Not at all. My answer is perfectly logical. The information collected at a census is confidential and may not be used for any other purpose, such as taxation, voter registration, or citizenship.
I personally do not like citizenship laws based on ethnicity like the 1982 Citizenship Law. Such laws are in my view outmoded, jingoistic and discriminatory. But this has no relevance to any analysis of the 1973 and 1983 Censuses in an attempt to discover how Arakan Muslims were enumerated under those Censuses.
An illuminating review of a book that seems worth reading. Many thanks to Bruce Reynolds. I recently read Susan Morgan’s book, and found it fascinating but maddening, due to her paranoia against making any judgements that could reflect badly on Thai culture. She made the common mistake of assuming that saying anything critical of the Thai monarchy, and specifically King Mongkut, Rama IV, would be insulting and demeaning to the Thai people. So her useful insights were mingled with ludicrous contortions to defend the treatment of women in old Siam, and specifically the treatment of women in the royal harem, as a cultural phenomenon that modern Westerners should not criticise.
But even taking into account the fact that different eras in scholarship have different values, I find the vilification of Anna even by modern feminist scholars rather puzzling. Susan Morgan went out of her way to defend the role of the royal harem, and of Thai slavery, presumably because she felt that doing otherwise would be culturally insensitive. But there is nothing wrong with exposing the abuses of the past. I’m Scottish, and in my country of birth women were being accused of witchcraft and burned alive until the 18th century. That is shocking, and while I can understand why scholars want to explain that such atrocities were considered acceptable in the cultural context of those times, that doesn’t mean we should say that they were acceptable, and make excuses for them, in the 21st century. Anna Leonowens actually addressed this issue in her book “The Romance of the Harem”, and compared the vilification of “witches” in the UK and Siam.
Anna has been denounced as a liar and a myth-maker, and it’s true that she sometimes lied and sometimes invented stories. But what’s interesting is that King Mongkut did exactly the same, most notably with his forgery of the “Ramkanghaenng inscription”. Anna was a woman from a lowly background who lied about herself to give herself credibility in the caste-ridden social system in which she lived. And so did Mongkut. He was not a powerful or omnipotent figure – quite the reverse, he was a relatively powerless figure who pretended to be more socially exalted than he really was. Just as Anna did. As Kullada Kesbonchoo Mead wrote in her brilliant study ‘The Rise and Decline of Thai Absolutism’, “‘he remained a client of the great nobles
throughout his reign”. Specifically, both Anna and Mongkut were desperately trying to hide the Indian influence on their lives and opinions. They were two people embarrassed about the culture that they grew up in, and trying to hide it.
Even sympathetic scholars of Anna say that she invented much of what she reported. I am not so sure. Just to give one example, in the “Romance of the Harem”, her most derided work, she discusses the practice of pregnant women being sacrificed under the foundations of royal buildings. This may sound lurid and ridiculous, but it really happened. Jeremias Van Vliet reported the same practice in the 17th century:
“The kings counted their subjects so little that if palaces, towers or resting places had to be built for them, under each post which was put. into the ground a pregnant woman was thrown and the more near this woman was to her time the better. For this reason there was often great misery … during the time that palaces or towers had to be built or repaired. For as all houses in Siam are built at a certain height above the ground and stand on wooden posts many women have endured this suffering. Although this description seems to be fabulous, these executions have really taken place.
The people, who are very superstitious, believe that these women after dying turn into terrible monsters or devils, who defend not only the post below which they are thrown but the whole house against misfortune. The King usually ordered a few slaves to catch without regard all the women who were in a pregnant state. But out of the houses no women were taken unless in the streets nobody could be found. These women were brought to the queen, who treated them as if
they were of high birth. After they had been there for a few days, they were (excuse these rude words) thrown into the pit with the stomach turned upwards. After this the post was put on the stomach and driven right through it.”
I will need to do much more research before I am able to judge how much of Anna Leonowens reportage was true, but I suspect that much more was true than she has been given credit for. Her detractors have overwhelmingly been members of the Thai elite, and foreign male scholars who revered Mongkut and the Thai monarchy, such as A.B. Griswold and W.S. Bristowe, who infamously condemned Leonowens for (among other things) having “a touch of the tar brush”, a derisive reference to her mixed-race origins.
