THIDAR HTWE's short life was not much older than Myanmar's democracy movement. After a quarter-century of struggle the movement has scented victory of a kind, taking seats in parliament just this year. But now the untimely death of Miss Thidar Htwe, a 26-year-old from Thapraychaung village, has ignited a tinderbox of ethnic tensions. Violence is flaring around the western state of Rakhine. The president, Thein Sein, warned in a televised address that it could hinder the nascent reforms. As one of the worst episodes of communal violence the country has seen in decades, it also raises hard questions about the rights of minorities in a new Myanmar.
On May 28th, Miss Thidar Htwe, a Buddhist of the Rakhine ethnic group, was raped and killed, allegedly by three young Rohingya Muslims, as she made her way home from a nearby village. Six days later a mob of 300 Buddhist-Rakhine vigilantes stopped a bus carrying Muslim pilgrims was stopped in the town of Taungkok. The passengers were taken off the vehicle and ten of them were clubbed to death, and one of the women was sexually assaulted. The mob then poured alcohol on the corpses, in desecration. According to some accounts, one of the victims was a Buddhist, mistaken for a Muslim.
The local authorities in Thapraychaung had claimed to have detained the three rapists several days before the bus incident. The victims of the bus attack were not from Rakhine state, and were returning home to Yangon, the country's commercial capital. Soon gruesome pictures of the victims were circulating the internet and small protests erupted within Yangon's Muslim community.
This was not to prompt a moment of national soul-searching. Rather it marked the first salvo of fresh bigotry, unleashed against Myanmar's Muslim minority on the internet and beyond. Discrimination against the Rohingyas has never been subtle. They are not allowed to travel within Myanmar, nor to serve in the police—technically, they do not even have citizenship (though this has been questioned in parliament). But their persecution has suddenly turned fervid.
It was evident in the state-run press. The Myanmar Alin, a newspaper, referred to the murdered Muslims with the derogatory term kalar, a word derived from Sanskrit which means “black”. In Myanmar it is used as an epithet for people with South Asian appearances, such as the Rohingya. More surprisingly, dozens of Burmese human-rights activists (many whom are themselves granted status as asylum-seekers by the West) have rounded on the country's loosely defined community of Muslims—which includes plenty of ethnic Burmese, as well as Rohingyas and the descendants of South Asians.
Regarded by activists as the “most persecuted ethnic group in Asia”, the Rohingya inhabit the impoverished borderlands between Myanmar and Bangladesh. Much like their Buddhist-Rakhine neighbours they traverse both sides of the border. Hundreds of thousands of Rohingya have crossed into Bangladesh since Burma's independence, fleeing racial and religious persecution not just at the hands of their Buddhist countrymen, the Buddhist Rakhines, but also the Burmese national authorities.
Rakhine state was once independent. Burma annexed it in 1784, when the British had barely set foot in the Irrawaddy delta. At the time the conquering Burmese induced Buddhist Rakhines to seek shelter in Bengal, to the west. There they established the town of Cox's Bazaar, with the help of a British East India Company official, Hiram Cox.
In 1977, almost two centuries later, the independent government of Burma conducted a notorious military operation, codenamed Nagar Min (“Dragon King”), which forced hundreds of thousands of Rohingyas to flee across the border to the part of Bengal that had become Bangladesh. One of the victims of that putsch, now resident of Khutapalong camp near Cox's Bazaar, told this correspondent that she fled only after Burmese soldiers butchered her eight-month-old child, on the grounds that she could not produce a permit.
Rakhine state's tensions have a long history. They were on the simmer earlier this month. The statewide police presence had been increased since the massacre of the bus passengers at Taungkok. On June 8th, as Rohingya gathered for prayers, an incident between a Rohingya boy on a bicycle and a Rakhine on a motorbike turned ugly and attracted the police's attention. Soon they turned to riot gear, and the angry street turned to stone-throwing. The police force that moved in with reinforcements already had a reputation for the near-genocidal purges against the Rohingya.
After Friday's violence the government declared a Section 144 criminal order and by Saturday it was a curfew. According to Chris Lewa, an expert on regional affairs, the order to stay in doors applied only to Rohingyas. It did nothing to stop Buddhist Rakhine mobs looting and pillaging. They were filmed burning Rohingya villages, apparently with impunity; they were happy to speak before video cameras while houses burned in the background. The mobs seemed to rage without any fear of police action. At least one Rohingya woman was raped in the mayhem.
Fearing a new influx of refugees, Bangladesh meanwhile tightened security on its border. As many as 1,500 fleeing Rohingyas were stranded, left waiting on boats that idled in the Naf river, unable to land. Bangladesh is already home to perhaps 250,000 Rohingya refugees. Their presence in that crowded country has long been a cause of political bickering.
By Sunday Thein Sein had declared a state of military emergency under Section 413 of the country's 2008 constitution: the first since its nominally democratic government took office in March 2011. The previous criminal order was deemed to weak, so once again the army rules in Rakhine. The UN pulled out the small staff it keeps in the area, which were held to be the last neutral observers on the ground.
Rioting spread quickly to Sittwe, the state capital. Local reports describe Rakhine and Rohingya mobs torching houses and being dispersed by armed police.
Tin Soe, the editor of the Rohingya-run Kaladan news network, welcomes the military state of emergency; he lacks faith entirely in the civilian police force. On the road between the main Rohingya urban centres, Buthidaung and Maungdaw, Tin Soe claims, the streams were clogged with dead bodies. He asserts the mobs' killing of Rohingyas was done in concert with the police, who were Buddhists siding with their co-religionists.
Tin Soe once petitioned for the end of military rule and the release of all political prisoners. But now one of the most prominent of the former political prisoners, Ko Ko Gyi, a member of “the '88 generation students”, has blamed the violence in Rakhine state on elements coming from “across the border”. The implication, as ever, is that the Rohingya are not a legitimate people of Myanmar. Indeed, Ko Ko Gyi made it explicit: the Rohingya are not an “ethnic group” of the country, he says, and so somehow they must be to blame. The same rationale is not applied Myanmar's other ethnic groups, many of whom have a “more Burmese” racial appearance (ie, they look less like South Asians).
Ko Ko Gyi's sentiments were echoed by the popular press, which has taken to calling Rohingyas “Bengalis”, and publishing vile comments on pictures of refugees. Many of the comments posted online call for ethnic cleansing. One thing shared across the spectrum of religious and political hues is a sense of deep foreboding. Leading activist from among the ethnic Chin minority expressed the fear that in Myanmar “we might go back to the dark age before we have even stepped into the path of light.”
(Picture credit: Joseph Allchin)



Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
Hey guys, check out how barbaric and racist the Burmese are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9CGF_rkvH8
The top rated comment on this video is:
"haha,,they are so funny,,they are not from our burma, or arakan state...they are orginal from bangladesh....their country is so poor no food that why they want to make their own state in our arakan land, and burma....only bullet we can give them..i never heard Rohingya in burma.. they are lie the world..they are really Bangaladesh...."
Google any other "Rohinya" article or YouTube any video and you get similar comments from the Burmese.
The world must unite and save the Rohinyas by destroying these evil Burmese terrorists!
Have a bit of balance in your blind fury no different from those you accused of hatred.
http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2012/06/10/intolerance-islam-an...
http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2012/06/15/voices-of-moderation...
Last time I checked no one wants them.
http://www.channel4.com/news/dangerous-waters-for-rohingyas-forgotten-pe...?
http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v6/newsworld.php?id=675459
Makes you wonder what's so wrong with these poor people. Their stupid, self-centred and shortsighted leaders perhaps who got them into this mess.
I think China and India need to team up and form a "coalition of the willing" to liberate the Rohinyas and put a stop to the genocide that the Burmese is committing against the Rohinyas.
American style!
China and India teaming up? Don't make me laugh. That'd be the day.
Both China and India have much to gain from "liberating" Burma.
