INTERVIEW with Rakhine History Expert on the recent communal conflict in RakhineState

Mawkun magazine interviewed Dr. Jacques P. Leider, a Rakhine history expert, on the recent communal conflict in Rakhine State. He has conducted academic research on Rakhine State for more than two decades.

By Nyan Lynn and Zayar Hlaing

“Rohingya is a name, not an ethnic category, that has been revived in modern days to identify Muslims in Rakhine as a separate social group. One may eventually compare it with the name of the Chinese Muslims in Myanmar who are called ‘Panthay’.  ”

Dr. Jacques P. Leider (Photo: Zayar Hlaing)

MAWKUN: What does “Rohingya” mean?

LEIDER: I would like to say that “Rohingya” is definitely an old,though rare word. It is not a newly invented word from the 1950s as was often stated. It is tracedin an article by a British medical doctor, Francis Hamilton, at the end ofthe 18th century. He states that this was the word that the Muslims living in Rakhine at that time used for themselves. The word is derived from the Bengali noun for Arakan which is Roshanga, but people like to produce more fanciful explanations to beautify the meaning of the word. The name “Rohingya” is apparently not traced in earlier literature. It is also not found in British colonial sources that say in fact very little about the Muslims in Rakhine before 1870.

MAWKUN: As far as we interviewed Bengali people in Sittwe, Buthidaung and Maungdaw areas, most of them even haven’t heard of the word “Rohingya”. (We interviewed them through translators because we don’t understand their language. They don’t understand our Myanmar language either.)

LEIDER: I cannot confirm the statement that you make because as a foreigner I did not access the areas of Buthidaung and Maungdaw. But I heard several times both in Myanmar and in Bangladesh that not all the Muslims in Rakhine State want to be referred to as Rohingya, but simply as Rakhine Muslims. Rohingya is a name, not an ethnic category, that has been revived in modern days to identify Muslims in Rakhine as a separate social group. One may eventually compare it with the name of the Chinese Muslims in Myanmar who are called “Panthay”.

MAWKUN:What kind of underlying reasons might the educated Bengalis abroad have behind promoting the word “Rohingya”?It is widely believed in Myanmar that so-called Rohingya Bengali want to be recognized as ethnic so that they can later claim for aself-governing region. What is your view on it?

LEIDER: The Muslim leaders you refer to have successfully promoted the term to give their community a specific identity which they link to the history of the Muslims in the old Rakhine kingdom. They link this ethnic claim to the issue of citizenship. It has been a strategically successful choice as the international media have adopted and widely spread the term “Rohingya”. TheRohingyaMuslims wanted to set themselves apart from other communities of Indian origins in Myanmar that do not make the claim of being a specific ethnic group. Mentioning the project of a “self-governing region”, I think you refer to claims that had already been put forward back at the time of Myanmar’s independence and after. I am not aware that the Rohingya representatives that have been elected to the current parliament in Naypyidaware arguing for a self-governing region.

From a historical point of view, we have to recall two salient facts. The first is that the majority of Muslims in Rakhine would most likely trace their origin to the important Bengali immigration that developed during the British colonial period and which is well documented after 1870 till the early decades of the 20th century. Unlike other Indian immigrants who were in trade and port activities or served the British administration, the Bengalis were mostly tilling the land.

The second fact is that an old Muslim community existed in Rakhine in the precolonial period. This Muslim community of probably mixed Persian and Indian origins developed at least since the late 15th century. After the Rakhine kings obtained control over Chittagong, probably in the middle of the reign of King Min Phalaung (1571-93), many of their subjects in the kingdom were local Muslims. 

In the early 17th century, the kings raided East Bengal to fight off Mughal invasions and deported people to be resettled in the Kaladan valley or to be sold off as slaves. Educated Muslims served at the court. Rakhine foreign policy was not anti-Muslim, it was anti-Mughal.  Ten, fifteen years after the conquest of Rakhine by King Bodawphaya, many inhabitants, both Buddhists and Muslims migrated back to Southeast Bengal. The old community was absorbed by the more numerous immigrants and the descendants of both communities melted into a single one.

MAWKUN: What are the root causes of the recent conflict?

LEIDER: An answer to that question comes from a long-term rather than short-term perspective.Indeed this conflict is not new, it is complex and has gone from bad to worse. Many decades back, immigration needed regulation but the British did not restrain the flow of Indian laborers that came to settle in Rakhine. The risk of communal clasheswas foreseen by observers in the 1920s as tensions already mounted between the communities.

When the Japanese invaded Burma in 1942, communal clashes erupted as thousands of people fled to India. At the time of independence and during the 1950s, the Muslims who were overall a minority in Rakhine, but locally a dominant majority, did not aim at integration into Rakhine society, but rather wanted to defend their separate character. Tension never abated as Muslims and Buddhists remained divided both culturally and politically.

This did not change within the authoritarian context after 1962. But governments on both sides – on the one hand East Pakistan, later on Bangladesh and on the other Myanmar -- didn’t tackle this situation head-on. Repression, harassment and a lack of political transparency on the migration issue could only make the situation worse. On behalf of the Muslims, the conflict was expressed mostly in terms of the lack of legal rights. There has been in fact a lot of ambiguity.

While the Muslims had the right to vote even in the 1950s, they were pushed back through the restriction or the denial of citizenship after 1982.  More generally government policy aimed at containing both Muslim and Rakhine political demands while exploiting the local rivalry.  From the perception of the Buddhist Rakhine, the conflict has constantly remained an unsettling cultural issue as they feel that their identity is threatened and they see the numerous Muslims as alien to their land. It does not help that both Muslims and Buddhists tend to focus in their self-representations on their own community deriving legitimacy from exclusivist interpretations of the past.

Conflicts get worse when there are no shared visions about the land and its history and with such a blatant lack of communication as we see in Rakhine. There is a huge gap between the two groups that cannot be bridged by short term crisis management or trusting that the government could simply mend the divisions by better security policies.