There are also parallels with women in our own era who have exposed some of the dark secrets of the Thai monarchy – most notably Christine Gray and Katherine Bowie. They too, have been widely vilified and never received the credit they deserved for their brilliant work.
So I am very sceptical about the widespread assumption that Anna Leonowens just invented most of her material. I hope a brave PhD student tackles this subject sometime soon, and provides a more nuanced and accurate account.
As Kipling said: To be born British is to win the first prize in a lottery. It must of been easy for Anna Leonowens by virtue of being British, and white, to pull the wool over the eyes of the “natives”.I wonder who vetted her for the job of governess at the lustrious Siamese court. However, an amazing piece of fiction.
I see that you continue avoiding the elephant in the room, the big issue that I tried to address in my article: the notion of “national races” and the exclusionary citizenship law based on it.
How can 3 religions that’s claiming one GOD as the one to please be so diametrically different that one periodically tried to end another?
During the crusade the clash b/t Islam and Christianity leave both sides anything but claim to fame as religion of peace.
Islamic forces triumph however their inability to separate POLITICS/STATE from FAITH/ISLAM which Christianity has done make them much the same as the Ottoman empire was.
The inherent atonement for individual deed in Islam remain the domain of the Teachers, Preachers and Interpreters (TPI) of Quoran.
From the 5 pillars as well as a must visit to Mecca/Medina ensure all Islamic faithful aka Muslim to the authority of TPI.
Religion is a set of principles by which one find peace (better oneself) while improving one neighbors existence (better others).
Until the TPI all begin to actively quote Quoran as a vast resource of rpinciples for Peace or advocate for the general Humanity of this universe, as all other religions have, Islam and Peace will remain two separate words that has nothing in common.
Yes, Islam is definitely a religion of peace, and Malays dying in Syria are proving that, the more fanatics that die, the
more peace there will be for the innocent
back home. After all, before he became
anti-Jihad, Prime Minister Najib was pro-Jihad. What a fine and stable example
for Malaysians, in particular, Malay males.
Prime Minister Najib Razak’s speech at the recent 69th UN General Assembly provides an interesting subject for analysis in the light of Clive Kessler’s article.
The Prime Minister notes:
They challenge the very notion of the state. They call our youth with the siren song of illegitimate jihad. And they demand all Muslims swear allegiance to their so-called caliph. That demand will never be met.
We reject this so-called Islamic State. We reject this state defined by extremism. And we condemn the violence being committed in the name of Islam.
Around the world, Muslims have watched in despair as our religion – a religion of peace – has been used to justify atrocities. We have turned away in horror at the crucifixions and the beheadings. We have mourned the sons who have been stolen, and the daughters sold.
We know that the threat to world peace and security is not Islam, but extremism: intolerant, violent and militant extremism. The actions of these militants are beyond conscience and belief. They violate the teachings of Islam, the example set by the Prophet Mohammed, and the principles of Islamic law.”
The full text of the Prime Minister’s UN General Assembly Speech is available here: http://bit.ly/69UNGA
It does not seem to me that the 1973 and 1983 Censuses made any attempt to impose the ethno-linguistic matrix of over 140 groups used by the British in the 1921 and 1931 Censuses. The choice in 1973 and 1983 was a simple one from among the eight main ethnic groups: Chin, Kachin, Mon, Rakhine, Burman, Shan, Kayin, Kayah. For those Muslims in Arakan who did not fit into any of the eight groups, the only alternatives were “Indian” (48,574) or “Bangladeshi” (497,208).
My supposition is that the “Indians” were what the British called “Arakan Mohamedans” known in Burmese as Yakhain Kala. After the Second World War this community sought to redefine their own ethnicity and created the designation “Rwangya”, but for use only among themselves. Clearly, they did not want to continue to be called “Yakhain Kala” in an independent Burma and they rightly felt change was needed, not to their actual ethnicity as such, but to the designation which they should use.
Outside the “Rwangya” community there was discussion (which I have seen on other papers) about what the term actually meant. “Roang” was one of several names by which Arakan was traditionally known in Bengal, from which you can posit *Rwang with the suffix -gya, giving you the notion of “Arakaner” in Bengali. But this particular choice might also have been deliberately designed to reflect (I read) the Tibetan-Burmese concept of “rwm”, that is, a person who is neither a stranger (kala) nor an intimate, but a person who is midway between these notions. I only note this, as I have no specialist knowledge to comment, but it seems a possible explanation to me and would indeed be a felicitous designation.
