The Rohingya have long been treated as a humanitarian crisis. But in the political geography of South and Southeast Asia, they function as something more consequential: a currency of influence that regional powers use to negotiate security, connectivity, leverage, and access along the Bay of Bengal. The facts presented by diplomatic reporting, academic analysis, and geopolitical investigations show a pattern in which the lives of displaced people intersect with the ambitions of states, armies, and regional institutions. Nowhere is this more visible than in the competing strategies of Myanmar, Bangladesh, China, India, ASEAN member states, and broader South Asian political actors.
For nearly a decade, Bangladesh has hosted close to a million Rohingya refugees in one of the world’s largest and most densely populated humanitarian settlements. The Council on Foreign Relations describes this displacement as the product of decades of systematic discrimination in Myanmar, culminating in mass expulsions. While the humanitarian dimension dominates global headlines, the regional landscape surrounding the crisis is shaped by competing national security priorities, bilateral tensions, and great-power interests.
Bangladesh’s diplomatic relationship with Myanmar has been strained for decades, a pattern highlighted in academic analyses of bilateral relations. The displacement of the Rohingya has deepened these tensions, introducing border instability, security concerns, and repeated failures of repatriation negotiations. Studies of the Bangladesh–Myanmar border describe how political mistrust shapes interactions, leaving the refugee population suspended in uncertainty while both states pursue their separate interests. These dynamics have created a political context in which humanitarian action cannot be separated from regional diplomacy.
The geopolitical dimensions expand further when viewed across South and Southeast Asia. Analyses from South Asian and ASEAN-focused journals argue that the Rohingya crisis influences regional security and diplomatic relations across the subcontinent. The displacement of nearly a million people affects Bangladesh, India, Myanmar, and the broader Bay of Bengal region. Scholars note that this crisis has repercussions for trade, migration policy, counterinsurgency strategies, and connectivity infrastructure. It has become a regional issue with implications that reach far beyond a humanitarian emergency.
China and India hold particularly significant roles. Research from geopolitical studies shows that both states maintain deep political and economic ties with Myanmar, driven by strategic interests rather than rights-based concerns. China’s position in Myanmar includes major infrastructure investments and energy corridors linking the Bay of Bengal to Yunnan province through the China–Myanmar Economic Corridor. India’s role includes security cooperation and competition with China for influence across Southeast Asia. Academic work highlights that these strategic priorities shape how each country approaches the Rohingya crisis. Public pressure for accountability in Myanmar is tempered by the need to maintain access, stability, and political leverage. Regional actors calculate responses based on geopolitical interest rather than humanitarian urgency.
These strategic configurations affect Bangladesh as well. The country’s decision not to grant formal refugee status to the Rohingya is explained in research linking recognition to diplomatic strategy: Bangladesh faces pressure to maintain workable relations with both China and India, whose influence with Myanmar is essential for repatriation negotiations. Scholars argue that the ambivalent recognition framework—labeling Rohingya as “Forcibly Displaced Myanmar Nationals”—is intertwined with geopolitical considerations. This categorization allows Bangladesh to emphasize repatriation as the only acceptable outcome while avoiding steps that could signal long-term integration or permanent settlement.
Diplomatic maneuvering can also be seen in regional initiatives. Reuters reported that in 2025, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Thailand coordinated a mission to support Myanmar’s peace process. This initiative underscores how regional actors engage with the crisis, though in ways shaped by political caution. The mission focused on dialogue rather than direct pressure. The involvement of multiple states reveals the regional stakes, but the limited mandate reflects the constraints of ASEAN’s non-interference principle. Even as Rohingya refugees face insecurity, these diplomatic engagements remain cautious, prioritizing regional stability over humanitarian accountability.
The domestic politics of surrounding states also introduce security-driven responses. In India, local governments have launched crackdowns to identify and deport “illegal Bangladeshi and Rohingya migrants,” according to reporting from Indian media. The use of Rohingya identity within internal security campaigns indicates how the crisis is mobilized politically. Bangladesh faces its own complexities: AP News documented the arrest of a leader of a Rohingya armed group, illustrating how camp dynamics intersect with national law enforcement. These developments show that, across the region, the Rohingya presence becomes entangled with security narratives rather than being framed primarily as displaced civilians deserving protection.
At the same time, Myanmar continues to undergo profound instability. Reuters’ reporting from 2025 describes a deepening food crisis and worsening conditions in Rakhine State. The factors that triggered displacement persist, and the political environment remains hostile to repatriation. Academic discussions highlight that the original causes of violence—rooted in discrimination, citizenship exclusion, and targeted campaigns—continue to shape conditions. The frameworks of exclusion remain broadly intact. The Council on Foreign Relations emphasizes that repatriation is unlikely while these structural drivers persist.
While geopolitical interests shape regional policies, the Rohingya themselves live in precarious conditions. Bangladesh shoulders substantial political and economic burdens associated with hosting such a large population. The SpringerLink article on the Rohingya crisis notes how the humanitarian response has strained national resources and influenced public discourse, creating tensions between domestic politics and international expectations. Bangladesh’s position at the center of a global humanitarian operation links it to donors, international agencies, and neighboring states whose actions affect both national priorities and the lives of refugees.
The academic literature on geopolitical implications argues that forced displacement has become a point of negotiation among regional powers. Each state pursues its strategic objectives: Myanmar seeks to consolidate authority; Bangladesh wants repatriation; India and China aim for influence; ASEAN prioritizes stability; and international actors navigate between condemnation and pragmatic ties. The crisis becomes an arena where displaced people function as variables in larger calculations.
