Rohingya, the Muslim minority group in Arakan state of Burma, have been under systematic persecutions of tyrannical regimes of Burma since 1962. At present, there is a pre-planned genocide against them being carried on in Arakan by the Burmese regime and Rakhine extremists. Therefore, Rohingyas’ outcry and persecutions and discriminations against them are no longer new to the international communities and the world. According to United Nation, they are one of most persecuted minorities in the world. Human Rights Watch describes them as a minority group which has high possibility of extinction. Who are Rohingyas? Different allegations have been made against them by many Rakhine Bigotry Scholars, Burmese Regime and some of ultra-nationalist Burmese. Some of the allegations are mentioned below together with refutations.
Allegation #1
The name Rohingya didn’t exist in the history. Therefore, Rohingyas are not of citizens of Burma or not one of the Burmese ethnic communities.
Refutation
Well. The name “Rohingyas” didn’t exist in the history. Did the name “Rakhine” exist in the history? British have recorded Muslims in Arakan as Mohammedans or Chittagonians. So, British were right to do so. What term did British use for the Buddhists in Arakan? Rakhine? Obviously not! If yes, is there any evidence for the fact that British referred Buddhists in Arakan as Rakhines? British were right and honest because they referred Muslims in Arakan as Mohammedans or Chittagonians. The same British were wrong and dishonest because they referred Buddhists in Arakan as “MAGHS.” Why double standard?
Yet, the use of the term “Rohingya” in the form “Rooinga” existed in 17th century. A dialect was spoken by Muslims in Arakan of Western Burma who had long been settled in Arakan and who called themselves “Rooinga” or “Natives” of Arakan. (Buchanan, 1799) The document can be reached at here
Besides, the word "Rohingya" might be a slight variation of the word "Ruahonga" (in Rakhine meaning "from old village") because the place where Rohingyas used to live was called Ruahong. Rohingyas have the habit of calling someone by the place name where they live. For example, if somebody is from Man-Aung, he will be called as Man-Aunggya, if from RatheThaung, then RatheThaungya and if from ButhiTaung, then Buthi-Thaungya etc. The word Rohingya has formed exactly the way Rakhine has formed from Rakkhasha.
Allegation #2
Rohingyas can’t be nationals of Burma because they don’t look like other ethnic minorities of Burma but look like Bengalis or Indians.
Refutation
Bangladesh, today’s India, Pakistan, Nepal etc were one nation or empire used to be ruled by same rulers in the history. People in all these countries are generally called Indians or South Asians. People in these nations are mainly of two human stocks, Indo-Aryans and Dravidians, which can hardly be differentiated. Similarly, according to historians, Chittagong region of Bangladesh and Arakan region of Burma were once one nation used to be ruled by the same rulers. Dating back to before Christian (BC) era, there have been highly Indian influences on Arakan religiously, racially and culturally. It can’t, further, be denied by anyone that the earliest Kingdoms of Arakan such as Dhannyawadi and Vaisali were founded by Indians whose Kings had the titles of Gupta and Chandra respectively.
Indo-Aryan people have been living in Arakan since B.C. 3323. (San-Kyaw-Tun-(Mahawizza), 2010) Who were these Indo-Aryans? Were not they forefathers of the people called Rohingya today? Are Rakhines descendants of Indo-Aryan race? In which group of human stocks did Rakhines fall, Indo-Aryan or Mongoloid? Think and answer!
Put aside both religions, Islam and Buddhism, and both names, Rakhine and Rohingya for a while. Let us put some logical arguments. Everyone will agree if we say that there were the periods called Dhannyawadi and Vesali in the history of Arakan. No one will deny this. OK, then. Can anybody tell us that the kings or rulers in these two historical periods, which dated back to more than 2000 years, belonged to which stocks of human race, Indo-Aryan (i.e. Indian-look-alike people) or Mongoloid (Mongolian look-alike people)? What are the meanings of terms Dhannyawadi and Vesali (Vaishali)? From which language these terms were derived from? In which stock of human race did Siddartha Gautama Buddha and most of earliest followers, because of whom Buddhism had spread throughout the region, belong to?
In Arakan history, there were a people called Rakkhasha (in Pali meaning Cannibals) who used to eat even human beings who are strangers to them. The word has varied through historical periods from Rakkhasha to Rakkha to Rakkuain now to Rakhine. According some other people, Rakhine was derived from Pali word Rakkhita (meaning people who look after and take care of their race). Yet, it doesn't matter to us. According to the historians, the place was called Rakkhapura (again in Pali). (Arakanland.com, 2012) Has the whole region of Arakan including Chittagong area been called so? Have the cannibals used to live throughout the whole region?
How did these Rakkhasha people look alike, mongoloid, aryan, caucasians, negroid? Why was a Pali word "Rakkhasha" used to address cannibals? Who named these cannibals as Rakkhasha by using a Pali word? Weren’t there be a parallel people to Rakkasha, who named them so using Pali word? Or have they named them "Rakkhasha" (cannibals) by theirselves using a Pali word? Was Pali the language of cannibals? Wasn't Pali an Indian literature and language? Isn't it originated to India? Arakan was the name of a land, not that of people or race. The word Arakan is the plural form of the Arabic word "Rukn" as well. But I don't mean that Arakan was derived from the Arabic word. It might or might not be.
Mohammed Sheikh Anwar is an activist, studying Bachelor of Arts in Business Studies at Westminster International College in Malaysia.
No comments:
Post a Comment