My supposition also is that the “Bangladeshis” in 1983 were those who had sought to be enumerated as Bengalis, but found themselves finally listed as foreign nationals – Bangladeshis. These would have been those who were enumerated in 1921 and 1931 as “Chittagonians” or “Bengalis”, that is, persons who had migrated to Arakan during and after the arrival of the British in 1826. Under the Indo-Burma Agreement of 1941, these people would have qualified as permanent residents of Arakan if the Agreement had been implemented.
It also seems likely to me that the “Chittagonians”, noting what their co-religionists had done, might well feel that they too should seek to regularise their position in an independent Burma where “Chittagonian” or “Bengali”, though accurate enough as a description of their geographic and racial origins, was not how they would wish to be known either in an independent Burma. So the search began for another designation, to reflect the ethnicity which they had developed over the years. I have noted on other papers a range of appellations which were considered, with “Rohingya” eventually emerging as the first choice over Rowanya, Rwahaung, Rahingya, Ruhingya, Rahinja, Roananegya, Rowunhnyar, Ronjan and Roewengya. (I would add in this context that Francis Buchanan’s unique and isolated record of a conversation with “Kulaw Yakhaing” or “Rooinga” at Amarapura in 1895, that is, over 200 hundred years ago, provides no evidence whatsoever of any ‘ethnic’ appellation at the time, though others may contest this.)
But this is where the problem arises. What has happened to the “Rwangya”? Have they been subsumed by the “Rohingya”? Who exactly is a “Rohingya” nowadays? What has happened to the Myedus and “Burmese Muslims” in Arakan? Before the war, Muslims in Arakan provided a rich tapestry. You could sense (so some tell me) ethnic differences from village to village – from which wave of migration they had descended, often going back scores if not hundreds of years. An ebb and flow of migration between Bengal and Arakan going back a very long time. But not the monolithic, integrated, homogenous community of de-Indianized people which “Rohingya” ideologues would have us believe, though I can well understand the concerns of the Muslim population in Arakan to unite for their own protection against hostility from Rakhine extremists.
A letter dated 3 March 1956 from the British Embassy in Rangoon to the Foreign Office (on File DB 10399) about immigration issues between Pakistan and Burma, quotes the Burmese Controller of Immigration at the time, U Soe Nyunt, as saying that “illegal immigration of Pakistanis was a much more serious problem than that of Indians or Chinese. In some parts of the frontier area only about 5 percent of the population is of Burmese origin; the remainder are Muslims of Pakistani origin and are only too ready to help their friends and compatriots to cross the border.”
No wonder the notion of “illegal Bengalis” is now firmly fixed in so many Burmese minds. No wonder there is some hell of a problem these days in defining who exactly the Rohingya might be.
The good news, though, is that there are still many, many metres of Foreign Office archives which I haven’t yet had the time to investigate. I may well be wrong on several aspects. Time will tell. Provided I can score at least 20 negative marks on this comment, I shall know that I am broadly on the right lines.
Religion is an ancient relic of human evolution ( just like your appendix? ) but mixing religious fervour with irrational politics and militant demagoguery will explode and spread destruction. I am shocked that in this day and age any human being (especially a young person under 40) can be brainwashed to be so fanatically intolerant and crassly inhumane to be willing to kill other human beings in the name of religion.
The notoriously expensive microphones purchase which was cancelled recently was as wrongly picked as whales hunting was wrongly interpreted as the pebble in a shoe in the Sino-Aussie relation.
Its more likely Nat was inspired by the fact usually the military can literally get away with murder. Obviously this time some of his victims had more clout than him or his family. Captain is not very high on the military scale, the more rank you have the more you can get away with.If he had had a couple more pips on his shoulder he would probably got a promotion.
Of all the Rohingya defenders seen around here and elsewhere this Myo Chit is distinctly most composed and agreeable.
This one was initially a complex problem now -almost-unsolvable.
It does appear all the current descriptions about the problem floating around parallel those of the proverbial 6 Ponnas with the elephant.
