burma in 1980, the BSPP drafted a new Citizenship law, which was promulgated in 1982. Both the timing and contents of the 1982 law indicate that it was deliberately targeted at the Rohingyas, while also discriminating against other Asian immigrants who had entered the country during the British colonial period.
According to this new Citizenship law, “full citizenship is limited to “nationals such as the Kachin, Kayah, Karen, Chin, Burman, Mon, Rakhine or Shan and ethnic groups as have settled in any of the territories included within Burma as their permanent home from a period prior to 1823 A.D” . (i.e., prior to one year the colonized Arakan State). Thus, those persons who had qualified as citizens under the 1948 law, would no longer qualified for citizenship under this new law, however their ancestors came to Burma two generations prior to 1948. In this way, the military regime unilaterally declared the Rohingyas as non-nationals of Burma, contradicting historical realities. In pursuit this, while confiscating old National Identification Documents from those Rohingyas who were previously issued, no new National Identification Documents (ID) have been issued to them.
“The stipulations of the Burma Citizenship law effectively to the Rohingyas the possibility of acquiring a nationality; despite being able to trace Rohingya history to the eighth century, Burmese law does not recognize the ethnic minority as one of the national races”
In short, following the military coup in 1962 and enactment of the new Citizenship Law in 1982, Rohingya Muslims have been undergone the worse kind of Human Rights violations under the successive military regime, the worst being the present junta. Persecution, oppression, social degradation, and expulsion of Rohingyas have been aggressively intensified and aggravated while other forms of Human Rights violations such as arbitrary arrests, torture, custodial and extra-judicial killings, long detention without trial, rape and dishonor of women-folk, forcible contraception, prevention of marriage by creating obstacles, ban on wearing veil, slave labor, porterage and human shields, restriction of movement even one village to another, destruction of mosques and cemeteries, harassment of religious teachers, inflammatory remarks on Islam and ban religious activities against them – Rohingyas – continue unabated.
Confiscation of Rohingyas’ farmland, including Wakaf property and building of new Buddhist settlements and pagodas on the land are carried out occasionally; the Muslims are forced not only for the construction materials but also for forced labours for the purpose. The confiscated lands are distributed to the Buddhist-settlers who were invited from inside and outside of Arakan, including from Bangladesh. The Rohingyas are also forced to contribute agricultural tools, cattle, building materials, forced labor and fund to the new Buddhist settlers. The religiously motivated design of the regime is to gradually starves the Rohingyas out of Arakan, or to cross border into Bangladesh.
And finally, in spite of stark historical realities, the present junta openly and unilaterally branded the Rohingyas as stateless and foreigners as follow:
“Lt. Gen. Mya Thinn (the minister for home affairs) recalled that the Muslim populations of Rakhine State were not recognized as citizen of Myanmar under the existing naturalization regulations and they were not even registered as so-called foreign residents. Consequently, the minister added, ther status situation did not permit them to travel in the country… They are also not allowed to serve in the State positions and are barred from attending higher educational institutions.”
By all legal and international standards, however, the Rohingyas are national as well as an indigenous ethnic group of the Union of Burma, as they have their history, glorious past and had their Sultanate in Arakan. They had been recognized as such by the previous elected governments with their members in Parliament and Cabinet, having a programme as an indigenous people in the official Burma Broadcasting Service (BSS) and participation in official Union Day celebration of Burma’s racial groups in the Burmese capital every year.
More recently, Rohingyas were allowed to form and register political parties in 1989, under the present junta led by former senior general Saw Maung. Two Rohingya political parties – Student and Youth League for Mayu Development (SYLMD) and National Democratic Party for Human Rights (NDPH) – were registered in accordance with the Burma Election law of 1989.
Apart from several individual Rohingyas, the two Rohingya political parties participated in the 1990 general election; the NDPHR won four Parliamentary seats. Under the 1989 Election Law, associate citizens and naturalized citizens are permitted to vote, but are not allowed to stand for election. Foreign residents are not allowed to vote or to take part in election. Rohingyas were not only allowed to vote but also permitted to take part in the election. On August 31, 1991, the NDPHR was even allowed to produce booklet in Burmese called “Arakan State and the Rohingya people: a Short History.” On August 19, 1991, however, the Burma junta forcibly dissolved NDPHR and RYLMD. Following the de-registration of Rohingya political parties, of four NDPHR elected members of parliaments U Ebrahim and U Fazal Ahmed were arrested in June 1992, on fabricated charges.
On 17th March 2005, U Kyaw Min @ Mr. Shamsul Anuwarul Haque, another Rohingya MP was arrested due to his involvement in CRPP – representing People’s Parliament – led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. Later his wife, two grown up daughters and a son were detained on 5th May 2005 on concocted charges and they were sentenced to 17 years of imprisonment while U Kyaw Min was sent to notorious-In-Sein jail for 47 year-imprisonment.
It is a crystal clear that the denial of Rohingyas as citizens as well as an indigenous race of Burma is religiously and politically motivated: because what Rohingyas believe, they do not believe, and what they believe the Rohingyas do not believe; Rohingya community is an ethnic religious minority; the denial is not based on internationally accepted legal ground, but on religious reason alone. Histories of Burma’s constitutional citizenship enactments as well as amendments reveal the Burmese successive rigime’s diabolical plan to rid Rohingyas of Arakan; all citizenship enactments and amendments were/are meant only against the Muslims and not against the Buddhists, even if the Buddhists arrived in Arakan, yesterday; all military and immigration joint operations were/ are also aimed at Muslims alone, and not against Buddhists though there is an ever-ending inflow of Buddhists from Bangladesh into Arakan State.
In reality, the Rohingyas have been driven by the successive Burmese regime out of Arakan only because they belong to different religious minority in Burma; branding and labeling the Rohingyas as foreigners and British-era illegal immigrants are in fact religiously motivated. There have been an evil design for the systematic elimination of an ethnic Muslim community from their ancestral homeland by political and religious persecution, racial discrimination, economic strangulation and other forms of massive Human Rights violations, including a flagrant denial of fundamental liberties, among others, to continue living in their own country. As of today, about 1.5 million Rohingya Muslims were/have been expelled from Arakan, or forced to leave it. Thus, it is an ethnic cleansing through Nazi-like campaign of terror, genocide and expulsion and etc. with an ultimate intention of making Arakan into a purely Buddhist region.
Amnesty International reported, “the Rohingya Muslims are targeted for repression by Burmese security forces simply because they belong to particular religious minority.” Medecines San Frontiers (MSF) reported, “It listed Rohingyas as one of ten world populations in danger.” In fact, the Rohingya Muslims today are extremely at the critical stage and on the brink of annihilation.
And therefore, a permanent solution ought to be ironed out with the concerted efforts of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) as well as peace-loving peoples of the world. The root cause of the Rohingyas’ problem is the flagrant denial of their fundamental liberty, for they profess Islam; all efforts must be directed towards resolving the root cause. The government of Bangladesh committed for a permanent solution of the Rohingyas (refugees) at the time of refugee exodus in 1992, however, it unfortunately stood back later from this stance, letting the Rohingyas in limbo, because of the national interest.
Furthermore, the plight of the Rohingyas is a deep-rooted and long standing issue, and as such it warrants a crucial effort of the international community particularly the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), and Islamic NGOs, peace-loving peoples for a viable solution. The former UN secretary-General H.E Dr. Butros Butros Ghali, in reference to the Rohingya refugee exodus in 1991/92, said, “ UN would endeavour to achieve a political solution to the crisis not merely for the time being but for future as well.” Other world leaders also made similar statements to this effect. Unfortunately, the issue of the Rohingyas has gone by default again and again.
Once again, it is further stressed that violations of Human Rights can not be regarded or pleaded as an internal affairs of a country as the plight of the Rohingya is having dimension of international perspective as well as an Islamic and diplomatic issue that must be of greater concern to the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), as it is regarded the spokesperson of all Muslims, including the Muslim minority in non-Muslims countries. And we appeal the United Nations Organizations, Organization of Islamic Conference, European Union and ASEAN to resolve the root cause of the Rohingyas’ plight while urging Bangladesh, as a neighboring country, being affected as well as interested party to the problem, to play a “key role” for a lasting solution.
Thank you.
Historical Bureau,
Rohingya Information Center (RIC-Arakan),
Muslim Minority Affairs-Global Peace Mission,

