Friday, May 28, 2010

ROHINGYA HISTORY MYTH AND REALLITY


Rohingya History: Myth and Reality
By
Zul Nurain

Introduction
During the last few years, I came across some historical works on the Rohingya history by some native Rohingyas and some illustrious history scholars such as Martin Smith and Professor Dr. than Tun. The works of native writers include: an attempt to solve the differences of opinions on Rohingya history, the hidden chapters of Arakan history, Wesali and its people, Rationale to be considered by Rohingya critics – all in Burmese and Towards understanding Arakan history, Rudiments of Arakan history – in English. Some of these works are already on a website, based in Japan. One of the above treatises: The Hidden Chapters of Arakan History was found to be pirated by one pseudo historian, Zaw Min Htut in Japan who produced and distributed it widely with his own name as the writer: An insult to the original author. But the problem is some readers and viewers of above works came on heel to criticize and condemn those works as baseless, false and fabricated. This censorious group collected a lot of critical articles and published it in Japan in 2003. The name of their critique is Criticism on Rohingya’s false history. As far as my historical knowledge concerned my study of those works informs me that those are not Esoof Fables and make believe. They are well referenced, better documented with reliable source materials. The critics are not confined to criticizing natives, they boldly refute what Dr. Than Tun and Martin Smith write: These two are not alley writers but highly respected history scholars. Dr. Than Tun’s comment on Rohingya’s historicity is a bold, brave as well as a benevolent deed. Everyone should note the tight and risky atmosphere in which he shed light on Rohingya history. His remark on Muslim rulers in north Arakan and the relativity of present day Rohingya with them is not an imagination. He documented his remarks with “Ava” age inscription with their registration numbers. So we must say all above works had already given a vindication for Rohingya and their history.
Constructive comments and criticism always help a writer to review and improve his works. Actually history is always an endless blending of facts and imagination. But I find those treatises above contain less imagination compared the facts there in which are drawn from the works of authentic writers whose works based principally on primary source materials. The writer’s comments and opinion makings were seen minimized. Perhaps it is just to avoid refutation and criticism from Rohingya’s opponents. Thus the native’s works highlight on the facts of history; judgment on those is left for the readers and viewers to make for themselves. Experiences have shown it is traditional and habitual to this censorious group to come on heel to decry any historical documents that shed light on Rohingya’s historical background. The fact is they have an inculcated mindset and are overwhelmed by traditional chauvinism. If actually won’t be an exaggeration if I say they are suffering from Rohingya Phobia. There is no therapy for it unless they change their outworn ideas. The point not to forget is, on our side there are a lot of issues in Rakhine version of Arakan history that we can disprove with facts and figures. So the censorious readers and viewers of Rohingya historical works should think over if you point out one finger to others, another four will stand against you. One living in glass house should not throw stones on others. Rakhine version of Arakan history is embellished with legends, lutes and makes believe. But we are not going to turn over all those in the interest of maintaining unity among coursing. We cautiously avoid to comment on the
misinterpretation of Arakan history by some native historians and some amateur writers just to
refrain from rift and friction among us. But now due to their (the critics) ridiculous and irrational
criticism of above works I have to take this steps. The critics’ maybe historians, professional or amateur. But they are biased and blindfolded by ultra-nationalistic tendency. Their decry is not based on reality and historical facts but on their chaurinism and malevolence against Rohingya. Hence my task now is to give a precise and comprehensive explanation of above censorious critique. The author of ” Towards Understanding Arakan’s History: Rudiments of Arakan history said his book was overseen thoroughly by many senior Burmese historians who include one of the most respected history Professor Dr. Than Tun, he said Dr. Than Tun had edited his treatise and had given an invaluable forwarding too. Here the complementation of Dr. Than Tun alone is sufficient, I think, for the critics to change their mind and accept reality of Arakan history.
Refutation and decry on Rohingya history of momentum when foreign historians and international media began to shed light on the historicity of Rohingya, especially immediately after the Rihingya refugee crisis in 1991. Remarkable critics in this context are U Khin Maung Win of New York whose articles appeared in “Far Eastern Economics Review” July issue 1991 and U Khin Maung Saw of Hamburg University who read a paper on this subject.(Rohingya History) in a conference on Myanmar affairs in 1993. Their works were full of illusions not based on real facts and authentic references. What they write are based on hear and say and traditional Rakhine Legends, tales and delusions. U Khin Maung Saw’s writing is of very much bigotry. He ignored the works of illustrious scholars. He ridiculously criticized Martin Smith, a Myanmar specialist, who wrote same articles shedding light on Rohingya’s historical background. Again when Professor Dr. Than Tun referring to Myanmar stone inscriptions writes. “There were Muslim rulers in north Arakan, who were very friendly with “Avak”, are (Myanmar King). Perhaps, it was Bengal turned Islam (12th century A.D). The present day Rohingya of Mayyu may be descendents of those early Muslims, criticism of his articles began to grow louder. (Dr. Than Tun’s remark see “Kliya magazine, August, 1994″, “North Arakan”. The final word of his critics is what Dr. Than Tun writes in against traditional Rakhine historical conception (see. Criticism of Rohingya’s false history, Japan,2003). The so called traditional concept cannot enclose the discovery of history. History is a subject, the more we study, the more we discover. There are a lot of many things that are not yet discovered by historians. Denying latest finding in the name of traditional concept is neither logical nor scientific. What we must accept is the latest discovery of Arakan history by prominent, illustrious historians such as Dr. Than Tun, Martin Smith, Dr. Pamela Gutman, Dr. J.L.Lieder of France and Dr. S.B Kunango of Bangladesh is the only thing that can solve the lifelong imbroglio of Arakan history. We can see a sea of difference between traditional version of history and what the above scholars bring into light virulence against a race should not blind us. We must reconcile to logic and reasons.
To accept the true non-historical work is free of or void of criticism. These may be various dimension of a subject in question. But decry and criticism on the above works of Rohingya are virtually ridiculous and aggressive just only because this works above unveil longtime deliberately hidden chapters of Arakan history. These critics are not courageous enough to accept the reality of history. They are misted by writers of older generations who knowingly adulterated and misinterpreted Arakan history. Facts were mixed with legends and delusion, some facts were prevaricated just to suit Rakhine taste and obliterate Rohingya from historical landscape of Arakan. This inculcated mind set of theirs is difficult to fade away.