First there was the scene.
The people in northern Arakan seem to be coming in and out like waves- naturally- at various time for various reasons so that it would be foolhardy to say who they were from or which time they came just like those Burma’ newest best friends- Jews- claiming to be in the promised land- promised by Belfour alright to Rothschild- since only two thousand years ago summarily driving off another type of Kalars resident there called -for the lack of proper name- Palestinians who no one wants incidentally.
Anyway, currently present Kalars- whatever name one prefers to call- could very well have more sympathy to and from Pakistan than with Bangladesh. Hence Urudu. Pakistan war was the only war in history based on language (of course intolerable bullying and oppression by the Urdu speakers towards the Bengali speakers- Hanabi all the same). And Wahhabi Salafist rather than majority Hanabi. And Awami League would have less sympathy for them than Khaleda Zia’s BNP.
Then that famous word “Rohingya”. Whatever is its origin or existence, the prolific use definitely was for caliphate aim since about the “A-le-than-kyaw conference “ which put out several demands. And for sure there has been well planned seated officials in various international organizations. And indeed in Burmese government as for the Burmese, Arakanese were the real “enemy” for long, long time at least since the theft of the Pagoda. For sure the way the children and adults acted during recent video-opportunities in those notorious concentration camps they are most heinously put in do seem contrived.
Some curiosities as well. Perhaps the very first public outcry regarding the word “Rohingya” came about following Anna Jones’ 2010 report on BBC. Sai Latt did a lot of follow up articles here. Now we find Derek Tonkin – another English person- coming in from, at least seemingly, opposite direction.
Another curio is the incessant and studious demand of all the involved parties- human rights organizations, UN subsidiaries and affiliates, academia, “exiles”- for the citizenship and asking to recognize “Rohingya” just like “Mon” or “Shan”. That is funny as the military government (now in clown’s clothes)- being liberal and enlightened- have shown equal opportunity for torturing and killing regardless of any citizenship, of any religion and national race in the last 60 odd years.
Then there is this legacy of the military who are ruthless, most racist and at the very height of their power supported by seemingly all the western world keen to exploit the land and their (western world’s) own muse Aung San Suu Kyi, always trying to make things up to create a situation for their hold on power.
To top it off, there is another but deeper and bigger legacy of the “West”. Everywhere the “West” has been around the globe with their Midas touch there immediately follows riots, indiscriminate killing, and division of societies- starting with central and south America, oh, sorry, was it the Middle East?, never mind literally everywhere including Eastern Europe now!- which have hitherto been peacefully living together for centuries. These typically follow various accusations between easily identifiable groups distinguishable by ethnic or religious differences or in case like Rwanda just a bit of lighter skin and taller stature.
It also appears all parties are trying to emphasize the division more and more in the name of finding a solution and are somehow or other benefiting from it, like being aid workers or Rohingya advocates or in the case of people like Wirathu getting support from people like Aung Thaung (on behalf of Than Shwe) and those rabid murderous Fascists from Sri Lanka where he currently is.
Of course the Chinese have their own interest to foment instability along their key port (which they own) and the Pipe and divert the attention from the suffocating Chinese’ vice like grip on economic and social scene and ruthless excavation of the land. And exploitation of women.
The effect of such diversion and chaos though is most destructive for the people of Burma who are seriously at risk of losing whatever meager possession they have now unless they wake up and act wisely.
After all, it comes back down to the people of the land which way they want to behave. Understanding and collective action.
And be mindful that none of the above would justify any human to shamelessly ill-treat any other human regardless of Fascist incitement and own irrational fear.
As a Bamar I don’t blame the Rakhine’s “racist” hatred of us (their nationalism is alive and well) going back to Bodawpaya’s conquest of the Arakan in 1874, also here on p 399. The Great Image (Mahamuni), the prized booty, albeit in compassionate contemplation, sits in testimony at the most sacred of Buddhist shrines in Mandalay.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Rohingya and national identities in Burma
Not at all. My answer is perfectly logical. The information collected at a census is confidential and may not be used for any other purpose, such as taxation, voter registration, or citizenship.
I personally do not like citizenship laws based on ethnicity like the 1982 Citizenship Law. Such laws are in my view outmoded, jingoistic and discriminatory. But this has no relevance to any analysis of the 1973 and 1983 Censuses in an attempt to discover how Arakan Muslims were enumerated under those Censuses.
