Narratives of denial
Re: “Despite claims, cracks show in Rohingya return narrative”, ( BP, Aug 4).
Myanmar officials have excelled in narratives of denial over the violence that erupted in Rakhine state nearly a year ago and drove nearly 700,000 Rohingya Muslims to seek refuge in neighbouring Bangladesh, creating one of the greatest humanitarian crises since the Rwanda genocide. They deny accusations by the United Nations and United States that the disproportionate military operation that triggered the exodus, following attacks by a rabble of poorly-armed Islamic extremists, amounted to ethnic cleansing. They deny that the Rohingya have the right to live in Myanmar, despite many having lived there for generations. They deny the right of the Rohingya to self-identify and insist on labelling them as “Bengalis”, because they want to propagate the myth that they are all illegal immigrants from Bangladesh. “Bengalis” are not from Myanmar “because they have different blood, skin colour and language from us”, Win Khine, a Myanmar immigration official in northern Rakhine State, is quoted as saying in the report. Northern Rakhine had a majority Rohingya population before the latest exodus.
The Rohingya are denied the right to exist in Myanmar because they are not on its list of 135 officially-recognised “ethnic nationalities”. However, the list exposes stark contradictions in the official narrative about who is and is not entitled to citizenship.
One is that the seven Rakhine subgroups include the Muslim Kaman, who are descended from mercenaries who served in the court of the Kingdom of Arakan until it was conquered by the Bamar Konbaung Dynasty in 1784. The Kaman, the only Mus- lim group on the list of recognised ethnic groups, were seriously affected by the sectarian violence that erupted in Rakhine State in 2012 and many of them are still languishing in IDP camps because their rights as citizens have been denied.
The other contradiction involves the 33 Shan sub-groups. They include the Kokang, a Han Chinese Mandarin-speaking minority who live in territory on the border with China. They certainly don’t speak the same language as Win Khine, which raises a question. If the Muslim Kaman and the Mandarinspeaking Han Chinese Kokang are eligible for inclusion on Myanmar’s list of 135 ethnic groups, why can’t it be amended to include the people who call themselves Rohingya?
GEOFFREY GODDARD