MAWKUN: Some international media and groups use such words as “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” when referring the recent conflict. In a recent opinion published by The New York Times, a Bangladesh professor uses“ethnic cleansing”. Do all these word reflect the real situation in Rakhine State?

LEIDER: I do not agree with such extreme formulations. This is not a war of people who feel superior to others and it’s not a fight about who has the better religion. The war of propaganda, notably on the internet where all kinds of expressions are used to attack the other, does not say necessarily much about the nature of the conflict itself. The fact is that immigrant Muslims and Buddhist Rakhine were brought together to live side by side in historical circumstances they did not create themselves.

When you call the “Rohingya” stateless, because of their ambiguous and unprotected legal status, it is right to call the Rakhine voiceless as for them history over the last two centuries has been mostly a long phase of conquests, subjection and pressure where they felt as constantly losing. The recent violence is above all the release of long held back desperation and anger. That’s also shown by the way that the violent clashes erupted.

The current situation started as a criminal case.After the Rakhinelady was raped, it was the police’s job to find and arrest the criminals. The failure to do so efficiently sparked an act of wanton brutality against a group of Muslims. Describing the events with all their brutality from that moment onwards as ethnic cleansing and genocide blurs the sight on all the factors that underlie the conflict, basically everything that has gone wrong in Arakan during the last century. Like in many other places, here we see people looking basically for justice, progress and the affirmation of their identity.

In a situation where people fight each other, the responsibility the government is supposed to have is to separate them. But separation, soon to be criticized as segregation, is no more than a short term option for security purposes, it’s not defining a political perspective for people living together in the same country that calls for social and economic development.

MAWKUN: What is the best way to prevent the future conflicts from happening?

LEIDER: It does not look as if the present confrontation has been solved. It has just started and all the parties involved are simply accusing each other about wrong-doing and failures. People have been more resolutely taking sides and the communities have been further antagonized. The language has become ruder and positions more radicalized.

The path towards improvement starts with readiness to communicate and agree on some common aims. But that can only take place when those who have suffered feel that their grievances are fully taken into account. More than ever, the Rakhine feel unfairly treated as the focus of reports is on the humanitarian plight of the Rohingyas.

We should certainly not question the legitimate purpose of reports on human rights. They contribute to transparency, but the recipes to address the tensions lie in the political field. We can name them: giving a voice to those who have suffered, offer mediation and engage people on grounds of common interest such as education and health. Any realistic prospect for the future development of Rakhine has to include and integrate the presence of the people who are now living there. The question of citizenship will be for sure a core issue in upcoming debates, but sovereign states have to take pragmatically into account all the resident population, be they citizens or not.

MAWKUN: Rakhine people are criticizing that UN and other international agenciesare favoring Bengali people very much, and that they are there only to help Bengalis. What would you like to comment?

LEIDER: The identity of Buddhist Rakhine is strongly marked by their perception that since the end of their kingdom they have not been masters of their own destiny. The feeling of loss of identity has worsened with the social and economic pressure of Indian immigration during the colonial period. Basically this condition did not change since independence.

With the recent engagement of UN and INGOs in favor of the Rohingyas as a most vulnerable community, the common Rakhinehave resented the fact that they were once more losing. It does not mean, I think, that Rakhine are worse off in Myanmar than other citizens, but it is rather a sensation of unfairness. I think that responsible staff of UN and INGOs are now getting aware of this problem and have understood why they have become the target of public violence.

MAWKUN: Some assume that Rakhine State could become another Kosovo in the future. What would you like to comment on this?

LEIDER:The Union of Myanmar is not yet falling apart and Rakhine State is not about to declare itself as an independent republic either. No foreign power interferes with the Rohingya as Serbia is involved with the Serb minority in Kosovo. So the comparison with Kosovo against the background of the dismembering of former Yugoslavia is a bit farfetched. 

MAWKUN: Like RakhineState, Assam of India has also seen a communal violence in which Bengali immigrants get involved. The conflict killed several dozens and displaced more than 200,000. What similarities are there between Rakhine conflict and Assam (India) conflict?

LEIDER:The comparison of Rakhine with the border and migration issues in Northeast India jumps to mind as we follow the current events in Assam. If there are some similarities, there are also differences. In both cases, the governments have come under local and international criticism not to have foreseen the mounting of tensions and prevented the outbreak of violence.

All over the world, we see that border-crossing economic migration cannot be stopped, but at best managed. There is an uneasy mix of official denial, lack of security, exploitation, and late response that often prevails. It is hurting the local population, the migrants but ultimately also the reputation of governments that mishandle the people.When governments sense the advantage of economic migrants for their national economies, they may be less keen to take action on illegal migrants. This is not the situation we see in Rakhine where one community feels threatened by the presence of another.

MAWKUN: Is a huge population of Bangladesh a big burden to its neighboring and regional countries? If ‘yes’, what sorts of trends can be seen in the future?

LEIDER:Let us not make the mistake to reduce the conflict in Rakhine to a singular issue of ‘illegal Bangladeshi immigrants’ as your question suggests. Taking illegal immigration as an argument to question the existence of Muslims in Rakhine in general is not acceptable. Since many years, Muslims from the Bangladesh/Myanmar border area board ships to reach Thailand and Malaysia where they identify themselves as “Rohingya” and are treated as stateless refugees. So it does not look as if northern Rakhine is such an attractive place for illegal migrants from Bangladesh. 

On the other hand, economic migrationsurely is one important aspect in a broader regional picture. But saying - what many local people see indeed as an established fact - that there has been illegal immigration is simply not enough. We mayhear and know about a porous border, corruption, failure of authorities to track population movements etc. But since decades, any serious discussion is hampered by a lack of statistics, reliable information and background. Bangladeshi migration to Northeast India has been reported again and again, but what has been the real situation of migration along the border with Myanmar since independence we do not know.