Review of Masked: The Life of Anna Leonowens
An illuminating review of a book that seems worth reading. Many thanks to Bruce Reynolds. I recently read Susan Morgan’s book, and found it fascinating but maddening, due to her paranoia against making any judgements that could reflect badly on Thai culture. She made the common mistake of assuming that saying anything critical of the Thai monarchy, and specifically King Mongkut, Rama IV, would be insulting and demeaning to the Thai people. So her useful insights were mingled with ludicrous contortions to defend the treatment of women in old Siam, and specifically the treatment of women in the royal harem, as a cultural phenomenon that modern Westerners should not criticise.
But even taking into account the fact that different eras in scholarship have different values, I find the vilification of Anna even by modern feminist scholars rather puzzling. Susan Morgan went out of her way to defend the role of the royal harem, and of Thai slavery, presumably because she felt that doing otherwise would be culturally insensitive. But there is nothing wrong with exposing the abuses of the past. I’m Scottish, and in my country of birth women were being accused of witchcraft and burned alive until the 18th century. That is shocking, and while I can understand why scholars want to explain that such atrocities were considered acceptable in the cultural context of those times, that doesn’t mean we should say that they were acceptable, and make excuses for them, in the 21st century. Anna Leonowens actually addressed this issue in her book “The Romance of the Harem”, and compared the vilification of “witches” in the UK and Siam.
Anna has been denounced as a liar and a myth-maker, and it’s true that she sometimes lied and sometimes invented stories. But what’s interesting is that King Mongkut did exactly the same, most notably with his forgery of the “Ramkanghaenng inscription”. Anna was a woman from a lowly background who lied about herself to give herself credibility in the caste-ridden social system in which she lived. And so did Mongkut. He was not a powerful or omnipotent figure – quite the reverse, he was a relatively powerless figure who pretended to be more socially exalted than he really was. Just as Anna did. As Kullada Kesbonchoo Mead wrote in her brilliant study ‘The Rise and Decline of Thai Absolutism’, “‘he remained a client of the great nobles
throughout his reign”. Specifically, both Anna and Mongkut were desperately trying to hide the Indian influence on their lives and opinions. They were two people embarrassed about the culture that they grew up in, and trying to hide it.
Even sympathetic scholars of Anna say that she invented much of what she reported. I am not so sure. Just to give one example, in the “Romance of the Harem”, her most derided work, she discusses the practice of pregnant women being sacrificed under the foundations of royal buildings. This may sound lurid and ridiculous, but it really happened. Jeremias Van Vliet reported the same practice in the 17th century:
“The kings counted their subjects so little that if palaces, towers or resting places had to be built for them, under each post which was put. into the ground a pregnant woman was thrown and the more near this woman was to her time the better. For this reason there was often great misery … during the time that palaces or towers had to be built or repaired. For as all houses in Siam are built at a certain height above the ground and stand on wooden posts many women have endured this suffering. Although this description seems to be fabulous, these executions have really taken place.
The people, who are very superstitious, believe that these women after dying turn into terrible monsters or devils, who defend not only the post below which they are thrown but the whole house against misfortune. The King usually ordered a few slaves to catch without regard all the women who were in a pregnant state. But out of the houses no women were taken unless in the streets nobody could be found. These women were brought to the queen, who treated them as if
they were of high birth. After they had been there for a few days, they were (excuse these rude words) thrown into the pit with the stomach turned upwards. After this the post was put on the stomach and driven right through it.”
I will need to do much more research before I am able to judge how much of Anna Leonowens reportage was true, but I suspect that much more was true than she has been given credit for. Her detractors have overwhelmingly been members of the Thai elite, and foreign male scholars who revered Mongkut and the Thai monarchy, such as A.B. Griswold and W.S. Bristowe, who infamously condemned Leonowens for (among other things) having “a touch of the tar brush”, a derisive reference to her mixed-race origins.
There are also parallels with women in our own era who have exposed some of the dark secrets of the Thai monarchy – most notably Christine Gray and Katherine Bowie. They too, have been widely vilified and never received the credit they deserved for their brilliant work.