Both countries are selfish, so I'm sure they can cut up the Burma pie and divide it nicely among themselves.
And choke themselves to death.
Everybody in the world seems to be scared of "barbaric" Burmese terrorists who love to get in an ethnic violence mob and kill dark skinned people.
But isn't killing a terrorist the only way to fight a terrorist?
Anyways, I don't really understand why the Burmese posters are so vehemently against the Rohinyas (and now by association India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and the Brits?)
Yeah, they'd better be. The Burmese founded the KKK, didn't you know?
Watch out all the Kalars!
By forming barbaric ethnic violence mobs to attack the Rohinyas, Burma h as made all of its neighbors (and many countries that are not its neighbors) its enemies.
1. Bangladesh - Muslim and dark skinned Asians, both of whom the Burmese are racist against. Enemy
2. India - Dark skinned and sympathetic to the Rohinyas, Indian blood relatives. Enemy
3. Thailand - Burmese ethnic violence groups have launched numerous terrorist attacks against Thailand in recent years. Enemy
4. China - tocharian. Enemy
5. Every other Islamic country, every other dark skinned country, and every other generally-racially-tolerant countries such as the USA are now Burma's enemies.
The world united to destroy these Burmese racist terrorists!
There is no civilization in Burma. In Burma, you get some weapons, get in a gang or mob, and kill whomever you want. It's really no wonder that Burma is a "fractured country" where a weak but brutal military dictatorship is the only semblance of a government.
(It's funny because some people like to criticize the military dictatorship and call for its downfall and yet concedes that the Burmese should "support the central government" because it's the only semblance of a government that Burma has.)
Unfortunately when the Burmese immigrate to other countries, they bring all of their bad habits with them. Thailand and Bangladesh have been the most severe outside victims of this ethnic violence.
All of Burma's neighbors must deport Burmese immigrants back to Burma and close/secure its borders with Burma in order to protect themselves from further violent mob-style attacks.
You are so kind, Mahmood. Ever wondered why most Burmese migrants chose Thailand, Malaysia across the southeastern border? So did Rohingya Kalars from Burma. Their own kind must be very welcoming.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/354457/20120620/myanmar-burma-rakhine-...?
Ha! Even Bangladesh doesn't want to deal with your barbaric racist Burmese mess.
Seriously what the hell is wrong with you people?
1. You love killing yourselves (other Burmese) who are of a different race than you.
2. The Karens, Rakhines, and many other groups want independence.
3. You claim to hate the central military dictatorship yet acknowledge that you should support it because it is the only semblance of a government that you have.
4. You are dark skinned relative to East Asians, but yet are racist against even darker skinned Asians such as the Indians and the Rohinyas.
5. Your immigrants work as de facto slaves in Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, and China. (Or as teacher's assistants in Canada.)
Honestly the word "barbarian" (first coined by tocharian on these forums) to describe you peeps is which possibly the most apt description that exist in the English language.
Calm down, Mahmood. You are getting carried away with your anti-Burmese sentiment, not racist I'm sure. The feeling could be mutual don't you think?
Ever heard of Balkanisation? India must be one big happy family, no such thing as communal violence. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1850759.stm
But yeah, the Burmese will fight all comers, their own govt too, if only their country were flush with AKs like Afghanistan or Iraq. FYI it's something called backbone that you may not have heard of among your race, no yellow or servile streak in the Burmese character.
Skin colour is irrelevant. Kalar doesn't mean black in Burmese, only in Hindi or whatever, and the Burmese did not need the Indians to tell them what to call them. Indian is Kalar and Chinese is Tayoke, end of. India became Eindiya from the English in colonial times just to distinguish the Indian state from the rest of Kalar nations such as Portugal, France or Britain.
The plight of migrant workers are pretty much the same everywhere in the world, treated like second class citizens and ruthlessly exploited. The Burmese are no exception. Thousands of Indians in Burma were dhobi-wallahs, lanchar-wallahs, jadoo-wallahs, chaprasis, malis, durwans and sais in both British and Burmese households.
Don't kid yourself, will you? Ever heard of the expression: the wogs start at Calais? We are all barbarians east of Brindisi, Sabu. Look in the mirror and think, those who live in glass houses....
In history, Rohingya might not feel to call them as Rohingya because the situation and the time had not forced them to call so. It doesn't mean that this people didn't exist before. So, if someone says there is no word as Rohingya in the history of Arakan, then there is no word as Rakhine either. I have just put a logical argument here. We, most of the people of Myanmar, are mentally sick. That's reason why we are too xenophobic of people of other race. We simply can't tolerate any race besides Mongoloid. We need to grow up a lot in order to have a peaceful, prosperous and developed nation.
Coming to the present situation, it is true that some of them tried to separate a part of Arakan and combine with east Pakistan at the time of independence. But not all of them demanded for it. Some of them even opposed those who were trying to do so. They were promised all the rights and citizenship and now they want live in Myanmar. Besides, most of the minorities in Myanmar have been trying for their independence because they feel that they will not be treated equally under Bama rulings. Even now, Kachin crisis is going on! And the Military is killing the civilians as usual!
We need to understand the plot done by the regime! Today, Thein Sein regime is facing so many critical problems such as demands to immediately stop the genocidal war in Kachin, Myitsone Dam crisis, Electricity crisis, Water Crisis, labors' and farmers demonstrations and extreme poverty in the country. When they are unable to solve these crises, the only way remaining for them is to divert people's minds from the current crises by triggering racial and religious riots. The regime's know well that when it comes to religion, most of the Myanmar people tend to be intolerant.
Creating a riot between Rakhines and Muslims and they themselves behaving like Chaung Thu Daw pretending as if they are protecting the people will be a good tactic for them. Therefore, the whole riot has been being masterminded by the USDA regime to gain political advantage by taking innocent people's lives (both of Rakhines and Muslims). Since Rakhines are not in good terms with Muslims, they have found a motive in them that can be useful for the regime. That's what they have done. It is an effort by them to go back to the previous ruling system and make NLD into blacklist of some people since NLD can no way support the massacres as it is led by Daw Suu. But most of the people of Myanmar don't use their brains in these kinds of matters and go with emotions. Rather, I'd like to say we are too dumb to understand regime's plan.
Many of our people call all Rohingyas terrorists as a whole. On what basis? May be because their scholars dress like Arabs or Afghanis? What is the definition of the terrorist? It is quite natural that, when one is severely persecuted and made unemployed, he or she might have tendency to behave like a terrorist or join terrorist. So far, no terrorism occurred in Arakan due to them. The only terrorists there are Military. As far as Ma Thida Tway's case concerned, all the criminals whoever have done this must be punished according to law and I strongly condemn this. But it doesn't mean that we need to go and kill all other innocent people of same religion or race. We have the law. In fact, criminals and terrorists have no religions or race but they just manipulate them. Recently, there have been at least two rape cases in Yangon and one of them was against a young boy. What about them? Were they made a mountain out of a molehill? In fact, rapes happen everywhere and every rapist must be punished according to the law. But the bitter truth here is that the culprits of all the problems in Arakan today are none other than military itself.
I strongly support all the insecurity being felt by Rakhine brothers of illegal immigration from Bangladesh. But we need to let the law take care of this matter. We can't be so rampant and kill other people even though he or she is illegal. But why should Bangladeshis still come to a land ruled by an oppressive government, where there is less economic opportunity and infrastructures are very poor? To Islamize Myanmar? Laughable indeed! Can 4% of Muslims convert 89% of Buddhists into Islam in the country? If we feel so, we are really feeling insecure! And we have a good reason to feel insecure. That is we are not practising our own religion, Buddhism which teaches peace and to win everyone with Metta (loving-kindness). The edict not to kill or inflict pains on others is integral to Buddhist thought! Instead, we have turned into a fanatic unbuddhist way and have portrayed Buddhism otherwise.
I am not favouring anyone and taking anyone's side. But certainly I am taking the side of humanity, justice and equality. May peace and prosperity be on our people and our country!