Having said that, in today’s world, governments are not in a position to simply kick out people, however questionable their identity or their way of crossing the borders may be. I want to say it again: One key question is if migration for economic reasons is sustainable in the host countries. The many hundreds of thousands of Myanmar migrants to Thailand provide cheap labor in an economy that needs them. There is often a huge gap between the political will to register migrants and control them and the economic pressures that let people move and look for subsistence whatever the governments initiate.

MAWKUN: Recently, a Pakistani Taliban Group (TTP) threatens to attack Myanmar to avenge for the blood of Muslims. How much worrisome is it not only for the people in Rakhine State but also those in the entire nation? If they do so, what sort of social and political setting shall we see in the near future?

LEIDER:Muslim leaders in Myanmar will most probably not welcome the vociferous declarations of Taliban groups, but reject them. Extremist groups are keen and generally successful to catch the attention of the public, especially with an issue that is already internationalized and spread by the media. So it looks as if, though they are mere outsiders, they are implicated already. The fact is they are not and they do only represent their own extremist viewpoints for their own sake. Terrorist threats when they are recognized as security issues to the state and the people,have to be dealt with by cooperation between governments. Communal strife and violence are worrying enough and efforts have to be made to contain them so that terrorist networks cannot take hold.

ENDS//

Read more...

Ethnic Nationalities of Burma

Source: Wikipedia

There are more than 135 different ethnic groups in Burma, each with its own history, culture and language. The majority Burman (Bamar) ethnic group makes up about two-thirds of the population and controls the military and the government. The minority ethnic nationalities, making up the remaining one-third, live mainly in the resource-rich border areas and hills of Burma, although many have been forcibly removed from their homes by the military-backed government as it confiscates land for development projects and resource exploitation. As a result, millions of people from these minority groups have become internally displaced people (IDPs) within Burma, or refugeesin neighbouring countries.

---

The seven largest minority nationalities are the Chin, the Kachin, the Karenni (sometimes called Kayah), the Karen (sometimes called Kayin), the Mon, the Rakhine, and the Shan. Burma is divided into seven states, each named after these seven ethnic nationalities, and seven regions (formerly called divisions), which are largely inhabited by the Bamar (Burmans).

The Rohingya people are not recognised by the government as an ethnic nationality of Burma, and thus suffer from some of the worst discrimination and human rights abuses of all the people of Burma. Estimates put the Rohingya population of Burma at close to 2 million, living mainly in Rakhine State, and many more live as refugees in neighbouring countries like Bangladesh. See below for more information.

PANGLONG AGREEMENT 1947
In February 1947, General Aung San met with national and ethnic leaders at the Panglong Conference, where he outlined his government's committment to minority rights. The Agreement, signed by representatives of the Shan, Kachin, and Chin, stated that "citizens of the Frontier Areas shall enjoy rights and privileges which are regarded as fundamental in democratic countries", thus ensuring ethnic minorities the same rights and treatment as ethnic Burman citizens, and granted "full autonomy in internal administration for the Frontier Areas".

However, Aung San was assassinated in July of 1947, and the Panglong Agreement has never been honoured by Burma's subsequent civilian and military leaders. The leaders of many minority ethnic nationalities have said that fighting will never end unless another Panglong Agreement is signed and respected.

ETHNIC ISSUES & THE 2008 CONSTITUTION
The 2008 Constitution offers no real protection for the many ethnic minorities of Burma, and many leaders in the different ethnic communities have voiced their concerns that it is meant to wipe out the diverse cultures of the people of Burma. Burma Campaign UK has said that the "Constitution is likely to lead to the continued Burmanisation of ethnic minorities ... [and] to increased militarisation of ethnic areas, with the subsequent increase of human rights abuses which always follows the presence of the Burmese Army ... At the National Convention which drafted the Constitutional principles, every single one of the proposals by ethnic representatives that would give more power, autonomy and protection of ethnic cultures was rejected by the dictatorship." (Read Burma Campaign UK's March 2011 briefing: Burma’s New Constitution - Denying Ethnic Rights.)

ACCESS TO EDUCATION
The state of healthcare and education in Burma is very poor, primarily due to lack of financing. According to international institutions, the Burmese government spends only around 3% of the GDP on health and education. Consequently, there are no resources to ensure that healthcare and education are accessible to everyone and that their quality is satisfactory. Moreover, education is heavily politicised - the curricula are controlled by the government and schooling is often used to impose ethnic discrimination. Ethnic peoples are not allowed to learn their own language and culture.

BAMAR (Burman)

7 states & 7 regions of Burma

The Bamar, or Burman, people are the majority ethnic group of Burma. They are of Sino-Tibetan origin and reside predominantly in the central plains near the Irrawaddy and Sittang rivers. According to population estimates, they compose 68% of the country’s total population, though some claim these numbers are exaggerated to favour the Bamar majority. The Bamar population is itself divided into various sub-groups and thus is not a homogenous ethnic category.

Traditional Bamar culture strongly influences contemporary Burmese national customs and identity. The Bamar are predominately Theravada Buddhists. Their native language (Burmese) is the official language of the country, and they dominate the government and military. Due to the ethnic group’s predominance, its members are often believed to have a social and political advantage over the country’s minority populations. Some ethnic groups claim that the country has been subject to a policy of ‘Burmanisation’ since the 1962 coup. Nevertheless, the Bamar have not been exempt from the human rights abuses and repression that have characterised the country in recent years.

---

CHIN

Chin State, Burma

The Chin people, estimated at 1.5 million and comprising many different sub-groups, is one of the major ethnic groups in Burma. They are of Tibeto-Burman origin and live in the north-western Chin State, which separates Burma from India. They probably came to Burma, especially the in the late 9-10 century AD. Most Chin people moved westward and they probably settled in the present Chin State around 1300-1400 AD. The original meaning of "Chin" remains obscure, though scholars have proposed various theories no widely held consensus has been reached.