So I am very sceptical about the widespread assumption that Anna Leonowens just invented most of her material. I hope a brave PhD student tackles this subject sometime soon, and provides a more nuanced and accurate account.
Rohingya and national identities in Burma
I guess that’s the non-answer of a diplomat… So much for giving a “new perspective to the problem.”
Review of Masked: The Life of Anna Leonowens
As Kipling said: To be born British is to win the first prize in a lottery. It must of been easy for Anna Leonowens by virtue of being British, and white, to pull the wool over the eyes of the “natives”.I wonder who vetted her for the job of governess at the lustrious Siamese court. However, an amazing piece of fiction.
Rohingya and national identities in Burma
To find your elephant, you need to go into the ‘Citizenship’ room. You won’t find it in the ‘Census’ room from where my comment was made.
Rohingya and national identities in Burma
Dear Mr. Tonkin,
I see that you continue avoiding the elephant in the room, the big issue that I tried to address in my article: the notion of “national races” and the exclusionary citizenship law based on it.
Islam: A religion of peace
How can 3 religions that’s claiming one GOD as the one to please be so diametrically different that one periodically tried to end another?
During the crusade the clash b/t Islam and Christianity leave both sides anything but claim to fame as religion of peace.
Islamic forces triumph however their inability to separate POLITICS/STATE from FAITH/ISLAM which Christianity has done make them much the same as the Ottoman empire was.
The inherent atonement for individual deed in Islam remain the domain of the Teachers, Preachers and Interpreters (TPI) of Quoran.
From the 5 pillars as well as a must visit to Mecca/Medina ensure all Islamic faithful aka Muslim to the authority of TPI.
Religion is a set of principles by which one find peace (better oneself) while improving one neighbors existence (better others).
Until the TPI all begin to actively quote Quoran as a vast resource of rpinciples for Peace or advocate for the general Humanity of this universe, as all other religions have, Islam and Peace will remain two separate words that has nothing in common.
Captain Nat and the wheels of Thai justice
A good question. How many were unlucky enough to be business rivals of those well connected with the police?
Islam: A religion of peace
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/southeast-asians-chasing-syrian-apocalypse-160001571.html
Yes, Islam is definitely a religion of peace, and Malays dying in Syria are proving that, the more fanatics that die, the
more peace there will be for the innocent
back home. After all, before he became
anti-Jihad, Prime Minister Najib was pro-Jihad. What a fine and stable example
for Malaysians, in particular, Malay males.
Islam: A religion of peace
Prime Minister Najib Razak’s speech at the recent 69th UN General Assembly provides an interesting subject for analysis in the light of Clive Kessler’s article.
The Prime Minister notes:
The full text of the Prime Minister’s UN General Assembly Speech is available here: http://bit.ly/69UNGA
Rohingya and national identities in Burma
It does not seem to me that the 1973 and 1983 Censuses made any attempt to impose the ethno-linguistic matrix of over 140 groups used by the British in the 1921 and 1931 Censuses. The choice in 1973 and 1983 was a simple one from among the eight main ethnic groups: Chin, Kachin, Mon, Rakhine, Burman, Shan, Kayin, Kayah. For those Muslims in Arakan who did not fit into any of the eight groups, the only alternatives were “Indian” (48,574) or “Bangladeshi” (497,208).
My supposition is that the “Indians” were what the British called “Arakan Mohamedans” known in Burmese as Yakhain Kala. After the Second World War this community sought to redefine their own ethnicity and created the designation “Rwangya”, but for use only among themselves. Clearly, they did not want to continue to be called “Yakhain Kala” in an independent Burma and they rightly felt change was needed, not to their actual ethnicity as such, but to the designation which they should use.
Outside the “Rwangya” community there was discussion (which I have seen on other papers) about what the term actually meant. “Roang” was one of several names by which Arakan was traditionally known in Bengal, from which you can posit *Rwang with the suffix -gya, giving you the notion of “Arakaner” in Bengali. But this particular choice might also have been deliberately designed to reflect (I read) the Tibetan-Burmese concept of “rwm”, that is, a person who is neither a stranger (kala) nor an intimate, but a person who is midway between these notions. I only note this, as I have no specialist knowledge to comment, but it seems a possible explanation to me and would indeed be a felicitous designation.