So your 'logical argument' is that 'most of the people of Myanmar are mentally sick'. Scientific evidence-based conclusion I guess. Well, speak for yourself, mate. And confuse the military and the people it lords over and oppresses, why don't you? You also need to get the name of the rape murder victim right. http://www.irrawaddy.org/archives/6933.
Can't say the Burmese are unique in reacting in such an angry outburst to such an emotive issue. If it was all cooked up by the govt capitalising on the rape murder case, then the Rohingya snapped at the bait all too readily to their own detriment. http://www.theweek.co.uk/asia-pacific/burma/47364/burma-regime-inciting-...
On the part of the Burmese they proved you wrong by wasting no time in defusing the massive potential fallout by making joint statements and appeals together with Burmese Muslims so that it did not turn into an all out anti-Muslim riot. http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2012/06/15/voices-of-moderation...
No, the Chittagonians are not Mexicans crossing the Rio Grande under cover of the night. But it's a simple matter of the number of people per sq.mile on the opposite banks of the Naaf. Besides they have already done ethnic cleansing of the northernmost three townships of the Arakan since 1942. They won't stop there if you let them with loving kindness. http://www.soas.ac.uk/sbbr/editions/file64388.pdf (see pp397,401,406-7,411-2,414)
It's so easy to act holier than thou, at least outsiders, who are ignorant of the region's history and fall for Rohingya propaganda and bogus history claiming they were descended from the original settlers of the Arakan coast, and that the whole place was theirs and Muslim until the Burmese conquest of 1784, can be forgiven.
As far as I am concerned, the Rohingyas who live inside the country don't bother to be an ethnic race. They just want to be recognized as citizens and live like others with all human rights! To make Burma a peaceful country, there shouldn't be any discriminations between ethnic races and normal citizens. All the rule of laws should be maintained according to universal standards.I have a good knowledge about Arakan as I have been in Maung Daw for two years as a NGO worker. And I had good rapports with both people: Rakhines and Rohingyas. If no one minds, I wish to share you what I know of Arakan.
Yes it is true that there was no such a name called Rohingya in the history of Arakan. British has recorded Muslims in Arakan as Chittagonians. So, in everyone's opinion, this is the rightest term Biritish used for Muslims in Arakan. So, British's records are most correct. If so, what term did the British use for Buddhists in Arakan? Rakhine? Obviously not! If yes, is there any evidence for the fact that British refered the Buddhists in Arakan as Rakhines? British are right and honest because they refered Muslims in Arakan as Chittagonians. The same British are wrong and dis-honest because they refered Buddists in Arakan as Maghs. Why double standards?
Put aside both religions, Islam and Buddhism, and both names, Rakhine and Rohingya here. Let me put some logical arguments. Everyone will agree if we say that there were the periods called Dhannyawadi and Vesali in the history of Arakan. No one will deny this. OK, then. Can anybody tell us that the kings or rulers in these two historical periods, which dated back to more than 2000 years, belonged to which stocks of human race, Indo-Aryan (i.e. Indian-look-alike people) or Mongoloid (Mongolian look-alike people)? What are the meanings of terms Dhannyawadi and Vesali (Vaishali)? From which language these terms were derived from? In which stock of human race did Siddartha Gautama Buddha and most of earliest follwers, because of whom Buddhistism had spreaded throughout the region, belong to?
We know there was a people called Rakkhasha (in Pali meaning Cannibals) who used to eat even human beings who are stragers to them. The word has varied through historical periods from Rakkhasha to Rakkha to Rakkuain now to Rakhine. According to some other people, Rakhine was derived from Pali word Rakkhita (meaning people who look after and take care of their race). Yet, it doesn't matter to me. According to the historians, the place was called Rakkhapura (again in Pali). Has the whole region of Arakan including Chittagong area been called so? Have the cannibals used to live throughout the whole region? How did these Rakkhasha people look alike, mongoloid, aryan, caucasians, negroid? Why was a Pali word "Rakkhasha" used to address cannibals? Who named these cannibals as Rakkhasha by using a Pali word? Wasn't there be a paralell people to Rakkasha, who named them so using Pali word? Or have they named them "Rakkhasha" (cannibals) by theirselves using a Pali word? Was Pali the language of cannibals? Wasn't Pali an Indian literature and language? Isn't it originated to India?
Indo-Arayan people have been living in Arakan since B.C. 3323 according to the book with the title “Za Lok Kay Pho Lay?” (written by San Kyaw Tuan, (Maha Wizza), a Rakhine from Rathedaung, foreworded by the late Dr. Aye Kyaw and contributed by scholars like Dr. Aye Chan, Khin Maung Saw) page No. 81]. Who were these Indo-Aryans? Were not they forefathers of the people called Rohingya today? In which group of human stocks did Rakhines fall, Indo-Aryan or Mongolian? However, it can't also denied that Rohingyas have the mixture of Bengalis who came to Myanmar during British colonial period.
Furthermore, we think everybody knows Mexico and Argentina, people there are of spainish origin and speak spainish language. Why don't people call them Spainish instead of Mexican and Argentinian? Americans speak English language and most them are of English. Why don't people call them English in stead of Americans? The father of Obama was from Kenya but Obama is the president of US now.
The word "Rohingya" is a slight variation of the word "Ruahonga" (in Rakhine meaning "from old village") because the place where Rohingyas used to live was called Ruahong. Rohingyas have the habit of calling someone by the place name where they live. For example, if somebody is from Man-Aung, he will be called as Man-Aunggya, if from RatheThaung, then RatheThaungya and if from ButhiTaung, then Buthi-Thaungya etc. The word Rohingya has formed exactly the way Rakhine has formed from Rakkhasha.
Maybe your 'right and honest' British referred to the Rakhine/Yakhine as Magh because they gained foothold in Bengal first before they seized the whole of India, hence they got the Bengali term Magh for the Buddhist Arakanese? The Rakhine in Chittagong as well as those in the Arakan are still called that by the Bengalis just as the Burmese call all Indians Kalar (all Indo-Aryan races to the west were Kalars until the British annexation of Burma).
Can your 'logical argument' be more muddled than this? Sanskrit/Pali terms in the language and kingship rituals/royal titles are an integral part of SE Asian historical tradition. It's like Coca-colonisation in modern times and the English language, not evidence of the origin of these races. There are very old Arakanese Muslim communities such as those that settled in the Mrauk-U period (1430-1784) or the Kaman in Ramree who do not identify themselves with the Rohingya who have also usurped the term Arakanese Muslim for themselves, not just the three townships next to Chittagong.
http://www.soas.ac.uk/sbbr/editions/file64388.pdf(p 397)
Rakkhasha (cannibal) most likely referred to the aboriginal Negrito people who inhabited SE Asia before Mongoloid races such as the Rakhine and Bamar, from Han Chinese pressure, pushed south.
What has it got anything to do with the Americas where the natives have been killed or marginalised long ago by the white man? The Rohingya, my friend, may behave like them but they will be stopped.
Logical my foot.
Go to hell! Keep screaming on! Don't come and give me shit things! Did I give any reply to you? Stop bothering me. I have no time to give replies to non-factual guys like you who always talks shit and nonsense! I have been observing you for a long time! How much money have your evil grandfathers in the military given you for this project?
Tsk, tsk, tsk...you gonna cry? Evil bogeyman too rough for you? Spout BS and expect no comeback? A bit soft in the head, Naeem/Naim? Sooo sorry.
HHHHHHHHH
mmmmmm
After taking everything into consideration, I have come to the following conclusion. It is the bitter truth whether one likes it or not!
As of today, many Burmese societies will be willing to accept a Mongolian or a Korean as one of their citizens because they look like them. It doesn't really matter for them for how long they have been living in Myanmar (1 months, 2 months, 3 months or one year). If he or she is a Buddhist, the more chances he or she has to be accepted as Burmese citizen.