Their history from the 17th to the late 19th century was a long sequence of tribal wars and feuds. The first British expedition into the Chin Hills in 1889 was soon followed by annexation, and British administration ended raids by the Chin on the plains of Burma. Chin villages, often of several hundred houses, were traditionally self-contained units, some ruled by councils of elders, others by headmen. There were also hereditary chiefs who exercised political control over large areas and received tribute from cultivators of the soil. Owing to Baptist missionaries 80-90% of the population is Christian. However, a sizable minority of the Chin adhere to their traditional tribal beliefs, as well as to Theravada Buddhism.

Like many other ethnic groups in Burma, the Chin are subjected to forced labour, torture, rape, arbitrary arrest and extra-judicial killings as part of a Burmese government policy to suppress the Chin people and their ethnic identity. The United Nation's World Food Programme believes that food consumption in Chin State is the lowest in Burma. In recent years food shortages have been further exacerbated by a plague of rats, which have devastated Chin crops. There is little in the way of medical facilities in Chin State. The villagers said that they had not seen a doctor for 10 years. The Christian NGO Free Burma Rangers is one of the few sources of medical aid.

Faced with this situation thousands have left their homes. According to the Chin Human Rights Organization (CHRO), over 60,000 Chin live as refugees in India, where they are forced to compete for scarce resources with the local population, already living in poverty. Due to discrimination, they are prevented from obtaining sustainable employment or proper healthcare and live in fear of physical abuse and forced evictions. Another 20,000 Chins have according to the CHRO fled to Malaysia, where the Malaysian government refuses to recognise Chin asylum seekers and refugees as anything but illegal immigrants. Without legal recognition as refugees they are unable to work, receive education, get access to healthcare, or find adequate accommodation. The refugees are also subject to harassment, detention, and deportation back to Burma.

---

Report: The Chin People of Burma: Unsafe in Burma,Unprotected in India (Human Rights Watch, 2009)

KACHIN

Kachin State, Burma

The Kachin people, comprising a number of different ethnic sub-groups, live mainly in north-eastern Burma as well as parts of China and India. The Kachin in Burma are estimated to number between 1 to 1.5 million and are traditionally hill dwellers subsisting on rotational cultivation of hill rice. During British rule of Burma (from 1886-1948), most Kachin territory was specially administered as a frontier region. Christianity spread among the Kachin people at this time. When Burma gained independence in 1948, the northern mountainous extremity of Burma was designated as Kachin State. There is also a sizeable population of Kachin people in northern Shan State.

After independence many Kachin grew increasingly dissatisfied with the discriminatory policies of the central Burmese government. This led to the launch in 1961 of a Kachin armed resistance movement, the Kachin Independence Organization (KIO), and its armed wing, the KIA, which grew into one of the largest ethnic resistance forces in the country. Several decades of armed conflict ensued, causing displacement of many of the highland Kachin population down to the lowland areas of Kachin State.

In 1994 the KIO signed a ceasefire agreement with the Burmese military regime and was granted the right to maintain its own administrative and military infrastructure in certain areas of Kachin and Shan states. The ceasefire agreement unfortunately did not lead to a resolution of the Kachin people’s political grievances that had led to the conflict. Kachin State, like the rest of Burma, remained under a military dictatorship, its people denied the democratic right to choose their government. The regime took advantage of the ceasefire agreement to increase its presence in Kachin State.

In 2009 the Burmese regime issued a demand that all ethnic ceasefire groups, including the KIA, transform themselves into Border Guard Forces under the control of the Burma Army. On 9 June 2011, spurred on by the KIA’s refusal to accept the regime’s demand that they transform into a Border Guard Force, as well as the KIA’s strategic control of areas with lucrative Chinese hydropower projects, the Burma Army launched a full-scale attack on the KIA, breaking the decades long ceasefire.

The renewed conflict has led to an increase in human rights abuses against the Kachin people and has resulted in the displacement of tens of thousands of civilians, most of whom are now living in makeshift refugee camps alongthe China border. In contempt of humanitarian principles, the regime at first blocked aid to these IDPs, forbidding NGOs and international organizations to provide humanitarian assistance to these vulnerable people. In December 2011, UN-OCHA reported that the estimated number of Internally Displaced People (IDPs) who left their homes and sought refuge in camps, and with friend sand relatives or into the forest across the affected region reached 50,000 in Kachin and Shan States, from an estimated 29,000 in October. On 10 December President Thein Sein instructed the army to stop its offensive. However fighting has continued, indicating that Thein Sein does not in fact control the government.

---

Report: Burma's Covered up War: Atrocities Against the Kachin People (Kachin Women’s Association Thailand (KWAT), 2011)
Report: Myanmar - Displacement in Kachin State (UN-OCHA, 2011)

KARENNI (Kayah)

Karenni State, Burma

The Karenni, also known as the Red Karen (-ni meaning red referring to their preferred colour of clothing) are a subset of the Karen people. Covering around 9 different ethnic subsets, the Karenni are estimated to number about 300,000 people. Together with the Mon, they are the oldest indigenous group in Burma, migrating from China in the 6th or 7th century. Karenni (or Kayah) state sits between Karen and Shan state along Burma’s border with Thailand.

Karenni state was independent until the British colonization of Burma in 1886. In 1948, Karenni state was incorporated into the newly independent Burma without the acknowledgement or consent of the Karenni people. After over 60 years of fighting, the Karenni army signed a ceasefire with the Burmese army in March 2012. Although a similar ceasefire agreement was signed in 1995, it collapsed only three months later.

 

---

KAREN (Kayin)

Karen State, Burma

The Karen people of Burma, thought to number around 7 million people, make up one of the largest ethnic groups in the country. The religious make-up of the Karen people is a combination of Buddhism, Animism and Christianity. They reside mainly in the Southern and South Eastern part of the country, whilst thousands live over the border in Thailand in a state of limbo. 

The Karen sided with the allied forces during the Second World War and were hopeful that with peace they would be able to achieve long sought-after independence. However, the decolonisation process saw Karen State remain part of Burma, which, along with continued aggression towards Burma’s ethnic peoples, helped to instigate an armed uprising against the central government. This uprising was led by the Karen National Liberation Army and resulted in one of the longest running civil wars in history.

