Theoretical Perspectives on Rohingya Crisis

 

Suraj Dhakal

Keshab Sigdel

425.22 Cultural Studies

December 3, 2017

Theoretical Perspectives on Rohingya Crisis 

This article is an attempt to shed light on – currently prevailing Rohingya[1] Crisis in Myanmar in relation to notions of hegemony put forward by Louis Althusser and Antonio Gramsci. Moreover, this paper also deals with power relationship and discourses that left Rohingya communities with no choice other than fleeing away. In addition, notions of identity and its subjectivity are also covered by this study.

This article takes into account news stories published by ALJAZEERA[2] at various points of time during the crisis as secondary data.

Background:

             According to some historians Rohingya are indigenous inhabitants, who have been living in Rakhine State of Myanmar since 15^th century. Additionally, there had been a significant labor migration to today’s Myanmar (formerly known as Burma) form today’s India and Pakistan during British colonial period that spanned over more than hundred years. This huge migration was viewed negatively by the majority of Burmese natives. The seed of this crisis was sown after the military coup took place in 1962.

Timeline of Incidents and Consequences:

Years	Events and Consequences
1939 -1945	Tensions between Buddhist Brumes population and Rohingya go back to the second world war, when each groups supported opposite sides. The Rohingya supported British side where as Buddhist population supported Japanese side.
1948	British colonial era ended
1962	Military coup took place in Myanmar. Like all dictators, this military regime forged a fierce nationalism based on Buddhist identity.
1978	“Operation Dragon King” was launched by military force.  About 200 thousands Rohingya fled to Bangladesh. During this operation, military deliberately used violence against Rohingya. Subsequently in following years, about 170 thousands Rohingya returned back to their land.
1982	Government of Myanmar passed a citizenship act recognizing 135 ethnic groups. Yet Rohingya, with population of about one million were not on the list, and became stateless people.
1992	Myanmar launched another campaign literally called Operation Clean and Beautiful Nation. This time, about 250 thousands had no choice other than fleeing away.
2012	Tensions between state authority and Rohingya rose in 2000s. Severe violent incidents spilled over when four Muslims were accused of raping a Buddhist woman. State backed Buddhist majority population started burning houses of Rohingya communities.
2016	In wake of fighting such severe oppression, a small rebel group of some Rohingya called Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) was formed.
August 25,2017	ARSA attacked state police, and killed about a dozen of police officers. Thus, sparked latest crisis against Rohingya civilians.

 

According to The Guardian[3], more than 300 thousands Rohingya fled to Bangladesh since outbreak of violence in August, 2017. Additionally, more than 210 houses have been burnt to the ground by state military, and death tool of Rohingya has reached more than three thousands. According to a recent report published by Reuters[4], Myanmar military forces have placed landmines near the border so as to refrain Rohingya form returning back. (Vox, 2017)

Figure 1: Number of Rohingya fled away to different countries

 

 

 

 

 Theoretical Analysis of Rohingya Crisis in Myanmar

Based on aforementioned facts and information, we can observe that government of Myanmar has been using Repressive State Apparatus (RSA) in governance. RSA refers to use of military, police, administration, and biased state policies to control over a certain population so as to rule. (Oswell, 2006, pp. 49-50) The use of violent military activities, which somehow resemble to ethnic cleansing, is a reflection of Repressive State Apparatus used by the government of Myanmar. On the other hand, aforementioned situation in Myanmar also calls for hegemony. Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army, born out of prolonged state backed violence and persecution, was formed to fight against the state authority. This implies that Rohingya had had enough of dominations, and they had no other choice than carrying guns on their shoulders against state authority. However, in the long run an armed conflict cannot be a proper solution. Thus, long run demands negotiations, particularly ‘win-win’ one. In this regards, it would be better if government of Myanmar calls Rohingya leaders for table talks, which is the notion of hegemony, that is, ruling as per the consent of ruled.

This situation of Rohingya community can be seen in relation of subjectivity of identity, and discourses thus created.  Based on concepts of identity put forward by Stuart Hall, Homi Bhabha, and Judith Butler, we can shift the question of identity to identification. (Oswell, 2006, pp. 104-109) We can observe subjectivity of identity in Rohingya’s context. Rohingya are Muslim indigenous community living in Rakhine state of Myanmar, this is their identity. Their identity seems fixed, but their identity is fluid as outsiders behold them. Having said fluid identity, it implies that identity of Rohingya varies with the eyes of beholders; Buddhist majority living in Myanmar consider them only as labors migrated during British colonial regime, not as citizens of their land. In addition, identity of Rohingya is dependent on majority of population, for Buddhist natives consider them as mere criminal immigrants. Moreover, identity of Rohingya in the eyes of outsider: United Nations, and other international organization, is a reflection of fundamental notions of right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Moreover, international power centers, in particular, United States of America, China, and Russia, have been turning a blind eye in a sense that they are not raising as much voices as they should have raised against such humanitarian crisis. The reason behind this silence of international commercial elites could be their own self-interests. With the end of military rule and avenues of democracy, international power centers are looking forward to leap on the Myanmar’s economy, where seed of economic liberalization has been sown along with commencement of democracy.[5]

Given that, Rohingya have already formed a rebel group to fight against oppression of state authority, conflict is sure to escalate, and it will be more and more destructive, and it will divert resources from development sector to civil war. Thus, current approach to exercise of power by state – that is, use of Repressive State Apparatus is not going to let rulers indulge in power on sustainable basis. Having said this, hegemony seems inevitable. On the other hand, government of Myanmar ought not to prohibit Rohingya form citizenship, for it will create more disastrous situation in generations to come, thereby with outburst of hatred against state authority.  

                                                        Works Cited

Oswell, D. (2006). Hegemony, Ideolgoy and State. In Culture and Society: An Introduction to Cultural Studies (pp. 104-109). London: Sage Publication Ltd.

Vox. (2017, September 25). The ethnic cleansing of Myanmar's Rohingya Muslims explained. Retrieved November 30, 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rohingya+crisis+explained

 

 

 

 

---

[1] The Rohingya are indigenous majority Muslim ethnic groups living in Rakhine State of Buddhist nation Myanmar

[2] Qatar based media house

[3] London based news agency

[4] London based news agency

[5] Reference taken from British Broadcasting Corporation’s archive