- Stars (0)
Conflict Analysis: The Rohingya Case
Policy Recommendations
By Adhelp Rahul Rashada
In the context of the modern system of nation-states where territories are demarcated, an individual without a national identity is an irregularity. This is because people cannot escape being connected to a state even when a state does not recognize them’ (Farzana). The debate about identity formation is important as it ‘demands an exploration of how the state practices its sovereignty and suppresses the voices of the citizens’ and non-citizens’ experiences of conflict to produce the state’s unity.’ This process usually results in the failure of the state to resolve cases of violence, generation of forced migration and the creation of stateless peoples.
As we see in many state-centric conflicts today, both citizens and non-citizens have to forcefully emigrate from their country (of origin) to neighboring countries that are usually reluctant in letting them enter. They flee to avoid violence, persecution, and other existential threats which are often produced by the governments (Farzana). The problems also don’t end when people choose to flee. In addition to the loss of a ‘familiar socio-economic, natural, and political environments,’ involuntary migrants such as the refugees and asylum seekers often face humanitarian problems at their newly arrived destinations. As a result, ‘displaced people worldwide are largely marginalized’ (Farzana). Examples of such displacement arising out of state action would include; ‘the flight of Tibetans from China to India, the exodus of Sri Lankan Tamils to India, Palestinian refugees in Jordan, the immigration of Rohingya refugees from Myanmar into Bangladesh and India etc.
While the claims for the existence of an independent Arakan kingdom might be questionable, the Rohingya Muslims certainly have a case for naturalization in Myanmar. Their inclusion as an ethnic group in the discourse of Myanmar’s policy is integral to finding a meaningful solution to the issue. The issues pertaining to not recognizing the Rohingyas could cause grave insecurity for all the actors involved. The potential for eruption of extremism and radicalization poses a prospect of insecurity in social, political and economic sphere of the South Asian region. Therefore, it is in the interest of the various actors to not let the conflict last any longer than it has to. Another key aspect of the conflict that urgently needs to be dealt with is the disproportionate use of force by the state against militant insurgents and civilians. While several nationalistic Rohingya organizations such as the ARSA, RSO and ARNO claim to defend the helpless, the victims of such confrontations, caught in the crossfire, are the civilians. An increasing influx of refugees and asylum seekers (travelling from the conflict-ridden Rakhine state) into the Cox Bazaar district of Bangladesh has brought up new concerns of security for Bangladesh who are currently singlehandedly dealing with the symptoms of the issue. While on one hand the migrants require security from the life-threatening conditions in Myanmar, they also seek a formal entry into the organized sectors of their new destination. The reluctance of secondary and tertiary actors such as ASEAN, India, China and the UN has assisted in relieving the pressure off the Myanmar government to ensure substantial action. The recommendations consider the obstacles the various actors face in working towards resolving the issue. The motive of the recommendations is to bring an immediate end to violent confrontations and set up the basis for peaceful settlements in the future. One point for further research would be to look at the dynamics of decision-making processes in the Myanmar government. In addition to the government, if the military apparatus has a leadership of its own, the future policies have to be adjusted accordingly.