In January 2012, after more than 60 years of armed conflict, the main democratic party of the Karen - the Karen National Union (KNU) - signed a ceasefire agreement with the Burmese government. However, the Burmese Army breached this ceasefire in March, and fighting is ongoing.

---

KNU Press Release: Crucial Steps to Achieve Lasting Peace in Burma
Download the press release in English or Burmese

MON

Mon State, Burma

The Mon peoplelive mostly in Mon State, which is situated in the Southern part of Burma and borders Bago (formerly Pegu) Region, Tanintharyi (formerly Tenasserim) Region and Karen State. It also has access to the Andaman Sea.

The Mon are considered to be one of the first peoples in the Southeast Asia and the earliest one to settle in Burma. They were responsible for spreading Theravada Buddhism, the oldest school of the religion, in Burma and Thailand. Currently, there are estimated to be around 8 million Mon people in Burma.

The Mon culture is very rich and ancient. It is credited for having a major influence on the dominant Burmese culture and the Mon script was incorporated into the unified Burmese language. However, the regime does not allow the Mon the right to speak their language or cultivate their traditions.

The Mon people took active part in the anti-colonial struggle for Burma’s freedom. Pursuant to Burma’s independence in 1948, they began to seek self-determination. They rose in revolt several times and were bloodily suppressed by the regime. In 1962 the New Mon State Party emerged and a partially autonomous Mon state, Monland, was created in 1974 to appease the Mon. However, the clashes continued until 1996, when a cease-fire was signed.

Despite the cease-fire, the region is still very fragile and there are serious concerns regarding safety and human rights of the Mon people. Mon refugee communities in Thailand, but also in the United Stated and other countries, are advocating for granting autonomy to the region and ensuring that human rights are not violated there.

---

Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation: http://arakanhrdo.org/2011/09/13/health-and-education-in-burma/
Myanmar.com: http://www.myanmar.com/people/mon.html

RAKHINE (Arakan)

Rakhine (Arakan) State, Burma

The Rakhine people or ‘Arakanese’ are the largest ethnic group in Rakhine State, formerly known as Arakan, which is found in the west of Burma, extending along the Bay of Bengal. The Rakhine or Arakanese dialect is also spoken by around 35,000 people in neighbouring Bangladesh. The population, as with most areas in Burma, is difficult to establish reliably, especially since the patchy census data only counts the number within the state, and not the population of the ethnic groups. It is estimated that those in Rakhine state make up 4-5.5% of the total population of Burma. They are predominantly Theravada Buddhists, and are one of the four main Buddhist ethnic groups of Myanmar (the others being the Bamar, Shan and Mon). The state itself is also home to populations from other ethnic groups, like the Chin, Mro, Chakma, Khami, Dainet and Maramagri. There is also a large minority population of Muslim Rohingya (see below).

ALTSEAN-Burma estimates that around 60% of the Rakhine population are malnourished, and they suffer from a severe lack of infrastructure – only three main highways cross the Arakan mountains into Rakhine state – as well as hospitals and effective healthcare.

Rakhine state historically has had a strong drive for independence: At various times under Burmese rule, it was eventually fully absorbed into Burma in 1783; it was the centre of many uprisings against the British rule during the 19th century; in 1826 it was the first Burmese territory ceded to the British after the first Anglo-Burmese War. During the Second World War, Rakhine was given autonomy under the Japanese occupation and was even granted its own army known as the Arakan Defence Force. The Arakan Defence Force went over to the allies and turned against the Japanese in early 1945. In 1948 all three districts became part of the newly formed Union of Burma after the Panglong conference. In the 1950s there was a movement for secession from Burma, but this was unsuccessful.

  

SHAN

Shan State, Burma

Most ethnic Shan live in Shan State in eastern Burma, but smaller Shan communities also live in Kachin State to the north, and in China, Thailand and Laos, which border Shan State. Though current census information for Burma is unavailable, there are an estimated 4-6 million Shan in Burma. There are many smaller ethnic groups in Shan State as well, including the Kokang, Lahu, Palaung, Pao and Wa. While most Shan are Theravada Buddhists, Christianity is also practiced among a number of the other ethnic groups in Shan State.

In 1947, Shan leaders signed the Panglong Agreement with the Government of Burma, which aimed to create a unified Burma in which Shan State would be largely autonomous, and would have the option to secede from the Union after 10 years of independence. The Agreement never came to fruition, however, as Burmese leader Aung San was assassinated that same year and the political situation in Burma descended into chaos.

Shan State is home to a number of armed ethnic armies, including the Shan State Army-South (SSA-South), fighting against the Burma Army. The most recent ceasefire agreement between the SSA-South and the Burmese Government, signed in December 2011, broke down in February 2012 as fighting broke out in areas across Shan State. Civilians in Shan State have been subject to human rights violations by the military and other government authorities both when there is active fighting and when there is not, including forced labour, portering or conscription, arbitrary detention, torture, rape and extrajudicial killings. The Burma Army has also been known to confiscate land from villagers in Shan State, often leaving them with no means of making a livelihood.

Shan State is rich in natural resources, such as silver, lead, gold, tungsten, rubies, sapphires and teak. Many attacks by the Burma Army are motivated by a desire to control resource extraction. Shan State is part of the Golden Triangle, one of the most extensive opium-producing areas in the world, and the production and trade of heroin - and increasingly other drugs, like methamphetamines, as well - have led to rampant corruption on a local and national level, extortion and illicit taxation, widespread addiction among local communities, and have perpetuated armed conflict.

Read more...

Little Knowledge Too Dangerous: Expert Responses on Bo Bo Lan Sin's RFA Broadcast

Bo Bo Lan Sin's RFA transcript link
http://bobolansin.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/my-burma-3-making-nation-states-in-the-far-east/#more-1118
Response from Dr. Aye Chan
As a historian of Burma, I have to ask Bo Bo lang Sin the following questions.
(1) Why does not he give citations for the facts he has presented? I am sure his presentation is based only on the secondary literatures. He is not dealing with the original Portuguese and Dutch sources.