But South-Asian descends like Rohingyas will not be accepted as their citizens no matter how long they have been living there (50 years, a century, 2 centuries and so on). Because they look different to them. As of today, to be a Burmese citizen, one must look like them or to be from Mongoloid race. Worse, Rohingyas practice a different religion. So, there is no chance for them to be accepted as its citizens.
I agree to Mr. Mark Farmaner's statement "Anti-Muslim prejudice is endemic in Burmese society and derogatory comments about Muslims are so commonplace. It is quite shocking." They believe in racial purification like Nazis did. I have seen in some of their comments that some of them even demand to check the DNAs of Rohingyas to be able to decide whether they are Burmese citizens or not, exactly like what Nazis did to confirm whether one was of Aryan race or not. Similarly, if the DNAs of Burmese are to be checked, it is highly possible that DNAs of Burmese will be same to that of Chinese or Mongolians. What's the problem even if the DNAs of Rohingyas are same to that of Bengalis. After all, Bangladesh is nearer to Arakan. And what has DNA to do with citizenship? And I wonder how these same people can come to Europe, US, Canada, Australia etc and shamelessly demand asylums or citizenship within three to four years at a time when they don't want recognize a people as their citizens, who have been living there at least for a century (here I don't refer to all Burmese but those Xenophobic Burmese)!!!!
a. Look no farther than Yangon and Mandalay, count the number of mosques to see if Nehru's remark that Rangoon looked like a Muslim city sounds reasonable oor not. King Mindon not only gave land but made contributions to build mosques in Mandalay. So much for religious intolerance in Burma. People simply react to bad attitude and behaviour. And when you live in someone else's country and regard the natives as either needing to be converted or culled, do you expect loving kindness in the real world? You are of course welcome to them. And yes, it's a chronic spillover from Chittagong, duh. Like Mexicans across the Rio Grande, only for a whole lot longer and unabated.
b. Burmese migrants have never asserted, let alone claim, that their people were the original settlers of the land, nor do they try to carve out a caliphate of their own in Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Europe, America, whatever.
So get off your high horse, and quit pontificating when you are ignorant of the region's history.
So who is Mark Farmaner? Where are you quoting from?
Fantastic comment
I agree with every thing you said
Mark Farmaner from Free Burma Campaign!!!
[tocharianin reply to Stop Bamar WarcrimesJune 14th, 04:29
The Chinese of course, are having a Schadenfreude moment. They want to divide and conquer Burma. Let the barbarians fight each other as Sun-Tzu would say!]
It is the Economist that is "having a Schadenfreude moment" on Burma with this article. Yet again, you are blaming the Chinese for it. Do you have to "KNOW YOUR PLACE" in front of the whites? Can't you have some backbone? moe sung has a lot of backbone. Learn some lessons from him!
[Stop the Chinese Myitsone dam (and all the otherones they want to build in Burma)
Stop the gas/oil pipeline
Stop the naval seaport at Kyaukphru (which is incidentally very close to where this rape and murder of a girl happened)]
{[tocharianin reply to guest- 1st, 08:17
...If Burma is so rich in natural resources, the Burmese people should profit from it too (like the Arabs) and if Burma does not have any natural resources, then what are the Chinese doing there? Of course, nations are selfish and countries try to maximise their benefits and exploit others, but then China should not be too sensitive if the exploited people start complaining. Burmese also have a right to look after their own interests. All human beings are created equal and no one likes arrogant bullies (Germany tried that a few decades ago).]
You hate the Chinese not because they take Burma's resource but because they are Chinese. After all, unlike the Western colonialists, China pays for the resources it gets with real goods and services. Even if it were Uncle who take Burma's wealth, you would still blame China and the Chinese for it-- Like you have done in other circumstances:
{[tocharian May 11th, 06:37
Corruption, Coercion and Control is how China has been ruled for millennia and the majority of the Han Chinese seem to really believe that this Chinese way of governance is a deeply imbedded characteristic of Chinese Confucian culture and hence (by default) far superior to the more "chaotic" Hans-Solo-style Western political ideas of "freedom, dignity and sanctity of the individual human being".]
The Chinese do NOT believe their 'Confucian culture' is 'far superior to the more "chaotic" Hans-Solo-style Western political ideas'. That is why they do NOT try to impose their social values on Western societies.
It is the imperialist West that believe THEIR Western culture is "far superior" to other cultures. That is why they go around the world kicking arses in order to impose their system on the rest of the world.
Can't you be honest for once in your entire miserable life???}
{tocharianMay 27th, 17:23
[ This "new G2 world order" that the US wants to create with China is extremely fishy and precarious. This neo-liberal thinking about "we are all friends" and the whole world will converge to equality, liberty and fraternity (and Wall Street) is a dangerous "Fata Morgana". It is not going to happen in China and a few other countries, because China basically wants to defeat the US to become the single dominating superpower and many Chinese (even amongst those that live or study in the West and hold American passports) are brainwashed into believing that this is China's "manifest destiny" given their "2,000 years of culture and world-domination (with a few breaks)".]
It was the neo-cons, not the Chinese communists, who said something like "We will not again allow a peer competitor to emerge"-- In order to remain "the single dominating superpower" in this world. Even some non-whites, who instinctively know their places in front of the whites (like tocharian does), "are brainwashed into believing that" this is the "manifest destiny" all non-white peoples.
Again, can't you be honest for once in the whole of your miserable life?}
Yet again, can't you be honest for once in the whole of your miserable life?
[By the way, at the personal level, I have been dealing with Chinese people almost all my life, not just in Burma. It doesn't matter where I live, I see them almost everyday. I never had any problems with most of them (of course, there are always a few unpleasant people everywhere)]
There is certainly a very "unpleasant" Burmese "professor" on the Economist forum here.
Devil's
A good example of "argumentum ad hominem"
[tocharianin reply to Devils 23rd, 18:23
A good example of "argumentum ad hominem"]
The perfect example of denying the truth.
Devil's
It isn't completely worth wasting your time to reply or retort upon tocharian.
Can't help to make the foolish look foolish. ;-)...
[tocharianin reply to Devils 23rd, 18:23
A good example of "argumentum ad hominem"]
Sorry Toc! In my hurry to reply, I missed some more that I wanted to say.
I have shown that it was the Economist that was "having a Schadenfreude moment" on Burma with this article. Instead of countering my point, you made a statement which implicitly admitted that you indeed "know your place" in front of the whites and you don't have any backbone. And that you had a habit of blaming China and the Chinese for the sins of the whites. More examples are given below:
1) It is the imperialist West that believe THEIR Western culture is "far superior" to other cultures. That is why they go around the world kicking arses in order to impose their system on the rest of the world.
2) It was the neo-cons, not the Chinese communists, who said something like "We will not again allow a peer competitor to emerge"-- In order to remain "the single dominating superpower" in this world.
You dare not give a single direct reply to my charges but chose to hide behind the useless slogan of "argumentum ad hominem".
Devil's
tocharian is at a loss for words. He has been crying about how racist the Chinese are for all these years, but failed to realize that the Burmese (his own people) were even more racist. Too much time spent away from Burma I guess...
The Tibetans are treated better than the Rohinyas, no? At least the Chinese don't form ethnic violence mob groups and attack the Tibetans.
See if the Chinese are relatively uncivilized by Western standards, the Burmese are downright barbarians.
Western standards do not stop neofascist groups being active and periodically beating up the darkies, Pakis etc. in case you have overlooked the reality in sucking up to them, Najib.
Don't kid yourself, towelhead. We are all barbarians west of Brindisi. The wogs start from Calais they say. Where do you think racism is mainly based on sheer ignorance and purely on the colour of the skin?
Where is tocharian to argue with you? lol
Well I guess tocharian only argues with Chinese people who think like you, because he really hates Chinese people.
He obviously doesn't bother the Burmese people who think like you, because I guess he doesn't like arguing with his own race.