My supposition also is that the “Bangladeshis” in 1983 were those who had sought to be enumerated as Bengalis, but found themselves finally listed as foreign nationals – Bangladeshis. These would have been those who were enumerated in 1921 and 1931 as “Chittagonians” or “Bengalis”, that is, persons who had migrated to Arakan during and after the arrival of the British in 1826. Under the Indo-Burma Agreement of 1941, these people would have qualified as permanent residents of Arakan if the Agreement had been implemented.
It also seems likely to me that the “Chittagonians”, noting what their co-religionists had done, might well feel that they too should seek to regularise their position in an independent Burma where “Chittagonian” or “Bengali”, though accurate enough as a description of their geographic and racial origins, was not how they would wish to be known either in an independent Burma. So the search began for another designation, to reflect the ethnicity which they had developed over the years. I have noted on other papers a range of appellations which were considered, with “Rohingya” eventually emerging as the first choice over Rowanya, Rwahaung, Rahingya, Ruhingya, Rahinja, Roananegya, Rowunhnyar, Ronjan and Roewengya. (I would add in this context that Francis Buchanan’s unique and isolated record of a conversation with “Kulaw Yakhaing” or “Rooinga” at Amarapura in 1895, that is, over 200 hundred years ago, provides no evidence whatsoever of any ‘ethnic’ appellation at the time, though others may contest this.)
But this is where the problem arises. What has happened to the “Rwangya”? Have they been subsumed by the “Rohingya”? Who exactly is a “Rohingya” nowadays? What has happened to the Myedus and “Burmese Muslims” in Arakan? Before the war, Muslims in Arakan provided a rich tapestry. You could sense (so some tell me) ethnic differences from village to village – from which wave of migration they had descended, often going back scores if not hundreds of years. An ebb and flow of migration between Bengal and Arakan going back a very long time. But not the monolithic, integrated, homogenous community of de-Indianized people which “Rohingya” ideologues would have us believe, though I can well understand the concerns of the Muslim population in Arakan to unite for their own protection against hostility from Rakhine extremists.
A letter dated 3 March 1956 from the British Embassy in Rangoon to the Foreign Office (on File DB 10399) about immigration issues between Pakistan and Burma, quotes the Burmese Controller of Immigration at the time, U Soe Nyunt, as saying that “illegal immigration of Pakistanis was a much more serious problem than that of Indians or Chinese. In some parts of the frontier area only about 5 percent of the population is of Burmese origin; the remainder are Muslims of Pakistani origin and are only too ready to help their friends and compatriots to cross the border.”
No wonder the notion of “illegal Bengalis” is now firmly fixed in so many Burmese minds. No wonder there is some hell of a problem these days in defining who exactly the Rohingya might be.
The good news, though, is that there are still many, many metres of Foreign Office archives which I haven’t yet had the time to investigate. I may well be wrong on several aspects. Time will tell. Provided I can score at least 20 negative marks on this comment, I shall know that I am broadly on the right lines.
Islam: A religion of peace
Religion is an ancient relic of human evolution ( just like your appendix? ) but mixing religious fervour with irrational politics and militant demagoguery will explode and spread destruction. I am shocked that in this day and age any human being (especially a young person under 40) can be brainwashed to be so fanatically intolerant and crassly inhumane to be willing to kill other human beings in the name of religion.
Corruption scandal: Junta failing its first test
The notoriously expensive microphones purchase which was cancelled recently was as wrongly picked as whales hunting was wrongly interpreted as the pebble in a shoe in the Sino-Aussie relation.
Thai Studies in Australia, redux
Australians cannot eat bread with green curry; Thais cannot eat namprick with bread, either.
Captain Nat and the wheels of Thai justice
Its more likely Nat was inspired by the fact usually the military can literally get away with murder. Obviously this time some of his victims had more clout than him or his family. Captain is not very high on the military scale, the more rank you have the more you can get away with.If he had had a couple more pips on his shoulder he would probably got a promotion.
Rohingya and national identities in Burma
Of all the Rohingya defenders seen around here and elsewhere this Myo Chit is distinctly most composed and agreeable.
This one was initially a complex problem now -almost-unsolvable.
It does appear all the current descriptions about the problem floating around parallel those of the proverbial 6 Ponnas with the elephant.