Trying to Get By in the City



The iconic image of refugees is row upon row of white tents in a sprawling emergency camp. But the reality is that only one-third of the world’s 10.5 million refugees now live in camps. Like 3.3 billion other people on Earth, they have been steadily moving to cities and towns, a trend that has accelerated since the 1950s. More than half the refugees UNHCR serves now live in urban areas, with the remainder outside camps living in rural areas. In the future, more and more refugees will be trying to survive in cities and towns, as will former refugees who return to their homelands and those displaced inside their countries.
Unlike a closed camp, cities present obvious opportunities to stay anonymous, make money, and build a better future. But they also present dangers: refugees may not have legal documents that are respected, they may be vulnerable to exploitation, arrest and detention, and they can be in competition with the poorest local workers for the worst jobs.
In the past, many refugees in cities were young men with the skills and savvy to survive on their own. These days they are increasingly women, who may have been raped or molested in escaping their countries, children and older people who all need special help. In large anonymous cities they often have a hard time finding their way to UNHCR for the support they need, and the UN refugee agency, for its part, cannot provide services as easily as in a camp.
In 2009, UNHCR changed its policy towards refugees in cities and towns, partly as a result of its experiences in helping some 400,000 of the nearly 2 million Iraqis displaced since 2003, most of whom fled to big cities in neighboring countries.
What is clear is that wherever refugees are - in cities or in camps - they have the same human rights, and both UNHCR and host states have an obligation to protect them and respect their refugee status. And the UN refugee agency needs to work in more innovative partnerships with municipalities, local community associations and others to adequately serve refugees in towns and cities.

WHERE EDUCATION MATTER MOST FOR REFUGEE CHILDREN





According to the statistics issued by UNHCR Malaysia, as of last Sept 30, there were 63,600 refugees and asylum-seekers registered with the UN Refugee Agency. From this figure, 58,000 were from Myanmar comprising some 27,700 Chins, 15,900 Rohingyas, 3,800 Myanmar Muslims, 2,300 Kachins and the remaining being other ethnic minorities from that country. There were also some 5,600 refugees and asylum- seekers from other countries, including 2,700 Sri Lankans,. 760 Somalis, 530 Iraqis and 530 Afghans. Based on the available statistics, 51 per cent of the refugees and asylum-seekers were men while women made up 49 per cent. There were 14,600 children below the age of 18. UNHCR Malaysia said there were also a large number of persons of concern to the agency who remained unregistered and the figure was said to be around 30,000.


GENERATION OF BeGGERS

For Zin Oo Ko, who is from Myanmar and whose family migrated to Malaysia in the late 80s, only education would take the refugee children off the streets and prevent them from becoming a generation of beggars apart from being dragged into being part of the 'bad hats'. Zin said there were two groups of Rohingya refugee children who took to the streets as beggars in Malaysia. On one side, the children were in the clutches of a triad from their own ethnic group and local gangs who paid some money to the parents of the children and the children themselves before sending them out to the streets to beg. "The other groups are those who have no choice but to beg and begging is the easiest form of earning a livelihood," he said. Zin then related the story of Abdul Rahim who is Anwar Begum's (the Rohingya refugee child mentioned in the first part of this article) older brother who had to 'beg' to support his family. "He was actually selling religious books but this is also considered like begging because there is no fixed amount for the books. It is up to the people to give him whatever amount they thought suitable.

"The family is ashamed to allow Abdul Rahim to do this but they have no choice and the boy is also too young to get a job. The father used to go round collecting metal scraps and recycled items but later he became too ill and became bedridden," said zin.
The young boy then started to mix with the bad elements and was later picked up by the authorities. After some considerations by the relevant authorities, they decided to send him to a reform school in Kelantan.

TEACH THEM HOW TO FISH


Zin said poverty, particularly for the refugees, served not only as the breeding ground for crimes but also for the refugees to rapidly 'multiply' in their number as were ignorant of family planning. "To me, the only way to get these people out from the clutches of poverty is through education. We can give them rice, a packet or two or give them money but money is never enough. "We need to empower them, especially the children, teach them how to fish, not just giving them the fish so they can stand on their own two feet. What if one day I am not here anymore and also the people who are helping them? "What would happen to them then? Would they go back to their old lives? In a way I am a bit worried," Zin said in an interview with Bernama here recently. Zin who can also speak fluent Bahasa Malaysia said he had taken onto himself to teach some of the Rohingya children including Anwar Begum and her siblings. The students are between five and 23 years old.

VERY REWARDING
According to the 30-year-old Zin, he started teaching the children around end of 2005 until recently where he decided to temporarily stop pending getting a proper place to conduct the classes. "Anwar Begum for example. She can now read. Three years ago she knows nothing. She can also listen to the Malay news and translate them for her parents," said Zin who has a Malaysian Permanent Resident (PR) status.
Zin himself has no experience in teaching but after asking around from his friends who are teachers and lecturers, he begins to develop his own syllabus to teach the children.