- Stars (0)
STATE APPARATUSES AND THE REPRESSION OF ROHINGYA REFUGEES IN BANGLADESH
ADHEIP RAHUL RASAHDA — Brussels SPR : Critical Approaches to Security
This paper aims to shed light on the repression of Rohingyas (with a focus on women when applicable) in the refugee camps in the Cox Bazaar district of Bangladesh. The analysis based on Althusser’s framework of ideological and repressive state apparatuses, will be used to interpret the apparatus-specific contribution to the repression of female Rohingya refugees. The first section gives a brief on the securitization theory, the Rohingya crisis and looking at women in the Rohingya context. The second section introduces the framework to be used in the analysis in the following section. The author adds internet as an additional and a distinct apparatus to make the framework more relevant to the current scenario. Finally, the paper gives some recommendations to the Bangladesh government based on the analysis before giving concluding remarks.
The ideas formed about the refugees is based on Akhter and Kusakabe’s studies on the documented refugees in the camps. Consequently, this study is primarily concerned with documented migrants though studies on the undocumented migrants could significantly add to the understanding. Based on the analysis, it has been found that the reasons for insecurity caused by the securitization of the involuntary immigrants by the state operates by projecting themselves onto the ideological and repressive state mechanisms in Bangladesh. This causes the perpetuation of the vulnerability of the Rohingyas, especially women (while empowering them in certain aspects of the community), who experience a shift from their traditional roles in a Rohingya society to a more active role arising out of difficult economic conditions and a scarcity of opportunities to meet the basic needs of survival.
‘The Muslim Rohingya are a distinct ethnicity who lived primarily in the southwest Myanmar’[1]. They are one of the most persecuted ethnic groups in the world[2]. The advent of the 1990s saw some 250,000 Rohingyas from the Arakan region (Northern Rakhine State) in Myanmar flee from the country in an intensified post-election crackdown. They fled ‘in order to avoid violence, persecution, and threats to their lives’. In the following years, they have continued to run away from the repressive state policies and practices. A common destination for this involuntary migration was the Cox Bazaar region, in the Chittagonian district of Bangladesh. These refugees have remained in this prolonged situation of unsettlement and displacement for over two decades.
Ever since Myanmar’s independence from the British Empire in 1948, it has been ‘plagued by ethno-religious tensions and armed conflicts’. Although a significant amount of the conflicts has the State as a major actor, ‘inter and intra tensions also exist within the ethnic minorities in the country’. One prominent instance is the tussle in between the majority Rakhine Buddhists and the minority Rohingya Muslims in the Arakan region of Myanmar. The difference in the historical narratives of the two ethnic groups of the region sheds light on the ethnic conflict to determine the legitimacy to reside. In the Rohingya narrative, the Arakans had an independent kingdom prior to the British occupation of the region. However, evidence from the census of British India (1931) makes a distinction in between an older community of Muslims known as “Arakan Mahomedans” and the more recent migrants who they called “Chittagonains”. So, the origins of the ‘Rohingya heritage can be traced back to the neighboring Bangladesh’.
Traditional gender roles among the Rohingya required them to mostly be at home and their absence from the public spaces was a norm. However, the gender dynamics changed with the unsettling process of migration caused by the conflict and the restrictions to movement in Bangladesh. The new environment, where the refugees have to make the most of their limited economic opportunities, resulted in women having to step out into public spaces to support their families. The adaptational capabilities of men and women can differ, with women being required to adapt more.
In the analysis of the paper, this article identifies the various apparatuses in Bangladesh to underscore the apparatus-specific contribution to violence against Rohingya women. Considering the various security concerns, as perceived by the government of Bangladesh, that deem the Rohingya a threat to the existence and normative functioning of the state, the lack of a legal framework causes the rights of the Rohingyas (as temporary residents and as an unskilled, willing workforce) to be in an ambiguous territory. Women, who have to adapt more to their new surroundings, breaking away from traditional Rohingya norms, end up being the most vulnerable because of this.
Even though the Constitution of Bangladesh assures some citizenship rights to refugees (such as The Right to Protection of Law, Protection of Right to Life and Personal Liberty, Safeguards as to Arrest and Detention), the lack of refugee access to this knowledge through seclusion (in the form of a permit system that prevents registered refugees from leaving their camps without official permit slips along with the placement of the camps in remote areas lacking economic opportunity) often creates this ambiguity. This is a classic situation of a Catch 22, where the legal framework both assures and denies economic opportunity and inclusion. Assuming that Rohingya women still strive to maintain traditional gender roles as much as possible, the act of occupying public spaces makes needs them step out of their comfort zones, requiring them to be more adaptive while exposing them to more vulnerability to access such legal frameworks. To add to that, a lack of a legal framework to ensure that the refugees are economically sufficient to meet their basic needs prevents them from accessing layers to defend them in legal tussles. Coupled with other forms of red -tapism, the judiciary framework practically renders the rights ensured by the Constitution pointless.