First there was the scene.
The people in northern Arakan seem to be coming in and out like waves- naturally- at various time for various reasons so that it would be foolhardy to say who they were from or which time they came just like those Burma’ newest best friends- Jews- claiming to be in the promised land- promised by Belfour alright to Rothschild- since only two thousand years ago summarily driving off another type of Kalars resident there called -for the lack of proper name- Palestinians who no one wants incidentally.
Anyway, currently present Kalars- whatever name one prefers to call- could very well have more sympathy to and from Pakistan than with Bangladesh. Hence Urudu. Pakistan war was the only war in history based on language (of course intolerable bullying and oppression by the Urdu speakers towards the Bengali speakers- Hanabi all the same). And Wahhabi Salafist rather than majority Hanabi. And Awami League would have less sympathy for them than Khaleda Zia’s BNP.
Then that famous word “Rohingya”. Whatever is its origin or existence, the prolific use definitely was for caliphate aim since about the “A-le-than-kyaw conference “ which put out several demands. And for sure there has been well planned seated officials in various international organizations. And indeed in Burmese government as for the Burmese, Arakanese were the real “enemy” for long, long time at least since the theft of the Pagoda. For sure the way the children and adults acted during recent video-opportunities in those notorious concentration camps they are most heinously put in do seem contrived.
Some curiosities as well. Perhaps the very first public outcry regarding the word “Rohingya” came about following Anna Jones’ 2010 report on BBC. Sai Latt did a lot of follow up articles here. Now we find Derek Tonkin – another English person- coming in from, at least seemingly, opposite direction.
Another curio is the incessant and studious demand of all the involved parties- human rights organizations, UN subsidiaries and affiliates, academia, “exiles”- for the citizenship and asking to recognize “Rohingya” just like “Mon” or “Shan”. That is funny as the military government (now in clown’s clothes)- being liberal and enlightened- have shown equal opportunity for torturing and killing regardless of any citizenship, of any religion and national race in the last 60 odd years.
Then there is this legacy of the military who are ruthless, most racist and at the very height of their power supported by seemingly all the western world keen to exploit the land and their (western world’s) own muse Aung San Suu Kyi, always trying to make things up to create a situation for their hold on power.
To top it off, there is another but deeper and bigger legacy of the “West”. Everywhere the “West” has been around the globe with their Midas touch there immediately follows riots, indiscriminate killing, and division of societies- starting with central and south America, oh, sorry, was it the Middle East?, never mind literally everywhere including Eastern Europe now!- which have hitherto been peacefully living together for centuries. These typically follow various accusations between easily identifiable groups distinguishable by ethnic or religious differences or in case like Rwanda just a bit of lighter skin and taller stature.
It also appears all parties are trying to emphasize the division more and more in the name of finding a solution and are somehow or other benefiting from it, like being aid workers or Rohingya advocates or in the case of people like Wirathu getting support from people like Aung Thaung (on behalf of Than Shwe) and those rabid murderous Fascists from Sri Lanka where he currently is.
Of course the Chinese have their own interest to foment instability along their key port (which they own) and the Pipe and divert the attention from the suffocating Chinese’ vice like grip on economic and social scene and ruthless excavation of the land. And exploitation of women.
The effect of such diversion and chaos though is most destructive for the people of Burma who are seriously at risk of losing whatever meager possession they have now unless they wake up and act wisely.
After all, it comes back down to the people of the land which way they want to behave. Understanding and collective action.
And be mindful that none of the above would justify any human to shamelessly ill-treat any other human regardless of Fascist incitement and own irrational fear.
Rohingya and national identities in Burma
Correction: Bodawpaya’s conquest of the Arakan was in 1784. Sorry.
Rohingya and national identities in Burma
As a Bamar I don’t blame the Rakhine’s “racist” hatred of us (their nationalism is alive and well) going back to Bodawpaya’s conquest of the Arakan in 1874, also here on p 399. The Great Image (Mahamuni), the prized booty, albeit in compassionate contemplation, sits in testimony at the most sacred of Buddhist shrines in Mandalay.
Wisdom of General Prayuth
I support prayuth chan-ocha.
Thai Studies in Australia, redux
Funny .. I spent 5 years of my life in a green haze trying to understand “Indian philosophy”.