(2) How can he estimate the numbers of the slaves brought by the Portuguese Pirates? No source material is available to count the slaves brought to the Mrauk-U Slave market or sold to the Dutch East India Company to be brought to Batavia.

(3) Dutch East India Company records give the lists of the nomanclatures of the goods and the costs of the exports loaded on ten ships, bound to Batavia. Of them only six  brought Bengali slaves as 35 heads, 210 heads, 325 heads, 145 heads, 163 heads and 253 heads between 1624 and 1663 (in nearly forty years). How can he estimate such a large numbers?

If he can't read Dutch, I am ready to help him with the original source materials.

See D.G.E Hall. 1960. "Studies in Dutch Relations with Arakan," Burma Research Society Fiftieth Aniversary Publication Volume II.
Sincerely,
Aye Chan
Professor of Southeast Asian Studies
Kanda University of International Studies, Japan

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response from U Khin Maung Saw (Berlin)

Slaves in Arakan
Arakanese kings needed laborers. Portuguese pirates were the slave hunters and sold the Bengali slaves to the Arakanese kings. These slaves were placed in Kyauktaw and Mrauk U areas. Some of them were Hindus and some Muslims. These slaves too were assimilated into the Arakanese society.
Jacques Leider wrote: “Through a Dutch source of the 17th cent., we know that the majority of the countrymen abducted from Bengal to be sold as slaves were Hindoos, but it can be supported that an increasing number of those country-folk were Muslims. I would rather believe that these simple people about whom we do not have much information, formed the majority of the Muslims in Arakan. English sources from the end of 18th and early 19th century pretend that in some areas of Arakan, these Bengalis represented up to a quarter of the population. But in fact these estimations are contradicted by the more reliable figures of the early British period (after 1825) which do not confirm the former opinions”.
R.B. Smart, the deputy assistant commissioner of Akyab wrote: “Since 1879, immigration has taken place on a much larger scale, and the descendants of the slaves are resident for the most part in the Kyauktaw and Myohaung (Mrauk-U) townships. Maungdaw Township has been overrun by Chittagonian immigrants. Butheedaung is not far behind and new arrivals will be found in almost every part of the district.
Those Bengali settlers in Arakan were noted by British for their administrative purposes either as Hindus or as Muslims according to their religion. Muslim settlers outnumbered the Hindu settlers.
The Census Reports of Akyab (Sittwe) District for 1871, 1901, and 1911 is as follows:1

Races                            1871(year)                     1901(year)                    1911(year)
Mahomedan                       58255                            154887                          178647
Burmese                               4632                              35751                            92185
Arakanese                       171612                             230649                          209432
Shan                                      334                                     80                                  59
Hill Tribes                           38577                               35489                            34020
Others                                   606                                 1355                              1146
Total                                276691                             481666                          529943

This table has proven that the above-mentioned statement of Jacques Leider is correct. Even in 1871, that means Arakan became a British colony for about 45 years, and even after the huge immigration waves of Chittagonian Bengali Muslims started from 1826, the Muslim population in Sittwe (Akyab) District which included Maungdaw, Butheetaung, Rathetaung, Mrauk U and Kyauktaw Townships was not even 25% or a quarter of the total population. Only in 1911, that means almost 90 years after Arakan became a British colony and after suffering very huge immigration waves of Bengali Muslims, the Muslim population in Sittwe (Akyab) District which included Maungdaw, Butheetaung, Rathetaung, Mrauk U and Kyauktaw Townships increased to 33%.
Here too, all of the Bengali Muslims in Maungdaw, Butheetaung and Rathetaung townships were the new settlers after the British annexation of Arakan, however, in Mrauk U and Kyauktaw Townships about one third to a half of the Muslim population were the descendants of the slaves. Islamization of Arakan by the Bengali Muslims (so-called “Rohingyas”)
Bengali Muslims wanted and want to turn Arakan into an Islamic state by all means. Thus they invented many fabricated stories. They claimed that Santikan Mosque in Mrauk U was bulit around 1440 A.D.
On the other hand, Jacques leider wrote: “The origins of a first Muslim community in Arakan have been as well related to the name of the founder of Mrok U (Mrauk-U). The mercenaries at his disposal would have built the Santikan mosque at the Mrok-U. But this attribution to the 15th century seems to belong to the popular tradition. According to Forchhammer, the construction technique of the Santikan mosque is closely related to the Dukkanthein and Chitethaung pagodas which date from the first half of the 16th century. It is precisely at this period that we have a first written account of a Muslim religious mission at the Arakanese court”.
Furthermore, Leider stated his position clearly on the shipwreck story and their claimed settlement since 9th century: “Pretending that Arab traders had come to Arakan since the 8th or 9th century, as has been upheld by those who want to stress the antiquity of Muslim presence in the area, is just a matter of speculation. As far as I understand those who have been arguing the problem, this precise question is linked to the early history of Chittagong. If you sustain that the Arab ‘Sadkawan’ can be identified with Chittagong, you can speculate on the presence of Arab traders in the area. Western Bengal had been under Muslim control since the beginning of the 13th century, but it took much more time to extend and to strengthen the sultans’ control over Southeastern Bengal. An increasing number of Muslim traders may have taken part in the coastal trade from that period onwards, without necessarily settling in the Arakanese kingdom. What kind of influence these traders may have had on the court and on the country generally, is -for the moment – equally a matter of speculation.”
The other fabricated story of the Bengali Muslims (the so-called “Rohingyas”) is about
a mosque in Sittwe (Akyab). They boasted that the mosque was built by their ancestors who established that town and the mosque is already more than 1000 years old. In fact, the town Sittwe (Akyab) was built only in 1826 by the British government after the First Anglo Burmese war and therefore the town is not even 200 years old!!
Khin Maung Saw (Berlin)
*Redistribution of materials received via emails.
http://www.facebook.com/notes/kyaw-h-aung/little-knowledge-too-dangerous-expert-responses-on-bo-bo-lan-sins-rfa-broadcast/10150437713899410

Read more...