Rohingya Reply in Response to Berlin Khin Maung Saw:

Community Assn Institute

Designations for community managers who want to enhance their careers

www.caionline.org

 Rohingya Reply in Response to Berlin Khin Maung Saw

In response to Berlin Khin Maung Saw’s 16 pages

Tags: in , to , 16 , response , Khin , Maung , Berlin , Saw’s , pages Posted by ibrahim from media on 08/04/2009 at 11:04 PM in History of Arakan / Burma Anti- Rohingya provocative Article! Written by Mohiuddin (aka)Maung Sein [ Identification of an ethnicity is the right of a group of people who share common heritage, language, culture and history, living in a defined territory as a compact community for a countable period of time. No one or authority can impose their criteria, their Litmus test upon them by force or decree. The Muslim population of Arakan who believe they are native people of Rohang /Mrohang (Rohingya name of Rakhapura/Rakhaing Prey) identify themselves today as the Rohingyas per their free will and aspiration. They want to be known by this name by others with due respect. It is their natural and basic right to live in peace and harmony with sister communities of Burma as loyal and worthy citizens of the soil of Arakan. There is nothing to interfere about or to discredit the Rohingyas with other names that they disapprove of by any third party or other national races including the Rakhaings. The ethnic identity name should not and cannot be a factor at all when determining the nationality or citizenship status in Burma]. For Burmese people, in general, and the Rohingyas, in particular, struggle for democracy and human rights have been a long and seemingly unending walk to freedom.. The symbol of our suffering is embodied in the fragile body of Aung San Sui Kyi. Her suffering is shared by her people and the international community. Even though she suffers in silence, Burma’s democracy movement leaders have developed the framework for a democratic institution building with the objective of establishing a democratic civil society that is based on human rights, justice, equality and peaceful co-existence for achieving peace and prosperity in Burma. The goal of restoration of democracy in Burma is reflected in the policies and strategies of the NLD (National League for Democracy), the party which won landslide victory in the 1990 general election, the CRPP (Committee Representing the Peoples’ Parliament) and all other opposition democratic forces – inside and outside of Burma, including those who are engaged to remove the military rule by armed resistance of the patriotic revolutionary forces of various ethnic minorities fighting for justice and the right of self-determination in Burma . In the past, we had a democratic government for a brief period. But it didn’t survive. The question before us now is not only how to walk to freedom but also how to sustain it. There is no easy solution to this vital question. For this, in the Arakan context, we need academic debates, research, seminars, symposium, dialogues and conferences that are open and inclusive, not only just within each community but also between communities through active participation in a friendly and engaging atmosphere. This is particularly true about discussions on Burmese democracy and the Rohingya question. Why? This is simply because of the fact that the struggle for restoration of Democracy in Burma is a complicated, multi-dimensional phenomenon. A genuine democratic movement simply cannot afford to be oblivious of the genuine rights and concerns of the various communities that live within its border. We have to assess the internal and external agents and mechanisms of change, understanding the cultural diversities of people with whom Rohingyas would interact as the co-citizens inside the Arakan and Burma. Bottom line: we have to develop an all inclusive, integrated and coordinated approach.