I have argued with tocharian, and not just here. And he does have a bee in the bonnet. It's Najib who's calling the Burmese racist and barbarian. You may accuse the Burmese of anything but definitely not of having a slave mentality.
Is there a connection between this and the habitual sexual problems of Pakistani men in the UK ?
It is believed that the men of Pakistani origin living in the UK are mostly responsible for the sexual crimes in the UK.
Or for that matter, 40% of the sexual crimes committed, as well as over 30% of petty crimes are committed by 5% of the Danish population in Denmark - This 5% being men of Islamic origin.
Then we have Geert Wilders in the Netherlands getting very popular.
Nothing to with race ?? certainly not !!! But it may have something to do with other matters!!
During days of British Empire, people from different parts of India were encouraged to migrate to other parts of the Empire. For example, Indian Tamils moved to Malaysia, Singapore, Sri Lanks, Seychelles, etc. Other Indian people relocated to Guyana, Fiji, Surinam, South Africa and Eastern African countries.
On their independence from Britain, all these countries granted citizenship to people of Indian origin who had moved to these countries during British occupation.
Only exception to above example is Burma, where all people, who were living there at the time of independence, are not treated equally.
Since Rohingya are living in Burmese territories since British days, they should be treated like other bona fide Burmese nationals.
Yes they should be treated as equals, but they won't be. The Burmese hate dark skinned people.
Provided the Rohingya behave like good citizens, yes, they will become bona fide citizens. People with thick skulls, thicker perhaps than the Rohingya, just can't seem to get the message.
Quote "Provided the Rohingya behave like good citizens" Unquote
First give them citizenship then expect good behavior. Rights are accompanied with responsibilities.
Yes, put the cart before the horse, why don't you? Any precedent of that anywhere in the world?
The rape and murder of Miss Thidar Htwe by three Rohingya muslim man resulted in the situation today. Why is it that an innocent victim of a terrible crime did not get any sympathy? Myanmar is not a muslim country where muslims can rape and murder non-muslim with impunity.
So hypothetically if three Burmese barbarians (tocharian and two others) rapes a white girl in Canada, should Canadians start attacking all the Burmese immigrants?
Have you ever been in a riot before? I guess you haven't. Why are so many people stressing on the "Muslim aspect", because I guess they are uncomfortable about the race issue. The real reason why they are going after them is because they are "Indian" looking. If they were Bamar looking and Muslim I doubt it would be as bad.
If they were Hindoo and Indian looking it would be just as bad. Why haven't there been articles in the press about
1) Mongoloid women from Northeast India been raped in places like New Delhi. Its so common in big cities in Northern India, its ridiculous.
http://www.peacewomen.org/news_article.php?id=836&type=news
http://www.humanrights.asia/resources/journals-magazines/article2/0105/f...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/03/rapes-india-north-ea...
The only reason why people are stressing the religion part and not the racial aspect 1) Anti Muslim 2) Indian or both.
There was an incident where a Northern Eastern woman was raped and burned in New Delhi, no riots nothing. Why? because they are powerless that is why. Its not an isolated incident. its frequent. Its not religious at all, its racial.
That is the undercurrent, its racial, not religious. Its the reason why most marriages, its always the South Asian man marrying SE Asian / East Asian woman.
All the Burmese/Indians are ducking the real issue of race.
This rape and murder case was only the spark that ignited the tinderbox. The Rohingya consistently misbehaving is the issue, their race or religion is only of secondary importance, but of course they may well be interrelated.
Many Burmese Muslims are of mixed ancestry, and they know they had better keep out of this.
Myanmar's opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi said in Oslo yesterday that her country must clarify citizenship laws underlying ethnic tensions but declared she was unsure whether Muslim Rohingyas at the centre of clashes could be regarded as nationals.
http://www.todayonline.com/World/EDC120619-0000086/Myanmar-must-clarify-...
This lady obviously has more brainpower than the country's generals who only know how to use the guns but very poor at communicating and justifying what they do.
When she become President of Myanmar in the foreseenable future, no doubt she will first streamline and clarify the citizenship laws and out goes the Rohingyas from Myanmar!
Not so fast. If they evict the Rohingyas, then a "democratic Myanmar" is worse than dictatorship of Suharto. Many Chinese Indonesians had no Indonesian citizenship in the Suharto period, but he did not kick them out. All they did was to "pay" their way. If they apply it the Rohingyas, they will apply it to the many illegal Chinese living on the border areas. Unlike the Rohingyas, ethnic Chinese are armed, and they won't stand for it.
Haha dream on. Suu Kyi is a very liberal worldly person who is not racist at all, unlike you Bamars who are mostly racist.
Suu Kyi really does not represent the Burmese people. (You have one good leader and a bunch of racist and barbaric subjects.) In terms of how she acts and where she obtained her influence in life from, she is really British more so than anything else.
Not so fast, Bishr. How do you know the Rohingya are unarmed? It was the Brits who armed them in 1942 to resist the Japs, and what did they do? Massacred the Rakhine. Then they shouted foul. Victimhood doesn't suit them. No shortage of the rest of the jackals next door and further afield joining in the fray, arming and funding them
It's not about kicking them out. It's about not letting them usurp the land and swallow Rakhine State. If you let them they won't stop.
Can't stop sucking up to your British masters after all this time, eh?
In Myanmar if you have knives, WW2 rifles you are unarmed !!! Everyone else is armed with RPG, AK-47, 50 cal, mortars and even have trained armies. Look around, are the Rohingya the most heavily armed group in Burma, not by a long shot !! Everything is relative. The Rohinya are lately unarmed compared to everyone. It does not take genius to know that.
You know it all. Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile. It does not take a genius like you to know the fable "The Camel and The Arab". Who do you think the camel is?
All you have is hate and silly parable. I want to see the number of divisions they have, the 50 cals, the mortars and all the good stuff that everyone else has in Myanmar. I want to see the suicide bombers, the Saudi funding that goes with the territory. Where is it?
I just think the other groups are more of a threat, because they are armed and control areas with abundant natural resources. Its that simple. Its not intent that matters its whether you have the means to carry out the intent.
Some wealthy Muslim philanthroper must step up and provide these helpless Rohingyas with some real weapons. I hear that those oil tycoons have a lot of cash.
Fewer luxury jets and more guns. gogogo
The whole world runs on mutual interest.
There are no permanent friends and no permanent enemies only permanent mutual interests.
The Suharto regime and successive regimes in that country till today continued to perceive the Indonesian Chinese presence in Indonesia including illegal ones as a very positive contributing factor to their economy.
The Rohingyas can prove themselves in this way to the Myanmar rulers or to the rulers of any country in the world and be welcomed.
Really? There are alot of poor Chinese Indonesians in Indonesia. They don't have citizenship. They bred like rabbits. By the way, Indonesia is a democratic country now, they don't have regimes anymore. There are poor Tamils in Malaysia brought over by the the British, no citizenship either. But they don't kick them out.
These other groups control their own indigenous homelands, genius. Even the Wa and Kokang are indigenous. Balkanisation is a threat the Burmese have had to live with. They don't need Bengali kalars chipping in with their brethren funding and arming them so they can carve out territory that doesn't belong to them in the first place, and worse overrunning the whole Arakan coast.
Desist or face the consequences.
Let them try and fall for the oldest trick in the book. The Burmese military is just looking for a good pretext. They've taken a leaf out of the Sri Lankan solution to the Tamil separatist movement.
Actually the army was sent in to stop the barbaric Burmese civilians from committing widespread ethnic violence against the helpless dark skinned people.
Both the Rakhine government and the Rohinyas welcomed martial law to stop the violence.
Say what you want about the military dictatorship, but at least the military does their job, which makes them better than the violent, barbaric and racist civilian part of the population.
You ain't seen nothin' yet, Najib. The military will do their job alright.
I'm a little late to the party but that is the stupidest thing I've heard in a long while. Calling on the Burmese army to keep the peace is like trying to douse a fire with petrol.
