Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Asian History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Asian History Asian History Forum - China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific Region


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old September 14th, 2017, 01:07 AM   #1
Archivist
 
Joined: Aug 2016
From: UK london
Posts: 126
Are Rohingya in Arakan more native and indigenous than Burmese ?


According to history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_people

Rohingya were able trace Rohingya history to the 8th century, with recorded settlements in 1400's. Arakan was mentioned as being a muslim country. Today their population includes both ancient and colonial migrant population.

The Burmese apparently only arrived in the Arakan/Rakhine state by conquest in 1785. The Konbaung Dynasty of Burmese ruled Arakan for 40 years and later Burma was colonized by British but Arakan was given to the Burmese in 1947 and the Burmese colonized it again with the army and was re-named as Rakhine state.

In various stages in the 18th century, 19th century and 20th-21st century the Rohingya today are living under the rule of the Burmese military and suffered from massive numbers of rapes and massive numbers of gang-rapes, sexual abuses and also a massive number of their populations massacred. The goal of the Burmese is to kick them out by using military violence and the Burmese extremely hate it when the Rohingya use the term "Rohingya" to refer to themselves which refer to natives of Arakan. The Rohingya wanted to carve a independent country for themselves.

British report stated that even after massacres of the Rohingya by Burmese "the area then occupied by British was almost entirely Mussulman Country".[2]

Last edited by VerdictPunjab; September 14th, 2017 at 02:36 AM.
VerdictPunjab is offline  
Remove Ads
Old September 14th, 2017, 02:22 AM   #2
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2013
From: China
Posts: 4,914

whatever the fact is, the international interference coming from the religion commonness is making the situation difficult for everyone.
heylouis is offline  
Old September 14th, 2017, 02:29 AM   #3

Aupmanyav's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: New Delhi, India
Posts: 2,180

Even if the Rohingyas have been there for long, they are part of Myanmar and should accept that. If they don't, then their terrorist actions will be replied many times over by the Myanmar army. Nations do not allow secession. Because of some foolish terrorists among Rohingyas, even the innocent and poor ones are suffering.

And for the Indian part of the story, knowing that some Rohingyas subscribe to IS, ISI, Al-Qaeda ideology, it is unfair to think that India will accept Rohingya refugees. We are already burdened with tens of millions of illegal Bangladeshi migrants. Rohingyas will have to leave India.
Aupmanyav is online now  
Old September 14th, 2017, 02:34 AM   #4
Archivist
 
Joined: Aug 2016
From: UK london
Posts: 126

Who has more legitimate claim of Rakhine state ? the Burmese were last people to settle on Arakan so they have the least right to claim those lands but because they are the one who rule everyone in Myammar they can manipulate the population, media, history how they want.

The thing is even when Arakan kingdom expanded to Bangladesh in 15th century there was many Bengali who settled in a region that even the Arakanese natives didn't settle which is today the western Rakhine state. The Arakan kingdom expanded their rule to the western Rakhine state and Bangladesh. The Rakhine native population are only restricted to the eastern part of the Rakhine state. There are numerous books, historians who can prove this.

Map distribution of population of Rohingya and Rakhine Bhuddist ( although Rakhine is ethnic group it can also refer to Rohingya muslims ). The Rohingya throughout history were concentrated in the west where even Rakhine almost never settle, historical Rohingya also settled in the Central and eastern Rakhine where they served the King of Arakan and it's kingdom.

Click the image to open in full size.

Last edited by VerdictPunjab; September 14th, 2017 at 03:27 AM.
VerdictPunjab is offline  
Old September 14th, 2017, 02:49 AM   #5
Archivist
 
Joined: Aug 2016
From: UK london
Posts: 126

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aupmanyav View Post
Even if the Rohingyas have been there for long, they are part of Myanmar and should accept that. If they don't, then their terrorist actions will be replied many times over by the Myanmar army. Nations do not allow secession. Because of some foolish terrorists among Rohingyas, even the innocent and poor ones are suffering.