From the dismal record of democracy inside Burma, it is obvious that the concept of democracy and its benefits, allowing her people to enjoy human rights in social infrastructure development has not sunk in very well among her people. It is mainly because they are being bombarded with xenophobic propaganda fed by the long-serving military machine and its agents working as divisive forces that only help to strengthen and prolong military rule in Burma. Education along these lines, e.g., the deadly effects of xenophobia, is very important. Such humane education will strengthen the foundation for a multi-ethnic, multi-racial, and multi-religious Burma that we can all pride in. For harvesting the fruit of democracy, as is obvious, such an education must begin with the leaders of the democracy movement. It is really praise-worthy and a matter of great pride for many of us to see the positive effect of that humane education amongst the students of the 1988-generation and the leaders of the Burmese democratic forces under the leadership of popular democracy icon Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her NLD party. Yet, it is so disheartening to see today how prejudice and xenophobic thinking are keeping Burma backward. Democracy is a government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected representatives. According to Abraham Lincoln, democracy is a government “of the people, by the people and for the people.” Democracy is not just a slogan. It is about living and bringing to fruition those lofty high ideals in the life of a nation so that the genuine concerns and legitimate aspirations of all its people, majority and minority – irrespective of their social and economic status within the society, ethnicity, color, race and religion – are met so that no one either feels discriminated or abused. In short, democracy is the institutionalization of freedom. It guarantees sovereignty of the people through a government that is based upon the consent of the governed, protecting minority rights, guaranteeing basic human rights and equality before the law, imposing constitutional limits on government, instilling social, economic and political pluralism, values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation and compromise for greater good of all. These are the essential ingredients of a democratic state. In Burma, ‘democracy’ is a far cry! It is missing. In this context, when we discuss about the problems and prospects of democratic development in Burma we see a naked and unambiguous disregard for basic fundamental human rights of their sister communities. This is noticeable in prejudicial, racist and hostile attitude of various communities towards each other. This is particularly true in certain ethnic group’s hostile attitudes towards the Burmese Muslims and the minority Rohingya people of Arakan that are part of the mosaic of estimated 54 million people that comprise today’s Burma. It is a matter of great concern that most of the Rakhaings from Arakan ruling group, elites and intellectuals alike, openly deny the existence of Rohingya in Burma on racial prejudice, labeling them ‘illegal Bangladeshi immigrants’ and ‘non-nationals’ of Burma. Their hostile attitude mimics those of the military (SPDC) regime that likes ethnic conflicts and turmoil to persist and flare up in the western region of Burma. Nevertheless, it is comforting to know that except for the bigoted ultra-nationalists, most Rakhines are not anti-Rohingya. Racial, ethnic and religious prejudice runs so deep in Burma that it is not so surprising to see hesitation on the part of some Burmese democratic parties to accepting and cooperating with the Rohingyas as fellow comrades in joint struggle for freedom, democracy and human rights in Burma. Fortunately again, except for a small group of misunderstood, misinformed or deluded individuals, not all Burmese democratic activists are anti-Rohingya. These are symptoms of Burma’s obstacle to democracy. Such anti-democratic thinking is against the concept of pluralism and multi-racial society. These are challenges to the values of tolerance and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Amongst the exiled Rakhine/Burmese leadership, lamentably, democratic parties like the ANC (Arakan National Council, formed by Rakhaing – exiles in India), ENC (Ethnic Nationalities Council, formed by exiles of many ethnic groups in Thailand), ALD (Arakan League for Democracy, the party that participated in the 1990 general election in Arakan winning 11 MP seats) also do not recognize Rohingya as an ethnic minority of Burma. Their attitude is not conducive towards development of genuine democracy in Burma. In such a hopeless, truth-defying political landscape of doom and gloom, hatred and prejudice, when someone’s suffering is seen as other’s benefit, it is refreshing to recall that the genuine leadership of 1988 Generation students – ABSDF – came in support of the Rohingya people with due recognition of and respect for them. They embraced the Rohingya on broad-based political and democratic platform during and after Rohingya refugee exodus to Bangladesh. The ABSDF published a 22-page booklet in support of the Rohingyas. In a nutshell, on racial and religious grounds, most of the Burmese ‘democrats’, except a few Burmese exiled groups and some Rakhaing individuals, knowingly or unknowingly refrain from or hesitate to accept the Rohingyas in their ranks and files. This type of chauvinistic, hostile and morally reprehensible attitude is no different than those preached and practiced by the BSPP/SLORC/SPDC military rulers against the Rohingyas. It is simply strengthening the hands and policies of the SPDC military junta and its tools of oppression for dividing the people of Burma along racial, ethnic and religious lines. Such an attitude of exclusion, as exhibited by many of so-called democratic leaders of Burma, is neither the way of democratic thinking nor does help thawing the BurmeseRakhine-Rohingya relationship. Suspicion and hatred of Rohingyas on racial and religious ground, and depriving them of their fundamental rights to survival as human beings with honor and dignity in their ancestral homeland is a crime against humanity. It is at variance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Those who want to exclude the Rohingyas in the mainstream democratic forces of Burma, particularly the Rakhaing democrats, raise the pretext that there is no ethnic group in Burma by the name of ‘Rohingya’. They claim that the Rohingyas are ‘illegal Bangalee (Bengali)’ people who entered Arakan during the British colonial period from 1824 to 1948 and, as such, they are not one of the nationals of Burma at all, but ‘foreigner residents’ and ‘stateless’ people. In order to refute such malicious claims, I provide below the following facts:[1]

