Why Rohingya Civilians Fear the Fighters Claiming to Protect Them

By Aung Naing Kyaw

A Community Trapped Between Survival and Armed Resistance

The Rohingya crisis is often described through images of burned villages, overcrowded refugee camps, and desperate sea journeys. Yet beneath these visible layers of suffering lies another difficult and deeply emotional question that continues to divide Rohingya communities themselves: why do many Rohingya feel uncertain, fearful, or even critical toward the armed groups that claim to defend them?

For decades, the Rohingya people have faced statelessness, military violence, forced displacement, and systematic exclusion in Myanmar. Under such conditions, the emergence of armed resistance was perhaps inevitable. Across history, communities denied protection and political rights have often produced movements claiming to fight for survival and dignity.

The Rohingya experience followed a similar trajectory.

But while armed groups emerged from real suffering and oppression, many civilians today remain conflicted about them. Some see them as symbols of resistance against genocide. Others associate them with fear, instability, retaliation, and internal division.

This contradiction reflects one of the most painful realities within the Rohingya struggle.

The Historical Roots of Rohingya Exclusion

The Rohingya are a Muslim ethnic community native to Arakan, presently known as Rakhine State in Myanmar. Historical records indicate that Muslim communities lived in Arakan centuries before British colonial rule. One of the earliest references to the term “Rooinga” appeared in 1799 in the writings of British physician Francis Buchanan-Hamilton, who documented a Muslim community identifying themselves as natives of the region.

The history of Arakan itself has always been politically complex. In 1785, the Burmese kingdom conquered the Arakanese kingdom, producing displacement and violence that affected multiple communities, including both Muslims and Rakhine Buddhists.

Later, under British colonial administration beginning in the 1820s, labor migration increased between Bengal and Arakan. Over time, Burmese nationalist narratives used this colonial-era migration to portray all Rohingya as foreigners, despite evidence that many Rohingya communities existed in the region long before British rule.

After Myanmar gained independence in 1948, the Rohingya initially maintained limited recognition under the democratic government of U Nu. But military nationalism gradually transformed state policy.

The most devastating legal shift came through the 1982 Citizenship Law, which excluded Rohingya from Myanmar’s officially recognized ethnic groups and effectively rendered most of them stateless.

Over time, restrictions expanded across nearly every aspect of life. Movement became controlled. Access to education and employment narrowed. Marriage restrictions intensified. Political participation disappeared.

Then came the waves of violence.

Military operations in 2012, 2016, and especially 2017 destroyed villages and forced hundreds of thousands of Rohingya into Bangladesh. International organizations later described these operations as ethnic cleansing and possible genocide.

Why Armed Groups Emerged

Rohingya armed groups did not emerge from ideological extremism alone. They developed within a context shaped by statelessness, insecurity, and repeated military repression.

When communities experience violence without meaningful protection, armed resistance often becomes framed as self-defense.

The Rohingya Solidarity Organisation, known as RSO, emerged in 1982 following major military operations against Rohingya civilians. During the 1990s, the organization maintained bases near the Bangladesh-Myanmar border and engaged in armed resistance against the Tatmadaw, Myanmar’s military.

Military responses to such resistance often produced devastating consequences for civilians, leading to repeated displacement into Bangladesh.

Years later, another organization emerged: Harakah al-Yaqin, which later became known as the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army, or ARSA.

According to international reporting and analysis, ARSA grew in the aftermath of the 2012 communal violence and worsening repression against Rohingya communities. Its leader, Ata Ullah Abu Ammar Jununi, born in Karachi and raised in Saudi Arabia, became the public face of the movement.

In October 2016 and August 2017, ARSA launched attacks on Myanmar security posts. Myanmar responded with massive military operations that produced one of the largest refugee crises in recent history.

For many Rohingya, this history produces an uncomfortable reality.

The fighters were not created naturally. They emerged from decades of persecution, exclusion, and violence.

Why Many Civilians Distrust the Fighters

Despite these origins, Rohingya armed groups have long faced internal crises that weakened public confidence.

One major problem has been fragmentation. No single Rohingya armed movement ever achieved broad political or military unity. Multiple factions emerged with different leadership structures, strategies, and alliances.

Internal division often produced rivalry instead of coordination.

Another issue involved accountability. Many Rohingya civilians began questioning whether some armed groups truly represented the interests of ordinary people living inside conflict zones.

In refugee camps and border regions, allegations emerged involving intimidation, extortion, recruitment pressure, and violence between rival factions. These accusations created fear within the community itself.