This does not mean the humanitarian dimension is ignored. Regional missions, donor commitments, and international advocacy continue. But the facts assembled across sources show that humanitarian operations occur within a political environment defined by competition and caution. Even efforts aimed at peacebuilding reflect these constraints. The Reuters report on the multi-country mission to Myanmar illustrates how engagement is orchestrated within the boundaries of regional diplomacy.
One consistent element in the sources is the absence of strong regional pressure on Myanmar. Research on China–India relations argues that both states prioritize strategic alliances and connectivity over human rights accountability. This moderation influences Bangladesh’s diplomatic strategy and undermines collective regional action. Geopolitical analysis from Indian and ASEAN-focused journals supports the conclusion that humanitarian concerns are secondary to national priorities. Even where regional cooperation exists, as with the 2025 peace mission, it operates within limited political space.
The result is a regional architecture in which the Rohingya crisis persists not only because of conditions in Myanmar but also because of how neighboring states manage the issue. Displacement becomes a long-term element of South Asian and ASEAN geopolitics, influencing border management, diplomatic engagements, and public policy. The conditions in Bangladesh’s camps, described in the SpringerLink article as integral to national political challenges, are part of a broader landscape shaped by decisions far beyond the camps themselves.
China and India’s positions are particularly central. Research notes that China’s involvement in Myanmar is rooted in expanding economic corridors and maintaining access to the Bay of Bengal. These interests encourage Myanmar to treat Chinese engagement as political support, reducing incentives for accountability. India’s approach is shaped by its own regional strategy, balancing its rivalry with China and its desire to maintain influence in Southeast Asia. Both states have complex relationships with Bangladesh, further entangling the crisis within a network of regional ties.
The Rohingya become caught in this web. Their displacement influences the political calculations of surrounding states. Their presence in Bangladesh affects diplomatic leverage. Their absence from Myanmar enables infrastructure projects and political restructuring. Their uncertain future remains intertwined with negotiations among states whose priorities do not align with restoring their citizenship or ensuring safe return.
Even regional humanitarian missions are shaped by political caution. ASEAN’s principles limit intervention. Bangladesh’s diplomatic statements emphasize the burden of hosting such a large population while calling for international action. International institutions acknowledge structural barriers to return. The Council on Foreign Relations highlights that the humanitarian crisis remains unresolved because the political conditions remain unfavorable.
From the sources, one can observe that the Rohingya crisis is not simply a product of domestic injustice in Myanmar but a convergence of regional interests. Forced displacement has become a geopolitical factor. The roles of China, India, and ASEAN reflect strategies shaped by regional influence, stability, and economic connectivity. Bangladesh’s efforts to manage the crisis are constrained by the broader political environment, in which national strategies intersect with humanitarian needs.
Security reporting on crackdowns and arrests shows how states integrate the Rohingya issue into internal politics. These actions frame the displaced community through lenses of illegality and threat rather than vulnerability, reinforcing the geopolitical dynamics documented in academic studies. The Rohingya become subjects of security rhetoric as well as instruments in diplomatic positioning.
Myanmar’s internal conditions further complicate the landscape. Reports of food shortages, instability, and ongoing discrimination illustrate why repatriation remains unrealistic. International analysis confirms that the drivers of displacement have not been addressed. Without structural change, any return would expose families to the same threats that forced them to flee. This reality interacts with the regional calculations surrounding the crisis.
Bangladesh’s role reflects the tension between humanitarian responsibility and geopolitical constraints. The presence of nearly a million refugees influences national politics, international relationships, and public opinion. The SpringerLink article on national challenges emphasizes how the crisis affects domestic debates. The geopolitical analyses highlight how Bangladesh’s strategic position affects its diplomatic options. These overlapping pressures shape how the Rohingya are represented and managed.
Across the region, states pursue their interests. Myanmar maintains discriminatory structures. China and India manage ties that serve strategic ambitions. Bangladesh hosts refugees while calling for repatriation. ASEAN engages at the margins. Local governments in neighboring states adopt security-driven approaches. Humanitarian agencies operate within these constraints. The result is a political environment in which displaced people become variables in larger equations.
The sources collectively depict a regional system in which the Rohingya crisis persists not because humanitarian solutions are unavailable but because geopolitical interests override them. Displacement intersects with strategic competition, regional diplomacy, and national security narratives. The people living in camps along the Bay of Bengal become part of broader political calculations.
In this landscape, the Rohingya function as bargaining chips. Their future remains tied to decisions made by states whose priorities center on influence, stability, and regional positioning. The crisis, as the combined sources show, has become an enduring feature of South Asian and ASEAN geopolitics. It is shaped by the decisions of powerful neighbors, the constraints of regional institutions, and the political strategies of states that calculate outcomes based on interest rather than rights.
Until these dynamics shift, the Rohingya will continue to live in conditions defined by displacement and uncertainty. Their lives will remain entwined with the ambitions of states that weigh strategic considerations more heavily than humanitarian imperatives. The humanitarian crisis endures within a geopolitical structure that neither resolves the underlying causes nor creates conditions for safe return. The Rohingya remain at the intersection of regional interests, their future held in place by forces far beyond their control.
References
- RLI Blog (2025). Geopolitical rivalry between China and India shaping Bangladesh’s approach.
- Taylor & Francis chapter on Rohingya crisis geopolitics.
- EUJournal analysis on Bangladesh–Myanmar border relations.
- Indiana Publications article on South & Southeast Asian geopolitical impacts.
- IIETA Journal on geopolitics and forced displacement.
- SpringerLink (2025). Bangladesh’s national challenges related to Rohingya crisis.
- Reuters (2025). Regional mission to Myanmar involving Malaysia, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand.
- Times of India (2025). Crackdown on “illegal Bangladeshi & Rohingya migrants.”
- AP News (2025). Arrest of Rohingya armed group leader.
- Council on Foreign Relations. Rohingya crisis backgrounder.