1. In the Burmese transliteration of the 8th century Anandasanda Stone Pillar inscription in the ancient capital city of Mrauk-U, the use of Rohingya words like Arakandesh (Arakan country), Raza (king), kam (job), etc., testify to the rich cultural heritage of the Rohingya people in Arakan. [Dr. Saw Tun Aung: Shittaung Phara Stone Pillar's Northern Side Inscription, Rakhine Welfare Association's 25th Anniversary Magazine, pp. 48-53]

2. Dr. Than Tun, the rector of Mandalay University and professor of history wrote, “The kings of Arakan had Muslim titles. The Muslim kings mentioned in the Kyaukza (stone plates or stones tablets inscriptions of 1442)[2] might be Rohingyas from the Mayu valley of the eastern Naf River (and the western Kaladan River) who claimed their existence of over thousand years. Their existence might be from the time of 1202 C.E. when their coreligious Muslims conquered Bengal, that is 800 years [ago]. It was written in the Kyaukza of 1442 that there were some Muslim kings of Arakan who were very friendly with the kings of Ava.” [Dr. G.H. Luce, "K’yan (Chin)" Mru and K’umi (N. Arakan)" Phases of Pre-Pagan Burma Languages and History, Oxford, SOAS, 1985-76-97; Dr. Than Tun, Kalya Magazine, pp. 27-28, 1994, August]

3. The British-Burma Gazetteers of 1879 stated: “Many Arab ships wrecked near Rambree Island of Arakan coast during the reign of Mahataing Sanda (788-810) and the crews and the traders of those ships were Muslims and

they were sent to the Arakan proper and settled in villages, where the married local women.. … According to history, Islam came through the sea borne Sufis and merchants. These were testified by the darghas (shrines) which are dotted at the long coast of Arakan and Burma.” [p. 16]

4. The historian U Kyi wrote: “The superior morality of those devout Muslims attracted large number of people towards Islam who embraced it en masse.” [The Essential History of Burma by U Kyi, p. 160]

5. Zaya Kyaw Tin U Ba Shin wrote, “From 1430 A.D. Arakan was ruled by the Muslims.” [The Arrival of Islam in Burma, p. 5]

6. Francis Buchanan was a surgeon in 1795 to the British Embassy in Ava, the then capital of Burma. He wrote, “I shall now add three dialects, spoken in the Burma Empire. The first is that spoken by the Mohammedans, who have long been settled in Arakan and who call themselves Roanigya or native of Arakan.” [The Languages of Burma, Asiatic Researches (Calcutta), vol. 5, 1801]

7. The Time Atlas of the World History says, “Muslim kingdom of Arakan was independent in the 14th and 15th centuries.” [Time Atlas of the World History, edited in 1979 by Geoffrey Barraclough, p. 33]

8. The SLORC /SPDC Publication ‘Thasana Yongwa Htoonkazepo’ stated, “Muslims arrived and settled since last 1000 to 1200 years in Burma.” [The SLORC Publication 'Thasana Yongwa Htoonkazepo’ p. 65]

9. According to the 1947 Constitution of the Union of Burma, based on Aung San-Atlee agreement, “Every person who was born in any of the territories which at the time of his birth was included within His Britannic Majesty’s dominions and who has resided in any of the territories included within the Union for a period of not less than eight years in the ten years immediately preceding the date of the commencement of this Constitution or immediately preceding the 1st January 1942 and who intends to reside permanently there in and who signifies his election of citizenship of the Union in the manner and within the time prescribed by law, shall be a citizen of the Union. (Section 11, iv) Furthermore, the Constitution’s Citizenship Section 10 says, “There shall be but one citizenship throughout the Union.”[3]

10. The Union Citizenship Act, 1948 says: “Any person descended from ancestors who for two generations at least have all made any of the territories included within the Union their permanent home and whose parents and himself were born in any of such territories shall be deemed to be a citizen of the Union.” (Article 4.2)[4]

11. The First President of the Union of Burma U Sao Shwe Thaik acknowledged and announced that Rohingyas are an indigenous race and citizens of Burma, same as Shan, Kachin, Mon, Karen, and Rakhine.

12. Under the 1949 Residents of Burma Registration Act and the 1951 Residents of Burma Registration Rules, Rohingyas were issued Burmese NRC (National Registration Cards), which itself is a proof of their bona-fide citizenship and nationality since foreigners were excluded from the issuance of such cards. [The issuance of the NRC to Rohingyas was stopped by Ne Win military regime after 1962.]

13. The Registration of Foreigners Act (Burma Act VII, 1940)[5] did not require Rohingyas to be registered as foreigners, since they were regarded as Burmese nationals.[6]

14. The former Prime Minister U Nu made categorical statements concerning the Rohingya status. On September 25, 1954 at 8:00 p.m., U Nu made speech from the Burmese national Radio BBS (Burmese Broadcasting Services) stating, “The Rakhine State is situated towards the south-west of the Union. The Buthidaung and Maung Daw townships are included in the Sittwe Division of the Rakhine state. These two townships are bordering East

Pakistan (now Bangladesh). The majority of the people in these two townships are Rohingyas who profess the Islamic faith.”