For civilians already trapped between military repression and displacement, such conditions deepened uncertainty rather than creating security.

Diaspora politics also complicated the situation further. Some organizations developed connections with Rohingya communities abroad, while others faced accusations of seeking external ideological or political influence.

Over time, armed groups became associated not only with resistance, but also with fragmentation, mistrust, and instability.

The Shadow of External Manipulation

Many Rohingya activists and observers believe that internal violence and division within the community have not emerged accidentally.

Myanmar’s military has historically relied on divide-and-rule strategies against ethnic minorities. By encouraging mistrust, exploiting rivalries, and weakening internal unity, the military reduces the possibility of coordinated resistance.

Within Rohingya political discussions, there are widespread suspicions that military intelligence networks exploit personal ambition, financial dependency, and leadership competition to manipulate actors inside Rohingya organizations.

According to this perspective, fragmentation itself becomes politically useful.

At the same time, the broader conflict inside Rakhine State has grown increasingly complicated.

The Arakan Army, an ethnic Rakhine armed organization seeking greater autonomy, has emerged as one of Myanmar’s most powerful armed groups following the 2021 military coup.

Relations between the Arakan Army and Rohingya armed organizations have often remained tense and uncertain, particularly regarding territorial influence, governance, and political legitimacy inside Rakhine State.

As a result, Rohingya armed groups face pressure from multiple directions simultaneously: Myanmar’s military, regional political dynamics, criminal networks, and internal fragmentation.

The Deepest Contradiction Inside the Community

Perhaps the most painful question within the Rohingya crisis is this: why do many people fear their own fighters while also believing they need protection?

The answer lies in lived experience.

Whenever armed attacks occurred, civilians often paid the highest price. Myanmar’s military repeatedly responded through collective punishment against entire villages. Killings, sexual violence, displacement, and destruction affected ordinary families far more than armed actors themselves.

As a result, many Rohingya began asking difficult questions.

Did armed resistance help protect civilians, or did it intensify military retaliation?

Were ordinary communities prepared for the consequences of these confrontations?

Did armed leaders genuinely represent the wishes of civilians living in danger zones?

At the same time, many people also fear armed groups because of allegations involving coercion, intimidation, criminal activity, or forced recruitment.

Yet despite these concerns, some Rohingya still believe self-defense remains necessary in a region where no reliable protection exists.

This contradiction explains why attitudes toward Rohingya fighters remain deeply divided.

To some, they represent resistance against genocide. To others, they represent instability and danger. For many, they embody both realities at once.

Who Benefits from Rohingya Division?

At present, the strongest beneficiaries of Rohingya fragmentation appear to be larger and more organized actors.

Myanmar’s military benefits when Rohingya groups remain divided, politically weak, and internationally isolated. Fragmentation reduces the possibility of unified political advocacy and coordinated resistance.

Meanwhile, the Arakan Army has dramatically expanded its military and territorial influence across Rakhine State in recent years, becoming one of the most powerful non-state actors in Myanmar.

Compared to these forces, Rohingya armed groups remain fragmented, politically divided, poorly equipped, and internationally controversial.

But the greatest loss continues to fall upon ordinary Rohingya civilians.

Millions remain stateless, displaced, impoverished, and uncertain about their future.

Beyond Blind Support or Blind Rejection

The Rohingya question cannot be understood through simple emotional positions alone.

Blind hatred toward armed groups ignores the historical oppression that produced armed resistance in the first place. At the same time, blind support ignores serious mistakes, abuses, and failures committed by some actors.

A more balanced approach is necessary.

The Rohingya community must recognize the structural violence and persecution that gave rise to armed movements while also demanding accountability, responsible leadership, and protection for civilians.

Weapons alone cannot secure liberation.

Political legitimacy, diplomatic engagement, international advocacy, education, strategic unity, and community trust remain equally essential.

Without these foundations, armed resistance risks reproducing fragmentation rather than producing justice.

A Future Beyond Endless Conflict

The Rohingya crisis did not create armed resistance overnight. It developed through generations of exclusion, violence, statelessness, and denial of identity.

Rohingya armed organizations emerged because peaceful survival became increasingly impossible under military repression. But internal division, external manipulation, leadership failures, and civilian suffering weakened confidence in these movements.

Today, the Rohingya remain trapped between displacement, statelessness, armed conflict, and uncertain futures.

The future of the Rohingya struggle depends not only on resistance, but on whether the community can build unity, accountability, political vision, and credible international engagement.

Because ultimately, the Rohingya people do not only need fighters.

They need safety, dignity, citizenship, justice, and a future beyond survival itself.