And for the Indian part of the story, knowing that some Rohingyas subscribe to IS, ISI, Al-Qaeda ideology, it is unfair to think that India will accept Rohingya refugees. We are already burdened with tens of millions of illegal Bangladeshi migrants. Rohingyas will have to leave India.
Yes, this is true. There are many Rohingya extremist who subscribed to ISI and A-Qaeda. I never said they weren't a national security threat but still their claim as being indigenous natives to Arakan is true aswell.

I do think India is going to be blown apart to pieces one day if they don't stop immigration ( a source for many terrorist organizations ). It's true many Rohingya have joined the terrorist organizations willingly and they do pose a significant threat of being recruited by terrorist more easily than any other.

It was a wise move for India even though I don't support genocide against Rohingya.


India refuses to join declaration against Myanmar at international meet

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/i...w/60413675.cms


" India reiterated its stance that the purpose of convening the Parliamentary forum was to arrive at mutual consensus for implementation of SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals) which requires inclusive and broad-based development processes, it said. "Therefore, the proposed reference to the violence in Rakhine state+ in the declaration was considered as not consensus-based and inappropriate," the release said. The part of the declaration to which India objected spoke of the forum expressing "deep concern on ongoing violence in the Rakhine State of Myanmar, amongst others..." The declaration went on to "call on all parties to contribute to the restoration of stability and security, exercise maximum self-restraint from using violent means, respect the human rights of all people in Rakhine State regardless of their faith and ethnicity, as well as facilitate and guarantee safe access for humanitarian assistance."

Last edited by VerdictPunjab; September 14th, 2017 at 02:59 AM.
VerdictPunjab is offline  
Old September 14th, 2017, 06:12 AM   #6

Aupmanyav's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: New Delhi, India
Posts: 2,180

If they behave well and they will be treated better. That is true for all insurgencies. If they come to India considering that India is a soft state, they should be made to learn better. There are over 40,000 Rohingyas in Jammu region, they hould be made to leave. India is under no debt to them.

Last edited by Aupmanyav; September 14th, 2017 at 06:15 AM.
Aupmanyav is online now  
Old September 14th, 2017, 08:10 AM   #7

Jinit's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: India
Posts: 5,258
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by VerdictPunjab View Post
British report stated that even after massacres of the Rohingya by Burmese "the area then occupied by British was almost entirely Mussulman Country".[2]
Islamic Propaganda of very refined quality...

During WW II when British retreated from the area they armed the Rohingyas with weapons in a hope to create buffer zone from the invading Japanese army. In absence of any law and order situation heavily armed Rohingyas ended up massacring local Buddhist population and destroying their shrines and pagodas.

It was actually the context of that observation by the British. It was "almost entirely Mussulman Country" when British came back because rest were either killed or fled the area. Typical story of Islamic expansion!
Jinit is offline  
Old September 14th, 2017, 10:45 AM   #8
Lecturer
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Los Angeles
Posts: 413

Quote:
Originally Posted by heylouis View Post
whatever the fact is, the international interference coming from the religion commonness is making the situation difficult for everyone.
Without interference, people are getting slaughtered.
mariusj is online now  
Old September 14th, 2017, 12:14 PM   #9

Azad67's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Aug 2014
From: pakistan
Posts: 759

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinit View Post
Islamic Propaganda of very refined quality...

During WW II when British retreated from the area they armed the Rohingyas with weapons in a hope to create buffer zone from the invading Japanese army. In absence of any law and order situation heavily armed Rohingyas ended up massacring local Buddhist population and destroying their shrines and pagodas.

It was actually the context of that observation by the British. It was "almost entirely Mussulman Country" when British came back because rest were either killed or fled the area. Typical story of Islamic expansion!
Book source?
Azad67 is offline  
Old September 14th, 2017, 01:13 PM   #10

Jinit's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: India
Posts: 5,258
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azad67 View Post
Book source?
Did the OP give Source?

But you didn't ask it because at that time it suited your agenda!
Jinit is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
arakan, burmese, indigenous, native, rohingya



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Burmese - Ming dynasty conflict around 1590s?? RollingWave Asian History 0 July 26th, 2010 12:26 AM
Pre-colonial Burmese history WSkopar Asian History 1 February 27th, 2010 10:41 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.