15. The former Burmese Defence Minister and Prime Minister U Ba Swe said at mass rallies at Buthidaung and Maung Daw on the 3rd and 4th of November, 1959 that “The Rohingyas are equal in every way with other minority races like the Shan, Chin, Kachin, Kayin, Kayah, Mon and Rakhine. They have lived in Myanmar Niang Ngan for ages, according to historical facts. They are of the Islamic faith. There is historical evidence that they have lived faithfully and harmoniously with other races of the Union.”

16. In his speech, Brigadier U Aung Gyi, Vice Chief of Staff at Maung Daw on July 4, 1961 at the ceremony of the resistance group who were fighting in the name of revolution since the independence of Burma stated that “Rohingyas are an indigenous race in Burma same as other ethnic groups such as Shan, Kachin, Karen, Mon and Rakhine.”

17. In recognition of the Rohingya as an indigenous ethnic minority, the Dean of Student Affairs, University of Rangoon, granted permission to organize and operate under the name of “University Rohingya Students Association” in 1959-61. [Note: foreign students could not organize under the Burmese Universities Act.]

18. The Parliamentary Democratic Government of U Nu allowed the broadcast of the Rohingya language program from May 15, 1961 to October 1, 1965 as per indigenous citizen’s program of BBS.

19. U Nu’s democratic government granted local autonomy to the Rohingyas and declared establishment of the Mayu Frontier Administration (MFA), a special frontier district ruled directly by the central government in the year 1961, May 30, which was abolished in 1964, on February 1, by Gen. Ne Win. [It is worth mentioning here that initially, General Ne Win recognized the Rohingyas as an indigenous race and citizen of Burma. (Dr. Shwe Lu Maung, The Price of Silence)]

20. The Encyclopedia Burmanica, published by the government in its Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 89-90, publication mentioned “Rohingya as an indigenous ethnic group living in northern Arakan.”

21. Rohingya Minister, MPs, Secretaries were given due honor and appropriate posts in the both the Houses of the Parliamentary Democratic Government in Burma from 1948 to 1962.

22. Rohingyas were recruited in army, navy and police forces as loyal Burmese citizens to defend the country and people of Burma from 1948 to 1962.

23. Rohingya political, social, educational, cultural organizations were duly recognized and approved by the proper Authorities for registration.

24. Rohingya ethnic cultural show was exhibited on the occasion of national parade of the National and Independence days.

25. The high school textbook on geography (1978) published by the Ministry of Education, Government of Burma, showed minority settlements in North Arakan where Rohingya people lived.

26. As Bona-fide citizens of Burma, the Rohingyas exercised their citizenship rights of votes and contested in all parliamentary general elections, held in Burma since 1936, including those in 1939, 1947, 1952, 1956, 1961, 1974, 1978 and 1990, and wining elections in their region. The participation in those elections, along with the assignment of the post of Health Minister in U Nu’s Cabinet further consolidate the indigenous status of Rohingyas and their citizenship or Burmese nationality.

27. The conspiracy to rob the Rohingyas of their inalienable fundamental rights of citizenship or Burmese nationality rights was initiated by the Ne Win’s Revolutionary Council at the persuasion of some Rakhaing ultranationalist and elite groups. [Dr. Aye Kyaw (now a US citizen) was one of the leaders of this group. He has written anti-Rohingya literary materials to misguide the Burmese people and military officers.] In site of such conspiratorial and xenophobic 1974 and 1982 citizenship laws – that were formulated by the BSPP/SLORC/SPDC rulers, they did not dare to bar the Rohingyas from exercising their rights to vote in Burma in the 1990 general election.

28. Burma Election commission and Immigration Departments recognized the Rohingyas as Bona-fide citizens by preparing the voter lists and granting and approving nominations of Rohingya candidates in the Multi-Party Democracy General Election of 1990. [In that election, the National Democratic Party for Human Rights (NDPHR) of the Rohingya ethnic people contested in 6 townships - Maungdaw, Buthidaung, Akyab (Sittwe), Mrauk U (formerly Mro-haung), Minbya and Kyauktaw in 9 constituencies and won 4 MP seats. The elected MPs were - U Kyaw Min (aka) Mohammad Shamsul Anwarul Hoque from Buthidaung Constituency (1), U Tin Maung (aka) Nur Ahmed from Buthidaung Constituency (2), U Ebrahim (aka) U Chit Lwin from Maungdaw Constituency (1) and U Fazal Ahmed from Maungdaw Constituency (2).] The approval of 9 electoral nominations from the NDPHR and other Rohingya candidates from other parties (e.g., Mayu Development Student Youth Organization (Arakan), led by U Kyaw Soe Aung and U Emtiyaz; National Ethnic Reformation Party led by U Khin Maung and U Shwe Bung Win, Amyothar (National) Party led by Rtd. Major-General (air) U Tun Kyaw Oo and Rohingyas, Indigenous Cooperation Party led by U Hussain Ahamed and U Fazal Kabir (alias) U Kyaw Thein in Arakan by the Burma Election Commission clearly shows that Rohingyas are not foreigners – they are neither guest citizens nor associate citizens. Otherwise those nominations would have been rejected on the basis of 1982 citizenship law. 29. The historian Moshe Yegar writes, “The Rohingyas preserved their own heritages from the impact of the Buddhist environment not only as far as their religion is concerned but also in some aspects of their culture.” [The Muslims of Burma: A Study of a Minority Group, p. 25]