The Ten Simpletons

By U San Shwe Bu

According to the old saying that birds of a feather generally flock together, so there once met in a village, by some strange fatality, ten simple rustics of similar tastes and disposition. One day while they were having breakfast under a large and shady tree, one of them began counting the number of those who were present. But forgetting to include himself he could not get beyond nine. So after going through the same process three or four times he eventually told the others that a misfortune had happened because out of ten, their original number, only nine remained, and that one of them had mysteriously disappeared. One or two disbelieved this, as they were fully certain that no one had left them form the time they first assembled together under the tree. So to satisfy themselves they began counting over again, and to their astonishment they could not get beyond the number nine, for, like the first men, each of them excluded himself in the telling. Many were the reasons put forward to account for so strange a disappearance, but somehow nobody could be fully convinced.



While these things were taking place, an old man happened to pass by that way. Seeing the men in hot dispute over something or other he addressed them thus; “My sons, if you are not actually quarrelling, you are at least very much excited and are on the verge of coming to blows. Tell me, I pray you, the nature of your dispute so that I may, if it lies in my power, settle it amicably.” So one of the men replied, "Grandfather, you are just the person we are looking for. My friends and myself are disputing as to our actual number. Some say we are only nine; but other stoutly refuse to accept this; and hence all the present excitement." "very well," said the old man, " If I can convince you that you are not nine really but ten as you originally were, will you became my slaves?" To this they all agreed. They did not care what manner of works they did, provided they could be certain that all their friends were together. So the old man told each of them to bring him a stick. When this was done the men were told to count the sticks. They all counted ten, and when they were fully satisfied that their number had in no way diminished, they greatly marveled at the wisdom of the old man. So they willingly became his slaves and followed him home.

At that time the paddy was just ripe. One morning the old man sent for his newly acquired slaves and said to them. "My sons, I want you to do some reaping for me today. Don't do the job in bits, one here and one there, but you should all keep together to one side of the field and gradually work up in a line till you come to the other side." Unfortunately these instructions were too technical and too complicated for their simple pates, for they contained a phrase which when literally rendered meant "Put a hamadryad on one side and reap". So totally misunderstanding the phrase, the poor rustics began their work by searching high and low for the elusive reptile. From early morn till dewy eve this went on until night approaching rapidly, the old man in his anxiety at their delay went out to investigate for himself. He found them in the midst of their fruitless search, and on enquiry one of them replied, "Oh grandfather tell us what we are to do now. The whole day long we have been searching for a hamadryad to enable us to begin our operations on the field. We have not succeeded and hence all this delay." The old man was astonished and after having cursed their gross stupidity he explained to them what was really meant by his particularly puzzling instructions.

The next day reaping began in real earnest. By sunset the whole business was completed. When the labourers returned home with sheaves of corn on their heads the old man was unfortunately away from home. So not knowing where to deposit their loads they asked the old lady, who was then engaged in weaving, where they should do so. She happened to be extremely cranky at the time, and so she shouted at the top of her voice, "You fools, do you mean to say that you really do not know where such things are usually placed? If so place them on my head." No sooner were the words out of her mouth than the men, impatient to relieve themselves, began discharging their loads on the hapless old lady. The result was disastrous; and her soul was instantly carried off on the wings of death.

When the old man returned home he enquired after his wife. They told him all that had happened and pointed out the spot where she was lying, at her expressed wish, beneath the sheaves of corn. Instantly he was flinging aside the heavy bundles, and, as he feared, he found his better half lying cold in death. What was to be done? The utmost he could do was do abuse them roundly for their gross stupidity.

The next day the men were ordered to go to the forest to cut firewood for the proper cremation of the body. Having arrived at the place the simpletons first selected a tree of proper girth and proportions. One of them sent up to the branch of the tree for the purpose of playing the flute so that the rest might be amused. Another was told to cut the trunk, while the remaining eight men stood in a row to receive the tree on their shoulders.

The tree was eventually cut; and in the act of falling the eight men were crushed to death and at the same time the flute player was dashed to pieces. The only survivor was the one who undertook the cutting. Sad and dejected at the loss of his friends he resolved to die also. He therefore laid himself down by the bodies of his friends and thinking that the simple process of death consisted in keeping quite still, he soon fell off to sleep.

By and by a mahout, riding his elephant, while passing that way, came across these men stretched out on the ground. Not knowing whether they were dead or alive he tried to find out by probing each prostrate figure with the iron goad he had with him. Of course there was no response from the dead; but when he touched the man who pretended to be dead and who was in reality asleep, the men jumped up in extreme surprise. He looked upon the iron goad as a marvelous instrument capable of resuscitating the dead; for was not he quite dead a little while age, and was not he now fully alive by being simply touched with the wonderful goad? So he addressed the mahout in these words, “Good mister mahout, I should very much like to posses your goad if you will let me have it; and in return I am willing to give you all the dans and axes I now have with me.” The mahout was much pleased inwardly at having come across such a simpleton, and blessed the star that guided his footsteps to that place. His goad was not of much value while the dahs and axes were far more valuable. Without therefore saying a word he handed over his goad and received the other things the man offered him, and departed.

Armed with the goad the men set out on his travels determined to earn an honest living by means of his new possession. After several days of wandering he entered a large and prosperous village where he found all the people in the deepest grief. Being very curious he asked a person what it was all about. “Don’t you know,’ replied the man, “that the richest person in the village has lost his only daughter? Being a very good and influential man in these parts we are all expressing our grief for his sad loss. Where could you have been to, so as not to have heard about this before?” Our traveler replied, “Friend, I am the stranger to the place; please overlook my ignorance. If this rich man’s daughter is dead and still in the house I have means of bringing her back to life. Go and inform him, I pray you, about my presence here, so that it he wishes it I am willing to raise her from the dead.”

