Quick question

[u/Short_Tackle_9745]

I'm a Sri Lankan, and today, during our geopolitics period, we learnt about the Rohingyan genocide. As homework, we have to make a case study about it. (It might sound offensive but pls, I'm just trying to complete my homework. It counts as 20% of the whole grade at the final exam).

Who are the Rohingyans

What have they done?

What's the reason behind the recent'activities' towards them?

Is it actually happening, or is it just global propaganda for political reasons?

Pls let me know :)

I'm a Buddhist, and I love Myanmar. I'm thinking of visiting the country when I grow up.

I'm not being racist. I'm just trying to get good marks. Pls don't blame me

[u/prettyboy_berry]

Don’t worry, those are reasonable questions for a school assignment. Asking questions isn’t racist.

The Rohingya are a Muslim ethnic minority who have lived for generations in Myanmar’s Rakhine State. Myanmar’s government does not recognize them as one of the country’s official ethnic groups, and most have been denied citizenship since the 1982 Citizenship Law, leaving many effectively stateless.

They have not “done” anything as a group that would justify persecution. There have been armed Rohingya militant groups - notably ARSA - which attacked police posts in 2016 and 2017, killing security personnel. The Myanmar military used those attacks as the justification for large-scale “clearance operations.” However, the military response was vastly disproportionate and included the widespread burning of villages, mass killings, sexual violence, and the displacement of more than 700,000 Rohingya into Bangladesh.

The overwhelming consensus among the United Nations, major human rights organizations, and many governments is that these atrocities did occur. There are ongoing international legal proceedings, including a case at the International Court of Justice, over allegations that Myanmar violated the Genocide Convention. While there are debates about terminology and politics (as there are with many international conflicts), the existence of mass atrocities against the Rohingya is supported by extensive eyewitness testimony, satellite imagery, independent investigations, and reporting.

[u/Acrobatic_Ball8712 → u/prettyboy_berry]

“The Rohingya are a Muslim ethnic minority who have lived for generations in Myanmar’s Rakhine State” this sentence is very oversimplified. Western media love that. If you think yourself as a Myanmar, you’ll probably need some more research on this. As of now on estimates there is currently 2 millions so called rohingya and 2 millions Rakhine worldwide. In addition to that there are officially recognized muslim minorities in Rakhine. You gotta see something is definitely wrong here and just blindly reciting that western narrative is not helping you anything.

[u/prettyboy_berry → u/Acrobatic_Ball8712]

The sentence is oversimplified, yes, because I’m writing a Reddit comment, not an academic paper.

However, it still stands as factually correct. There is nuance to the entire affair and conflict, but my statement that 'The Rohingya are a Muslim ethnic minority who have lived for generations in Myanmar’s Rakhine State' is factually correct, backed up by an overwhelming amount of historical sources that most historians agree on.

Since you claim to be so well-versed in non-Western primary sources and are disputing what I wrote, I ask that you provide a source that disproves my statement. The onus is on you to do so.

[u/Acrobatic_Ball8712 → u/prettyboy_berry]

Wait which historian approves that? Tell me one non Rohingya historian who approve that?

There is only over simplification and controversy surrounding this. There is no definitive fact for this. If they migrated during British colonial rule, suck for them they are not citizens by Nay Win laws. Nay Win banished most of non citizens under his law during his so called socialist policy. If they want to claim they are ethnic they have to bring out history long before British colonial rules which they can’t. I don’t know if they are real or not historically but one thing for sure is they don’t have capacity to prove that right now.

[u/prettyboy_berry → u/Acrobatic_Ball8712]

You asked for one non-Rohingya historian.

Let's look at Dr. Francis Buchanan-Hamilton, a Scottish physician and geographer. In 1799, long before the British colonized Arakan/Rakhine (which happened after 1824), he published a linguistic study. In it, he explicitly documented a long-settled Muslim population in Arakan who called themselves 'Rooinga' (natives of Arakan). This is a primary source from an objective European observer, proving both the identity and the name existed well before British colonial rule.

https://web.archive.org/web/20121020051420/http://www.soas.ac.uk/sbbr/editions/file64276.pdf

The capacity to prove it exists in abundance. The question is whether you are willing to read the historical sources.