It should be pointed out that in spite of their religious ties with Bengali Muslims, especially in the neighboring Chittagong area (Bangladesh), Rohingyas maintained certain distinctness from them. 1. Anthony Irwin writes, “The Musulman Arakanese, generally known as Bengalis or Chittagonians, quite incorrectly…. To look at, they are quite unlike any other product of India or Burma that I have seen. They resemble the Arabs in name, in dress and in habit. The women and more particularly the young girls have distinctive Arab touch about them…. As a race they have been here over two hundred years.” [Burmese Outpost, pub. Collins (London), 1945, p. 22] 2. The historian Moshe Yegar writes, “There is after all very little common – except common religion – between the Rohingyas of Arakan and the Indian Muslims of Rangoon or Burmese Muslims of the Shwebo district. These are different groups that do not identify with each other, do not share the same goal and aspiration.” [The Muslims of Burma: A Study of a Minority Group, p. 111] 3. U Thein Pei Myint, one of the most popular Burmese authors, writes, “Almost all Bengalis grow moustaches, Rohingyas do not keep moustaches. Wedding programs, marriage arrangements, feeding customs, foods and drinks are all different. Instrumental music, musical instruments and music, etc. are different. Hereditary festivities of boat-racing, paddy transplant competition, wrestling, riddles, bull-fight, buffalo-fight, etc., are held as Rohingya’s own traditional festivities. The culture of ‘collective labour volunteering’ exists among the Rohingya till today. Difference is more vivid in trade and profession. Haircutting, blacksmith, goldsmith, silversmith, laundry

and shoe-making are very rare among the Rohingya as they conceive these are lowly and inglorious professions.” [From Myohaung to Paletwa, 1978 Ahte’tan Pinjin Zagabjei Le’jwei:zin (A high school Burmese textbook) An oft-repeated argument by the Burmese chauvinists and Rakhine ultra-nationalists is that Muslims of Northern Arakan state participated, voted and became MPs in all general elections from 1937 to 1990 as Muslims and not as a Rohingyas.[7] I say: so, what? Are we not the same people? The British government recorded us along the religious line as Muslims. The Burmese government did not accept registration of political party bearing the name Rohingya during the political party registration process in 1989. Such government branding did not change what we are. We are the same people. One must understand that ethnicity, indigenous or tribal status is not a factor or obstacle in the way of citizenship and nationality of Burma. One should be reminded here by the statement of General Aung San, the Father of our nation. Sixty years ago, during Panglong Meeting, in 11 February 1947, he said: “We have in Burma many indigenous peoples: the Karen, the Kachin, the Shan, the Chin, the Burmans and others… In other countries too there are many indigenous peoples, many “races.”… Thus “races” do not have rigid boundaries. Religion is no barrier either, for it is a matter of individual conscience… If we want the nation to prosper, we must pool our resources, manpower, wealth, skills and work together. … If we are divided, the Karen, the Shan, the Kachin, the Chin, the Burman, the Mon and the Arakanese, each pulling in a different direction, the Union will be torn, and we will come to grief. Let us unite and work together.” When asked about the Rohingyas and human rights, the Democracy icon Daw Aung San Suu Kyi replied in recent BBC interview: “Democracy does mean pluralism and democracy means equal basic human rights for everybody. I am confident that we can build up a really strong and united Burma. The signs are all here. In some ways, the sufferings we have undergone together have built up a tremendous feeling of trust among each other. Our sufferings have united us. I think the world has opened up in such a way that different cultures are able to reach across to each other. We all live in the same country – we have lived in the same country for centuries and because we have lived together so closely, we have had our problems. You have more problems with your neighbours than with people who live very far away from you – that’s only natural. But I think we can also learn to be very, very good neighbours in the same way because we all live in this country we can learn to be very good and loving towards each other. We can learn to trust each other, we can learn to work together, we can learn to live together and I think that learning process has already begun.” (Daw Aung San Suu Kyi on Rohingyas in BBC interview) From the speeches of Burma’s Founding Father General Aung San to his daughter, hope of future Burma, Democracy icon Daw Aung San Suu Kyi all members of national races and democrats from Burma should understand that there is no place for racism and ethnic prejudice in a future democratic Burma. Identification of an ethnicity is the right of a group of people who share common heritage, language, culture and history, living in a defined territory as a compact community for a countable period of time. No one or authority can impose their criteria, their Litmus test upon them by force or decree. The Muslim population of Arakan who believe they are native people of Rohang /Mrohang (Rohingya name of Rakhapura/Rakhaing Prey) identify themselves today as the Rohingyas per their free will and aspiration. They want to be known by this name by others with due respect.. It is their natural and basic right to live in peace and harmony with sister communities of Burma as loyal and worthy citizens of the soil of Arakan. There is nothing to interfere about or to discredit the Rohingyas with other names that they disapprove of by any third party or other national races including the Rakhaings. The name should not and cannot be a factor at all when determining the nationality or citizenship status.

