By Syedul Mostafa
Last Ramadan, during the visit of António Guterres to the Rohingya camps in Cox’s Bazar, Dr. Muhammad Yunus addressed refugees and expressed a hopeful vision. He suggested that perhaps the next Ramadan could be observed in their homeland, in Arakan.
For a displaced people who have endured genocide, statelessness, and years of protracted uncertainty, those words carried unusual weight. They were not interpreted as symbolic diplomacy. They were understood as possibility.
In the camps, parents repeated the statement to their children. Families allowed themselves to imagine returning to villages they were forced to leave in 2017. The message spread quickly across the camps and throughout the Rohingya diaspora.
Another Ramadan now approaches.
There has been no publicly presented roadmap for repatriation. No structured diplomatic framework has been shared with the refugee community. No detailed negotiation process has been made transparent. No international protection mechanism guaranteeing citizenship and security inside Arakan has been announced.
Repatriation is not a seasonal aspiration. It is a political and legal process that requires structural transformation inside Myanmar.
The 1982 Citizenship Law continues to deny Rohingya their identity. Armed conflict persists in Rakhine State. Military institutions linked to past atrocities remain powerful actors. Under these conditions, return without guarantees would not constitute safety. It would risk renewed vulnerability.
Bangladesh has carried a heavy humanitarian responsibility for nearly nine years. That record of generosity is widely recognized. Yet leadership in the current phase demands more than humanitarian patience. It requires strategic clarity.
If meaningful progress toward repatriation is to occur, several elements are essential.
First, a transparent and public repatriation strategy is necessary. Refugees deserve clarity regarding diplomatic engagement, negotiated conditions, and realistic timelines.
Second, coordinated international pressure on Myanmar must intensify. Repatriation cannot succeed through bilateral gestures alone. It requires sustained engagement by the United Nations, regional actors, and major powers, alongside consistent accountability measures.
Third, justice mechanisms at the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court remain central. Accountability is not separate from repatriation. It is foundational to non repetition.
Fourth, Rohingya participation must move beyond consultation into meaningful inclusion. Refugees are rights holders. Durable solutions require their direct voice in shaping conditions of return.
Finally, dignity within the camps must not be postponed indefinitely under the assumption that return is imminent. Education, livelihood access, and limited freedoms cannot remain suspended while policy remains undefined.
The most corrosive reality today is not only displacement. It is uncertainty.
When leaders publicly link repatriation to a symbolic moment such as Ramadan, that message enters private spaces of hope. When that expectation is not followed by clear explanation or visible policy movement, mistrust deepens.
The Rohingya have consistently articulated three core demands: citizenship, safety, and enforceable international guarantees. These are legal claims grounded in international law, not appeals for charity.
Bangladesh has demonstrated humanitarian commitment. The broader international community now faces a test of political will.
One Ramadan later, the camps remain.
The question is no longer what was promised. The question is what structured, accountable action will now follow.
History rarely measures leaders by speeches alone. It measures whether empathy was translated into policy, and whether hope was sustained through credible steps toward justice.
The Rohingya continue to wait. Not for another declaration, but for a durable future defined by rights rather than uncertainty.
Writer- Rohingya Human Rights Advocate | Media and Justice Campaigner
