Analysis: Border Ethnicity, Migration, and the Rohingya Question in Comparative Perspective
Across mainland Southeast Asia, modern national borders frequently divide ethnic communities that long predate the formation of contemporary states. Groups such as the Shan/Tai, Karen, Mon, Chin/Mizo/Kuki, and Rakhine are found on both sides of international frontiers, reflecting shared histories, languages, and social systems that survived colonial boundary-making.
However, a comparative anthropological and historical analysis suggests that the Rohingya case differs markedly from this regional pattern.
Indigenous Border Peoples and Cross-Border Continuity
In Southeast Asia, indigenous border peoples typically exhibit clear continuity across borders. These communities maintain long-established settlements, shared dialects or language chains, common clan structures, oral histories, and recognition in colonial and local records on both sides of state boundaries.
Ethnic Rakhine Buddhists, for example, are found in both Myanmar and Bangladesh. Similarly, Karen communities span the Myanmar–Thailand border, while Chin/Mizo/Kuki populations extend across Myanmar and India. These cases reflect societies divided by borders, not created by them.
Absence of Rohingya Continuity Across the Naf River
By contrast, no comparable evidence exists for a Rohingya-identified population on the Bangladesh side of the Myanmar–Bangladesh border prior to the mid-20th century.
Bangladeshi ethnographic records do not recognize “Rohingya” as an indigenous ethnic group. There is no documented Rohingya language classification, no record of pre-1947 Rohingya villages or traditional land systems, and no historical polity or lineage identified under that name within Bangladesh.
Notably, Bangladesh’s official position continues to regard Rohingya as nationals of Myanmar rather than as a transborder ethnic group—an inconsistency with claims that the Rohingya constitute an indigenous people divided by colonial borders.
Linguistic Classification Points to Bengali Origins
Linguistic analysis further complicates claims of Rohingya indigeneity. The language commonly referred to as “Rohingya” is classified by linguists as a Chittagonian Bengali dialect within the Eastern Indo-Aryan language family. It remains mutually intelligible with dialects spoken in Cox’s Bazar and southeastern Bangladesh.
This contrasts with recognized indigenous border groups in the region, whose languages are clearly distinct from dominant lowland populations, such as Rakhine versus Burmese or Chin languages versus Assamese and Bengali.
Colonial-Era Migration into Arakan
Historical demographic patterns indicate that Muslim population growth in northern Rakhine State accelerated during British colonial rule following the annexation of Arakan in 1826. Administered as part of British India, the region attracted labor migration from densely populated Bengal into sparsely populated Arakan, particularly for agriculture and port-related work.
This movement was largely one-directional—from Bengal into Arakan—rather than reciprocal. By the time of independence in 1947–1948, Muslims constituted a substantial portion of the population in northern Arakan, while no equivalent Rohingya-identified population existed in what became East Pakistan (now Bangladesh).
The Naf River and Demographic Asymmetry
Anthropologists note that rivers rarely prevent the formation of cross-border ethnic communities, particularly narrow waterways such as the Naf River. The persistence of Bengali populations across the India–Bangladesh border underscores this point.
The lack of a Rohingya-identified community in Bangladesh, despite ease of movement across the Naf, suggests demographic asymmetry rather than ancient bidirectional settlement. Analysts argue that Bengali Muslims in Bangladesh retained their Bengali identity, while a distinct political identity emerged only within Myanmar.
Identity, Politics, and the Post-Colonial Era
Historical records indicate that the term “Rohingya” gained prominence mainly in the mid-20th century, amid citizenship debates, insurgencies, and shifting regional politics. While this does not diminish the humanitarian suffering or statelessness experienced by the population, researchers argue that the identity itself reflects modern political processes rather than a pre-colonial ethnic category comparable to other border peoples in the region.
Demographic and Logical Disputes
Critics of the indigeneity narrative also point to what they describe as demographic inconsistencies. With the global Bengali population exceeding 400 million—around 170–180 million in Bangladesh and over 100 million in India—they question claims that no Bengali settlements exist or ever existed in Rakhine State or elsewhere in Myanmar.
Conclusion
Comparative evidence from anthropology, linguistics, and colonial history suggests that the Rohingya case does not align with established models of indigenous border ethnicities in mainland Southeast Asia. Analysts argue that the absence of cross-border continuity, combined with linguistic and demographic data, indicates a modern political identity shaped by migration and post-colonial state formation.
Observers stress that acknowledging this distinction does not negate humanitarian responsibilities. Rather, they argue that informed policy and scholarly debate require historical clarity grounded in regional comparison rather than exceptionalist narratives.
Comments
Post a Comment