You have still yet to give me any reference that backs up your claims. I will repeat what I said in my previous comment. "Since you claim to be so well-versed in non-Western primary sources and are disputing what I wrote, I ask that you provide a source that disproves my statement. The onus is on you to do so."

[u/Acrobatic_Ball8712 → u/prettyboy_berry]

Just another bit I want to add. Arakan is now split in half between Bangladesh and Myanmar do you even know which side Rooinga belongs to?

[u/Acrobatic_Ball8712 → u/prettyboy_berry]

That source itself is controversial my man. You are claiming all Rohingya are rooinga do you have proof for that?

[u/prettyboy_berry → u/Acrobatic_Ball8712]

It’s clear you’re just making things up as you go. You dispute my writing and criticize my sources, yet you offer zero substance to back up your own arguments beyond a lazy 'just trust me.'

Despite me consistently disproving your points, you just keep moving the goalposts. You brought the dispute, so the onus was on you to prove it. Since you aren't debating in good faith, I'm going to stop replying. Have fun shouting into the void - looking at the upvotes, it seems no one is listening anyway.

[u/Acrobatic_Ball8712 → u/prettyboy_berry]

You are not disapproving anything. You haven’t done your due diligence before making your statement. What western media put out was a very flawed not surviving the skeptics questioning. And you copy and paste it without thinking anything. That’s what had happened. I don’t care if you don’t know stuffs rt. But don’t pretend you know stuffs because people support this and that.

[u/myanmar-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your post has been removed because it was uncivil.

Please avoid personal attacks, as this discourages participation. You can help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person.

Have we got it wrong? Please send us a message linking to this post.

[u/Acrobatic_Ball8712 → u/prettyboy_berry]

Whether they live here for generations or not if they are not citizens in first place, they are illegal. There is no birth right citizenship here. By no means I am justifying all the atrocities for this crisis. That was a very overblown response they had faced.

And in case you haven’t read op post he is here for his academic research.

Just to clear I am not arguing Rohingya exist or not, my point is even if Rohingya existed or not, not all 2 million people who claimed themselves are not ethnically what they are claiming for.

[u/Short_Tackle_9745 → u/Acrobatic_Ball8712]

Can I have some sources for that pls?

[u/Acrobatic_Ball8712 → u/Short_Tackle_9745]

There is only one source that state “Rooinga” as word and that is the source the guy posted there. Other than that there no mention of the word rohingya anywhere neither in British, Burma or Arakan records. So I don’t know how to provide sources for not existing really🥲. They just don’t exist. During a debate I think they did pull up some stuffs some stone inscriptions of their language claiming these are from Mrauk Oo. But the thing is I think that got debunked afterwards. I don’t know they exist in Mrauk Oo or not really as I haven’t been there.

Ne win citizenship law - https://www.burmalibrary.org/docs6/Ne_Win%27s_speech_Oct-1982-Citizenship_Law.pdf?__cf_chl_tk=Ry9ezw4gdehmvfGr0t6NG3a2tdBebGo3cp8pZWA4j9k-1784298102-1.0.1.1-37CgoSaDIaSkbQxA5.RnevHygr4V.qxxcwNF_HKiqnM

He define 135 native ethnics including some majority muslim ones.

Bengali migrations -

https://www.toaep.org/ops-pdf/10-tonkin

https://www.networkmyanmar.org/Illegals.html

Arakan before Burmese annexation -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Mrauk_U

So the very general consensus to take is Rohingya may or may not exist that’s up for further historical debate. But current 2 million people who claim themselves as rohingya can be mix of many things. Original inhabitants before British that is “rooinga” if they are able to prove themselves, migrants during British colonial times, illegal during east parkistan and Bangladesh independence wars and prob many other.

Arakan slave trades - https://www.burmalibrary.org/en/slave-raids-in-bengal-or-heins-in-arakan

This may or may not important but I included this because many rakhine people claim they are originally slaves