For some moments the villager remained dumbfounded. Then with a long indrawn breath he ran as fast as he could towards the rich man’s house, eager to impart the wonderful information. Arrived there he related everything to the bereaved parent who, unable to believe his ears, caught the man by the arm and hurried him to the spot where he left the marvelous being. When they reached the place the rich man said “Worthy stranger, is it true that you can restore life to the dead? If so I pray you to come to my house and perform the operation without delay. I will give you such a reward as will enable you to live in comfort for the remainder of your life.”

Arrived at the house the man looked upon the serene face of the dead. He ordered a thick curtain to be placed over it so as to prevent the corpse with his goad. After the first few applications he was surprised to see that there was no response from the dead. So in the eagerness he probed the body with all his might, tearing the flesh everywhere. This went on for quite a long time. At last the bereaved parents, growing impatient to learn the result of the cure, raised the curtain to see how far the man had succeeded. To their horror and indignation they found that instead of the dead coming back to life, the remains of their daughter were mutilated beyond recognition.

The servants of the house were hastily summoned and were told to take the man outside the village and after thrashing him soundly to drive him away. When they had carried out their instructions they told him as a parting piece of advice that it would have been better for him if he had joined them in weeping and mourning from the time he first entered the village. But now, since he pretended to be what he was not, he had been justly punished.

Much puzzled and grieved at the failure of his goad he left the village. For several days he walked aimlessly on and at last he came to another village where a marriage procession was passing along its main street. He stood in the middle of the road and calmly waited for it to come up to him. As soon as it was sufficiently near he began weeping very loudly and rolled himself in the dust. He did this because he was told to do so by the people of the last village. Where upon the people who formed the procession became very angry. For they looked upon such evident signs of grief as some thing out of place, and being highly superstitious they considered the man’s conduct to be very unlucky. So they beat him severely and told him that on such occasions he should never weep but should shout, laugh and sing with gladness.

He then left the village with the parting advice fully remembered. On the way he had to pass through a thick jungle in which he saw from a distance a trapper wholly absorbed in his work. The man was hiding behind a tree trunk and was intently looking at a bird about to fall into his trap. Of course our simpleton knew nothing at all about this. As soon as he saw the man he began to shout, laugh and sing as previously advised; and on the whole he made so much noise that the bird near the trap flew away in fright.

As may be imagined the trapper was furious. With one great bound he came up to our hero and ruined merciless blow of his face and body. Then with a final kick he said, “You utter idiot, didn’t you see I was trying to catch a bird, and that to do so it was necessary to remain absolutely quiet? You should have done the same as I was then doing. But now you have spoilt it all, for which you have been justly punished. On the next occasion it will pay you to remember my instructions.” The poor simpleton begged and prayed to be excused and informed the irate trapper that his conduct was due to a piece of advice he had previously received. After faithfully promising to do all he was told he left the forest with a sad weary heart.

The next place he reached was a small village of dhobis. Now in this community there had been several thefts of late and the people were particularly careful about strangers lurking about in the nighbourhood. So when he saw from the distance that the people were engaged in washing clothes, he stealthily approached them by taking advantage of every available cover as was told to him by the trapper.

Being broad daylight the dhobis saw him soon enough. At once their suspicions were aroused and they caught him and tied him up to a tree and flogged him severely, taking him to be the thief who had robbed them. The man howled with pain and told them he was no thief but a mere traveler. He said that he approached the village in the manner he did because he was told to do so by a man he met on the way. The dhobis, finding out their mistake, soon released him; but at the same time they told him that it was entirely his fault. They said that what he should have done was to join them in their work to do exactly as they did. He would have then been given food and shelter for his services. Instead of which he now received, for his foolish conduct, a punishment he justly deserved.

Early next morning the man left the village to take up once more the course of his interrupted travels. After walking all day, and just as the sun was about to dip itself beneath the western horizon he saw a lone hut by the bank of a small stream. Instinctively he knew something was wrong there, for even from a distance he could distinctly hear the sound of blows and angry voices. He rapidly approached the hut, and in it he was amazed to see a man and woman, apparently husband and wife, engaged in a desperate struggle.

Mindful of what he was told previously in the dhobis’ village he rushed into the house and began beating both of them in turn. He did this because he really believed that it was the only way of ingratiating himself with them. But the irate couple, seeing a total stranger interfering in their affairs without any rhyme or reason, soon forgot their own differences. A common enemy had come on the scene. It was their bounden duty to get rid of him as soon as possible. So they both attacked him with curses and blows; and before long the intruder howled for mercy.

On being questioned as to the cause of his strange conduct, he told them the details of his last adventure. He said that it was because he was told to do exactly what he saw others doing and thereby earn their gratitude, that he joined them in their quarrel. “Unfortunately,” said the owner of the house, “that advice though it may do in certain cases, does not apply here at all. The proper thing for you have done was to separate as by coming in between and then to make up the quarrel by sweet words and phrases.” The man faithfully promised to do so on the next occasion. After properly aplogising for what he had done he left the house that very evening.

When night had fairly advanced he entered a dense forest. The path could not be properly seen because of the darkness. So more in prudence then in fear he climbed up a tall tree and passed the remainder of the night in fitful slumber. When day broke he was again on his legs walking rapidly through the forest. At last he came out to an open field and paused a while to consider what direction he should take. Suddenly his attention was drawn to the sight of two buffaloes charging each other with lowered heads. This went on over and over again till he was thoroughly convinced that they were really fighting.

What was he to do? He knew full well what he did on the least occasion and how badly it ended for him. So he at once decided to act on the farewell advice given by the owner of the hut he last visited. When the buffaloes separated once again before charging each other he rushed in between them. Fling wide apart his arms in opposite directions he shouted to them to stop and not to lose their temper over a trifling affair. But the maddened beasts took no notice of his antics. They came on with the furry of a tornado, and just met at the place where our hero was standing. The result was disastrous. His body was crushed and the weary soul, shuffling off its mortal coil, joyously soared away to that realm in which the nats have their uninterrupted bliss.


Ref: Kogreekyaw

Read more...