Most of the anti-Muslim comments by Westerners, Indians and Bamar are down right silly. I agree with the Economist that this type of ethnic violence by the Myanmar has to stop. Furthermore, its a minor problem. In the Myanmar context, the Rohingyas are the least problematic. I don't care if one calls me a Muslim lover, I am just telling like it is. Why? Where is their army? Their RPGs? Their AK-47s? Their military units? Out of all the ethnic groups, they don't have an army. Everyone else is armed to the teeth. Here are some of the armed groups:
Non-Ceasefire
Karenni Army (KA)
Karen National Liberation Army (KNLA)
Karen National Defense Organization (KNDO)
Karen National Union (KNU)
Karenni National Progressive Party (KNPP)
Shan State Army - South (SSA-S)
Kachin Independence Army (KIA)
Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA)
Mon National Liberation Army (MNLA)
Mong Thai Army (MTA)
Rebellion Resistance Force
KNU-KNLA Peace Council
Chin National Front (CNF)
Ceasefire groups
United Wa State Army (UWSA)
Kachin Independence Organization (KIO)
New Mon State Party (NMSP)
New Democratic Army - Kachin (NDA-K)
Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army (MNDAA)
Mongko Defense Army (MKO)
National Democratic Alliance Army (NDAA)
Kachin Defense Army (KDA)
Pao National Organization (PNO)
Palaung State Liberation Party (PSLP)
Kayan National Guard (KNG)
Karenni Nationalites People's Liberation Front (KNPLF)
Kayan New Land Party (KNLP)
Shan Nationalites People's Liberation Organization (SNPLO)
The other (armed) ethnic groups, are thinking, if they attack the Rohingyas, the only thing that is stopping us from getting pushed out, is our military forces. But for Westerners who most likely get their perspective of Burma from their regular "girl friend" in Bangkok's red light district, they view Muslims bad, everyone else good. Since they are unarmed Muslims, they deserve to die.
There has to be a political solution, democrazy in itself is not enough. The country has to be decentralized, possibly English made the official language, as it was before 1964.
I find it strange that some of our Western commentators are first to talk about a Muslim conspiracy, when Rohingyas don't even have a military. If they were Christian, what would be the response? At least the Christian and ethnic Chinese groups had enough sense to arm themselves. If Buddhist and Christian (Kachin etc), someone has some serious issues. That is why I am not so fast to blame the Rohingyas in this case.
As I said before, bring back the British !!! They created some of the mess, and they will fix it. Rule Britannia !!
So you are a Jewish defender and a Muslim defender at the same time?!? The UN should hire you as their peace envoy to the Middle East.
I know, very confusing. Just like I am Hindoo basher and a Chinamen basher at the same time.
"Opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi said yesterday Myanmar must clarify citizenship laws underlying ethnic tensions in the country, but declared she was unsure whether Muslim Rohingyas at the centre of clashes could be regarded as nationals."
If a native Muslim Indonesian politician was to say "I am not sure if the Chinese Indonesians are Indonesian citizens", he would be called a racist and bigot. The same if a Malay politician was to say that. There is a double standard here. The Rohingya's, Chinese Malaysians, Chinese Indonesians, for the most part were brought over by the Westerners. Many of the Chinese Indonesia/Malaysian Tamils are "stateless", but no one thinks of kicking them out.
Your servile streak is indelible and showing notwithstanding your silly personal attack on Westerners. Make English the official language, my foot. You may speak mumbo jumbo, then you're welcome to do that. Why don't you bring back the British to India, the world's largest democrazy where private opulence and public squalor continue to exist cheek by jowl ever since independence?
You'll be halal meat in the hands of your Rohingya friend, no need for an AK.
You are very confused. Chinese came overseas to those countries, overland too in Upper Burma but have not shown any territorial ambition backed up by falsifying history and accompanied by aggression, and the Kokang Substate was granted by the Brits just before independence. They obviously didn't think the Chittagonians were worthy enough, probably because having armed them to fight the Japs they instead turned on the native Arakanese.
If they push for the same thing and have a deathwish for the same fate as the Tamils in Sri Lanka, it's their own funeral.
Really? What is Singapore or Lanfang Republic? Its funny you scream murder at the Rohingyas, and everyone else in Burma is running with armies and militia. Its funny that you consider the Junta as the menace. The ethnic armies along the Thai/Chinese border are really drug lords / criminals. They most likely killed more Westerners / other Asian with their merchandise than Osama Bin Laden with 9/11.
As for making English the official language. One of the stupidest decision made by Malaysia and the Philippines, was abandoning English as the official language in the 1960s. Most young Filipino now have worse English than their parents. In Malaysia, it has resulted in actually dividing the races further part. Myanmar needs all the help it can get. The world is much more competitive than it was 30 years ago. Rwanda, formerly a Belgian colony, made English the official language 3 years ago (they dropped French)
The Burmese know the generals are the biggest warlords. And drugs? Where there is demand and there will be suppliers like Afghanistan and Pakistan.
You keep your Sahib's language official, Sabu. Many Malaysians and Filipinos speak English, and it doesn't have to be the official language. Indians don't have a lingua franca; funny they have to use English to communicate between different tongues, and it's not like the ordinary folk speak it.
Gandhijee and Jinnah would be turning in their graves over your slave mentality.
Some of the "western commentors" are youngsters under 18 years old. Do not get "surprised" with a commentar comming from a mouth you can't heard.
In the Philippines they have two officials languages, making Tagalog as another official language was a big mistake. Its not about a slave mentality, to the Chinese Malaysians is Malay more important then English? I doubt it. There are quite a few Chinese Malaysians that don't speak Malay or speak it very poorly (they study in private Chinese language schools). To the Filipino in Ilokano, how important is Tagalog.
For a Chinese Malaysian what is so different about living under the Malay as opposed to the British rule. Did the British make them pay more for new homes? Require them to have higher scores to enter university.
If you don't speak the language of the land, what the hell are you doing there? Under British rule only Europeans and Anglos refused to speak or pretended not to speak Burmese when they used Hindi or Urdu with their Indian servants, but colonial administrators learnt to speak Burmese even before coming to serve in Burma.
It's Indians, especially women, who don't speak English after so many years in Britain living in their own ghettos. If the Chinese or Indians don't wish to live under the Malays or the Burmese for that matter they are welcome to get the hell out of those countries.
At independence, Malays and natives in Borneo only made up 50% of Malaysia's population, For many of the natives in Borneo, their native tongue is not Malay. So only about 40% of the population spoke Malay.
You can make English the working language and do what India does. Most Bengali/Southern Indians don't speak Hindi or speak it very poorly. Secondly, why do you assume that all Myanmarese speak Burmese. The county has been divided so long.
Why don't you kick them out then? And risk antagonizing the two biggest countries in Asia The Chinese already warned the Junta about about driving the Kokang across the border into China a couple of years ago.
The assumption you made can only be made by a know-it-all but as thick as two short planks. An overwhelming majority speaks Burmese in Burma including all educated minorities. Why are you even comparing Burma with India and Malaysia? Shows how poor your knowledge of the country is, but can't keep your gob shut.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burmese_language
How many times? It's not about kicking them out, it's about behaving yourself. Did China retaliate when their Han Chinese (Kokang Tayoke in Burmese) were driven out? Too much RMB at stake here. India is just a poor second, Burmese never have been impressed or feel threatened except when the Brits arrived on the scene and their little misdemeanor of bringing in Indians in general and the Chittagonians in particular.
I know Bamars make up 78% of the population. 85% of the population in Singapore is Chinese, but is Mandarin the main official language? Its English.
The Burmese are not Singaporeans, nor Indians, Chotawallah. Some races have pride and backbone, perhaps an alien concept to slavish sorts like you.
If they had backbone, they would have never been colonized by the British in the first place. Do you see any Thais, Malaysians or Singaporeans working in Myanmar as maids whether illegally / legally? Not that I know of, but there are alot of Burmese working in those countries as maids, factory workers etc, many of them illegally, making them no better than slaves. You are fool and hypocrite, for not seeing the irony of your statement.