Further evidences to Rohingya’s ancestry in Arakan are documented in the writings of famous historians like Hall, Harvey and Professor Desai who mentioned that the population of Arakan before the 10th century CE was of Indian stock, i.e., similar to Bengalis in Bangladesh today. As we know, over the last millennium, many of these Bengalis became Muslims. Similarly, many of the original inhabitants of Arakan that looked like their neighbors in today’s Bangladesh also became Muslims. They identify themselves as the Rohingyas. It is also known that foreign trade of Arakan before the Portuguese arrival in the late 15th century was solely in the hands of Arabs and that there were many Arab colonies in Kyauk-La-Ga and Mrauk-U, the then capitals of Arakan. Due to the presence of these colonies and the ensuing intercourse of Arabs, many natives Arakanese became Muslims (The Muslims of Burma: A Study of a Minority Group by Moshe Yegar). The most shining dynasty of Arakan was the Mrauk-U dynasty. It was founded by Naramikla (alias) Sulaiman (1403—1433 CE), who had lived in exile for more than two decades. He took military help from the Bengal Muslim King to restore his kingdom. From King Naramikla to Sandathudama in 1652 CE more than 15 Arakanese kings adopted Muslim titles and used coins bearing Muslim inscription. Even their judicial system was based along Muslim line. Many ministers, high-ranking officials, members of army were Muslims. Descendents of these Muslims commingled with former native people comprising today’s Rohingyas. (The History of Chittagong, Vol. 1 by Dr. S. B. Kunango, University of Chittagong) There were thousand of captive Muslim settlements in Arakan during Mrauk-U dynasty. Magh (Atrakanese Buddhist) pirates and Portuguese slave hunters brought these captives to Arakan on a regular basis. According to Arthur Phayre, this population consisted of 15% of total population of Arakan.. (Travelogue of Father Manrique) Arakan history is replete with the fact that during the dispute between Moghul Prince Shah Shuja, who took asylum in Arakan and Arakan king Sandathudama, in the early 1660s, Prince Shuja found a considerable number of Muslims to take side with him. The British Official Mr. Paton’s Report in 1825 categorized the population of Arakan as 6:3:1, i.e., 60,000 Arakanese Buddhists, 30,000Arakanese Muslims, and 10,000 Burmans. This report shows that when the Great Britain occupied Arakan, there was 1 Muslim living there for every two Arakanese Buddhists. (A. C. Banarjee, The Eastern Frontier of British India, Calcutta, 1964, p. 351) Towards our ancestral origin to Arakan, let me now submit some historic edifices of Rohingyas:

(a) The Sandi Khan Mosque in Minthaya Bying Village (Kawalong), Mrauk-U, was built by the Muslim Army that restored Narameikhla to the throne of Arakan in 1433. This mosque was partially destroyed by the SLORC (current the SPDC).

(b) The Musa Mosque, popularly known as the Maiz-zya Pal-lee, with its big pond in the eastern Mrauk-U in 151315.

(c) The Rakhine Ja-may Mosque at Shwe Daung village in Moulmein was built by the Muslim Army of Arakan during Arakanese King Min Raza Gri’s time (1593-1612).

(d) The Alam Lashkar Mosque with its ten ponds around it in Pan Myaung Village in Minbya township of Arakan.

(e) The Shwe Dah Kazi Mosque, which was built by Shwe Dah Kazi before 1780. [Note: Kazi died in Calcutta Jail after arrest during the First Anglo-Burma War, fighting against the British Occupation Forces in Minbra Township of Arakan.] The Kazi Mosque in Paik Thay Village is in Kyauktaw township of Arakan.

(f) The Bodor Mokam Mosque — built in the 18th century.. This is presently occupied as a military Cantonment.

(g) The Musa Dewan Mosque at Nazirpara, near the Muslim graveyard in Akyab.

(h) There was another mosque known as Nan-Oo Pal-lee in front of the old Palace in Mrauk-U, which was totally demolished by the SLORC, all in defiance of the 1972 UNESCO Convention.]

(i) All the settlements of Rohingyas in Arakan are located along the most important and fertile rivers of Arakan such as Meyu, Kaladan, Lae Myo, which testify to the fact that Rohingya settlements in Arakan are as old as history; hence, as one of the first settlers to the land, they could occupy the fertile areas of Arakan.

(j) There are many other proofs and evidences of Rohingyas’ ancestry and settlement in Arakan that I could have cited. However these are beyond the scope of discussion here.

As has been amply demonstrated above, Rohingyas are indigenous to Arakan. The anti-Rohingya campaign to deny their birthrights to the land of Arakan is wrong – both factually and morally. It is deceitful, malicious and hostile to the core. It must be stressed further that the 1974 and 1982 Burma Citizenship Laws are products of unelected, usurping, dictatorial military junta that had neither the mandate to pass any law on the citizenship of Burmese multi-ethnic people nor the legitimacy to hold national convention to draw a new constitution for the legalization of the rule of the military dictatorship. These laws are illegal and unacceptable to the people of Burma including the affected Rohingyas of Arakan. Above all, these discriminatory laws are at odds with scores of charters and laws governing citizenship around the world. They vehemently undermine the human rights of the Rohingyas and at the same time have been posing a big impediment in the promotion of democracy not just within Arakan but in the entire Union of Burma. Apart from such exclusionary racial and religious prejudices against minorities, factors that contribute to unease, suspicion, tension and hatred in a reminiscent of the Belfast scenario of the yesteryears, there is a plethora of factors that are also challenging to the democratic development in Burma. There are many inside Burma, from the SPDC military junta to selfish pro-junta business tycoons, who fear to lose power and fortune if democracy were to be established in Burma. Then, there are outside powers like China, India and Russia that benefit from trade and commerce with the military-run Burma. Shamelessly, they care less about genuine aspirations of the people inside Burma. Democracy is about equality and rights, respect for dignity and sovereignty of people. Double standard is antithesis to democracy; playing racial or religious favoritism with a dominant group and oppressing a minority is not democracy. The human rights violations faced by the Rohingyas include not only the denial of citizenship, but also forced labor, extortion by the members of law enforcing agencies (Nasaka), rape, abduction, severe restrictions on job, education, health and human services, movement and marriage, and practice of religion and culture – all signifying a total, abysmal absence of basic human rights. By any account, the Rohingya community is the worst victim of targeted harassment, torture and persecution. If democracy movement leaders of Burma fail to face the challenges of inter-ethnic conflicts, human rights violation, xenophobia, intolerance, extremism, racism and increasing inequalities, such problems will continue to pose significant threats to peace and stability of Burma. They will not foster democracy, but secession or rebellion