If you don't want to have your fellow citizens working in as semi-servitude in places like Singapore, its easy, just isolate Myanmar, like the Junta did for 40 years.
Bis,
I don't know much about Myanmar and I don't necessarily oppose having English as the official language but why can't Myanmar have their own official language other than English?
Devil'sMyanmar
The Economist's own Dr. Veraswami. How I pity you.
Yes, we do have our own official language. It's called Burmese. It's spoken by all people who live in Myanmar. This Bismark character wishes he was born a white Brit so he can spread his master's tongue and culture throughout the world. Unfortunately fate had other ideas.
Maybe,Rohingya Muslims can find their new homes and brothers in ASEAN's Muslim's countries such as Indonesia where Muslims will be welcomed.In the Indochina peninsula's countries where have a deep Muslim phobia,they are difficult to avoid being discriminated.
The most populous Muslim state in the world? Yeah, right. Bangladesh doesn't want them. Nor does Malaysia. Go west I'd say. Back to their religious wellspring in the Middle East. But somehow they'll 'lose' their way and land on the shores of Europe and America, like latter day pilgrim fathers of an unwanted kind.
I am sick and tired of all this bickering. Bring back Kipling and the white man !! You natives never know how to get along.
In the old days, the Western colonial powers used to like Mohammedan over the Hindoo, well because they believed in the same God more or less. To be frank, the Britishers found alot of customs of the Hindoos and the Buddhists rather unsettling, cremation, widows chucking themselves on funeral pyres or wimpy - no meat.
The Aryanic Bangla Rohingyas will find their new homes in the Liberal West much more welcome and cosy than currently roofed under the mongoloid generals.
Bismarck888, you used a famous German name but you are an Indian Muslim, isn't it ? I understand your (tactical) intention but psycholocically it is playing with the fire.
I don't think so that the British used the Muslims for the reasons you mentioned. The real reasons were much trickier: Muslims and Buddhists are like FIRE and WATER. And exactly that makes DIVIDA ET IMPERA much easier.
Go away, you idiot.
This shit is funny.
Sure you're Bismarck and not Adolph?
Yeah, like they got along just fine in Europe in 1914 and 1938, and playing such happy families in the eurozone. Must be fun having all those war memorials in every village. A dead person on a big cross everywhere but deny they are idolators. People who live in glass houses...pot and kettle...lol. They'll be heading where you live, my son. Would Shariya Law suit you, unless you are actually a wannabe white man?
I am not Indian or Mohammedan. Yes, the British practiced divide and rule, but the Hindoo in British India weren't held in high regard among the British. For a Christians, and the British are Christian at the time, they could feel more comfortable with the Mohammedan. Europeans at the time were much more religious than they are now. Even Dutch encouraged the locals in Java, Indonesia to convert from being a Hindoo to being Muslim/Christian, because they were more manageable.
I like getting under people's skin. I never actually said anything insulting or offensive. I just acted like some pompous old British fellow with a bit too much G&T, fantasizing about the Raj. I did not have to insult anyone, and look at the reaction.
I did not say the Hindoo were wimpy, I just said the British thought that way. After all these years, the natives are still so insecure.
I rather be Hindoo in Indonesia, the a Mohammedan in Myanmar or India. I rather be a Christian in Indonesian than in India.
There are 30 attacks against Christian in Indonesia vs 1000 in India.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/anti-christian-incidents-nearly-double...
http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_2011-saw-1000-anti-christian-viole...
Why does the West not criticize India, which is democratic country of 60+ years, yet lambast Indonesia for much fewer acts of anti-Christian violence.
Buying influence and market share by extending development aid is an essential pillar of Western foreign policy namely 'soft power'. So India with a nuclear program and more billionaires than the UK continues to receive aid much to the chagrin and resentment of the ordinary British folk.
No smoke without fire. Contempt begets contempt. If you live in someone else's land and believe the natives ought to be either converted or culled, do you really expect Buddhist 'loving kindness' from them in the real world?
Imperial imperatives, eh? Some have a servile streak and a yellow belly,loyal to their colonial masters, others don't. So the Europeans dealt with it by using some and excluding others.
Very funny, Biswas or Bishr, whatever.
Do Rohingyas have arms? Do they try to convert people. You are so blind anti-Islam hatred you can't see the irony. Everyone else in Myanmar is armed, have heavy weapons, armies etc. The Rohingyas don't, that is the difference. The other groups have experienced Buddhist loving kindness Myanmar style ie AK-47, and they give them Christian love, an M-16. Aung Sang Su Kyi and those democrazies have to deal with Rohingyas problem properly. Kicking them out would make her worse than Suharto and the nasty Malays. Secondly, the armed groups (mainly Christian and ethnic Chinese) will look at this and say, if we disarm, that will be our fate. Many of the ethnic Chinese have such as dubious citizenship as many of the Rohingyas.
If democratic Burma can kick the Rohingyas, than the Malays can kick the Tamils and Chinese in Malaysia, all products of British colonialism.
Most commentators including you, have the introspection of a ten year old on a sugar rush. Rohinyas are a small problem, but if handled poorly, will only make the other ethnic groups more reluctant to disarm.
We are not worthy, O Learned Sage. Surely you with your big Westernised liberal heart can take 'em all in your embrace. Crying foul after kicking someone in the teeth and then getting some back must induce a good democratic political solution. Welcome your brethren with open arms, O Great Seer. You deserve each other.
Ethnic groups know disarming is not a clever option, that's why they agree to ceasefire deals with sweeteners i.e. lucrative business incentives. They also know the alternative is not a clever option at this stage. They know better than anyone that the ruling military elite has shown no real desire for workable political solutions even with indigenous minorities.
It's not like the Chittagonians have not tried armed rebellion. The Mujahideen insurgency in the three townships this side of the Naaf predated independence from the British (the term Rohingya wasn't made up until 1951). Let them try again, no better way to please the pretend civilian govt than being handed a perfect pretext on a platter. The Chittagonians' bogus claims of being original settlers earlier than the Arakanese fools nobody but ignorant meddlesome holier-than-thou outsiders.
Respect the custom and traditions of the land, and gain mutual respect, peace and harmony. Behave like invading aliens and expect annihilation. As you sow so shall you reap.
You have a clear unresolved hatred toward Muslims. All you can bring up is conflict that happened 50 years ago, while their are Kachins and Karen forces are still conducting operations.
to be frank the junta is only partly responsible. Even if the Junta stopped harassing them, they will still keep their arms. Why? How do they know Aung Sang Su Kyi can carry out those promises? She has not even made any promises. I would keep my arms to strength my bargaining position. If I were the Shan/Kachin rebel commanders I wouldn't trust Aung Sang Su Kyi one bit, her intent or her ability.
"Chittagonians' bogus claims of being original settlers earlier than the Arakanese" how is that any different from the Afrikaners saying they were there first. Where the Burmese there first, not by a long shot. Most of the SEA was settled by the Negrito settlers, including Burma.
No one is saying there were no aboriginal people in SE Asia before. Who cares about Afrikaners, fakir?
Ethnic groups trust ASSK more than the generals who are either murdering them or buying their leaders. And it looks now to them like she has been bought too on false promises. What's the alternative when she won't take up armed struggle?
The Rohingya are a different kettle of fish altogether. Let them try their worst, and face annihilation, unless they relent and start respecting the custom and traditions of the land, and stop trying to appropriate what does not belong to them. It's not about Islam or colour, it's about the guest respecting the host, and not behaving like alien invaders or a cancerous growth. Simple.
1. The Rohingya problem is an inheritance from British colonial times like it is with other 'Muslim problems' in the rest of Myanmar. The English brought hundred thousands of Indian Muslims to Buddhist Burma. Can you imagine what would have happened if huge numbers of Buddhists had been taken to a Muslim country ?
2. Many Rohingya claim to have a special Muslim status and automatically isolate themselves from Burmese society. That prompts problems with integration. Another serious matter are those Rohingya who are "infected" by religious extremism. Finally (again and again the same pattern) it is an ISLAMIC PROBLEM (like in many other parts of the world). Do the Rohingya function as a "Fifth Column" for certain strategic interests?
Is it not understandable that the people in Myanmar and its Government do not want to be burdened with a "ticking time bomb" ?
(Sorry for my English - I am German)
That was succinct and well said!
The best solution is to repatriate those Indian Muslims back to the UK like that the last time from East Africa.
worldtraveller811,
Allow me to say , your views are vile and disgusting .
This article is about the Myanmarese government's ethnic cleansing of Rohingyas and state sponsored violence. I understand that one of your countrymen called Hitler also had a similiar JEWISH PROBLEM which no doubt you also find understandable.
cprimus,
Your arguments are polemic and also emotional and consequently don't qualify.
My opinion: The Rohingya should be repatriated in their country of origin, namely Bangladesh. The whole matter should be financed by the world community. The resettlement would benefit Rohingya as well Burmese/Rakhine people. Then endless problems would come to an end and most people should become happy, especially Rohingya. The social and religious environment would suit them much more than in Myanmar.
Almost everybody knows the problems with big Muslim communities in NonMuslim countries. Germany as well as all European countries with Muslim minorities have experienced this since years. Many Asian and African countries as well. Responsible religious leaders and politicians in the "Muslim world" should reflect on the question why the NonIslamic World (and that means at least 80 %) is facing - partly even tremendous - problems particularly with Muslim minorities and many of their individuals.
Muslims in Burmese history are totally not from UK or just some INDIAN muslim workers , its a TOTAL FAKE and missundertanding of the history at least , let me give u a quick review of true history of the area
The first Muslim recorded in Burmese history
The first Muslim documented in Burmese history (recorded in Hmannan Yazawin or Glass Palace Chronicle) was Byat Wi during the reign of Mon, a Thaton King, circa 1050 AD.[1] He was killed because he was a Muslim and because the king was concerned about his strength.
Shwe Byin brothers executed
The two sons of Byat Wi's brother Byat Ta, known as Shwe Byin brothers, were children executed because they refused to obey the forced labour order of the king, maybe because of their religious belief.[2] It was clearly recorded in the Glass Palace Chronicle of the Kings of Burma that they were no longer trusted.[3]
Assassination of Nga Yaman Kan
Rahman Khan (Nga Yaman Kan) was another Muslim killed for political reasons, because of treason to his own king and also clearly as religious persecution. During a time of war, the famous national hero King Kyansittha sent a hunter as a sniper to assassinate him.[4][5]
Massacre in Arakan
Another mass killing of Muslims in Arakan was for religious reasons and likely due to politics and greed. Shah Shuja was the second son of the Mogul Emperor Shah Jahan who built the famous Taj Mahal of India. Shah Shuja lost to his brother and fled with his family and army to Arakan. The Arakan King Sandathudama (1652-1687 AD), allowed him to settle there. He wanted to buy ships to go to Mecca and was willing to pay with silver and gold. But the Arakan king asked for his daughter and also became greedy for his wealth. At last after an alleged unsuccessful attempt at rebellion the sultan and all his followers were killed. Those men seen to have a beard, the symbol of Islam, were beheaded. Women were put into prison and let them die with hunger. Therefore, the massacre was targeted at Muslim refugees from India.[6][7][8][9][10][11]
Muslims under Bayintnaung
Muslims served under Burmese king Bayintnaung (1550-1589 AD).[12] In 1559 AD after conquering Bago (Pegu) he prohibited the Muslims from having halal meals of goats and chickens by not allowing them to kill these animals in the name of God. He showed religious intolerance and had forced some of his subjects to listen to Buddhist sermons and some were even said to be converted by force. He also disallowed the Edil Adha, Kurbani sacrifice of cattle.[13]
Muslims under Alaungpaya
King Alaungpaya (1752–1760) prohibited Muslims to do halal on cattle.[14]
Bodawpaya
King Bodawpaya (1782–1819) arrested four famous Burma Muslim Moulvis (Imams) from Myedu and killed them in Ava, the capital, after they refused to eat pork.[15] According to the Myedu Muslim and Burma Muslim version there were seven dark days after that execution and the king later apologized and recognized them as saints.[16][17]
refrences:-
1-^ Pe Maung Tin and G. H. Luce, The Glass Palace Chronicle of the Kings of Burma, Rangoon University Press, Rangoon, Burma, January 1960
2-^ Yegar, Moshe The Muslims of Burma: a Study of a Minority Group, Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, 1972; p. 2, paragraph 3
3-^ Pe Maung Tin and G. H. Luce, The Glass Palace Chronicle of the Kings of Burma p. 83 paragraph 3, lines 2&3
4-^ Yegar Muslims; p. 2, lines 1&2
5-^ Pe Maung Tin and G. H. Luce, The Glass Palace Chronicle of the Kings of Burma, p. 103, paragraph 3
6-^ Yegar Muslims; p. 21, paragraph 2; pp. 22-24.
7-^ Colonel Ba Shin, Coming of Islam to Burma down to 1700 AD, Lecture at the Asia History Congress. New Delhi: Azad Bhavan 1961 Mimo.
8-^ H. R. Spearman, British Burma Gazetteer (Rangoon, 1880); I, pp. 293-294.
9-^ Hall, History of South East Asia, pp. 33-341.
10-^ Desai, A Pageant of Burmese History, pp. 61-63.
11- ^ Harvey, G .E. “The fate of Shah Shuja”, 1661, JBRS, XII (Aug 1922) pp. 107-112.
12^ Yegar Muslims; p. 10, lines 11&12
13^ Yegar Muslims; p. 10, lines 10-16
14^ Yegar Muslims; p. 10, line 21
15^ Yegar Muslims; p. 12, paragraph 3
16^ Yegar Muslims; p. 12, paragraph 3
17 ^ Siddiq Khan, M., “Captain George Sorrel’s Mission to the court of Amarapura, 1793-4", Journal of the Asiatic Society of Pakistan (Dacca); II (1957), pp. 132-140
There are a number of ethnic peoples with unknown origins and many others have origin stories that involve relatively recent migrations. Even the Bamar themselves allegedly came from Yunnan province (as did Tai peoples, the Kachin, and many others). Does this make them outsiders? Should everyone who can’t trace a bloodline to Bagan leave or register as a “resident alien”? Do Anglo-Burmese or Indo-Burmese have to leave? Are those refugees born outside of the country not allowed to become citizens? Do other ethnicities who transcend international borders (Naga, Chin, Kachin, Shan, Karenni, Karen, Mon, etc) find themselves suspect? Do migrant workers of even Bamar descent find themselves suspect?
Last time I checked nobody else has tried to carve out a caliphate of their own in someone else's land, not the Burmese Muslims some of whom can claim their ancestry from those who came as traders and to join the service of the Konbaung kings in ancient times.
Migrant workers are granted citizenship anywhere in the world on their case by case individual merit, not a blanket citizenship. Not even for children born in the host country anymore.
Those who choose to behave alien deserve to remain alien. The Rohingya have behaved like a cancer growing in the bosom of the Rakhine. Desist or face the consequences.
And the Burmese have behaved like a cancer in Asia.
What should we do about the Burmese problem?
well said and look how ASEAN has saved it from absolute isolation. They should be very careful what they say and do which have big implications to it's people and to the people around it. Acting civilized is the way forward, not the other way round.
Unite, my boy, and fight the common enemy - the ruling generals and NOT the entire bloody race. You do yourselves no favours by confusing between the rulers and the ruled,the oppressors and the oppressed. Divide and conquer, remember?
Don't worry much now. They bought KNU already. And brought in the Norwegians to do heir dirty works. If KNU screws Karen, there is not much left.