with every national/ethnic community trying to walk out of the Federation. They can also be, as has already been proven in the last century through the influx of Rohingya refugees to Bangladesh, destabilizing forces in South and South-east Asia. The word ‘democracy’ cannot remain confined within slogans only. Understandably, if democracy awareness campaign is not undertaken during the course of democratic movement in Burma today, and if we do not bring these important but neglected issues to the attention of the fellow countrymen and the leading democrats, and fail to come up with honorable solutions that unite us all (from Rohingya to Rakhine, Shan to Mon to Burman to Karen, etc.) on an equal basis, I am afraid, even if today’s SPDC were to leave letting Burma celebrate democracy, our victory will be superficial and very short-lived. It won’t be too long that Burma became a failed democracy with a revisit of the brutal military rule. Burmese democrats and educationists must, therefore, play a very progressive role in combating intolerance and racism. They must promote dialogue, understanding and respect of various communities that make up today’s Burma to bring about the much-needed changes in thought and actions within multi-ethnic institutional framework. In this endeavor, the present democratic leadership can exchange information, and discuss areas of concern, and, most importantly, initiate reconciliation at all levels of policy- and decision- making within and between rank and file of all groups and parties. The road to a future stable, peaceful and progressive Burma lies in mutual trust and respect between leaders and their followers and constituents. In accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, all members of the progressive Burmese democratic forces need to agree and accept that all individuals of Burma – born there (including those born of refugee parents outside), regardless of their ethnic or social background, religion or state of residence – are bona fide Citizens of Burma and must have the same basic human and democratic rights. They must demand a cessation of all hostilities and human rights violations against all minorities.. They cannot afford to be unmindful of the sufferings of all the communities that make the fabric of today’s Burma. This type of thinking will energize all minorities fostering a united movement for democracy inside Burma. It will aid in conflict management and resolution of the critical issues dealing with the Rohingyas and other minorities in Burma. It will also be a stabilizing force to sustain democracy. Let’s all work for that goal. For further information Please contact:Mohiuddin (aka)Maung Sein, Tel: President Rohingya Concern International (RCI) PO Box-567,NY-14213,USA 1-646-625-9407

[About the Author: Mr. Maung Sein (alias) Mohiuddin Yusof is a human-rights activist. He served as the President of NDPHR (exile) USA from 2005 to 2008. He was also the Diplomatic Representative of ALD - exile-(Arakan League for Democracy) and ex-Coordinator of ALD-Liaison Office (Malaysia), one of the founding members and Chief Coordinator of Arakan Democratic Forces (ADF - Malaysia) under the leadership of Dr. Shwe Lu Maung (alias) Shahnawaz Khan (1997-1999), ex-Chairman and a founding member of the Organization of Displaced Rohingya Muslims (ODRM – Malaysia) in 1993-1999, Convener and ex- president of Arakan Peoples’ Freedom Party (APFP) in 1990, Ex-President of Rohingya Human Rights Organization (RHRO) in 1988, Ex-Vice President of

Rohingya Muslim Welfare Association (RMWA) in 1987, former Secretary and EC member of Muslim Salvation Party (Tanzeem Khuddamul Musleemin) in 1973 - 1978. Mr. Mohiuddin was also the chief Coordinator of the Organizing Committee of the First International Conference in Japan on the Problems of Democratic Development in Burma and the Rohingya people. He now lives in New York City, USA. Mr. Mohiuddin is originally from Mrauk-Oo (formerly known as Mro-haung). He is the grand-son of U Shormuluk from Mrauk-U Township, where his family lived for hundreds of years in Mrauk-U until moving recently to Akyab (Sittwe). His lineage is from the aristocratic family of U Shormuluk in Mrauk–U who were the custodians of the ancient Sindi Khan Mosque (built in 1433) for more than 200 years. The historical mosque was demolished by extremist and ultra-nationalist Rakhaings under the aegis of SLORC/SPDC brutal military forces. His grand-father was also the Custodian of Nenn Oo Palli (Palace Mosque) of Alay-zay (Mrauk-U, ancient capital city of Arakan Kingdom), which was also demolished by anti-Muslim forces.]

——————————————————————————-

[1] For more details, see the article: “Rohingyas are not British Era Settlers: Summary of the Facts – From the Rohingyas of Arakan” by A.F.K. Jilani, 6 October 2006 , http://www.rohingya.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=53&Itemid=61. [2] Stone Plate Inscription” serial No. 963/20-23-804

[3] For details, see The Price of Silence by Dr. Shwe Lu Maung, DewDrop, USA (2005), p. 228-231; http://www.blc-burma.org/html/Constitution/1947..html#CITIZENSHIP.

[4] http://www..ibiblio.org/obl/docs/UNION_CITIZENSHIP_ACT-1948.htm

[5] http://www..blc-burma.org/html/Burma%20Code/lr_e_bc01_11.html

[6] It is worth noting that the Immigration Department of Arakan State keeps a diligent record of foreigners within the state. According to a report issued by Arakan Security and Administration Committee, only 1037 individuals were registered as foreigners in 1974. The Rohingyas did not belong in the list.

[7] The practice of registering Muslim population along the religious line rather than ethnic or racial line owes it to the British administrative policy, something that can also be seen in Sri Lanka , when registering the Tamil Muslim minority as only “Muslims.” The same practice was adopted by the British when recording the Rohingya Muslim population in Burma .

Credit:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:YhUbYNumOSUJ:www.scribd.com/doc/15109647/Rohingya-Reply-in-Response-to-Berlin-Khin-Maung-Saw+&cd=16&hl=en&ct=clnk