How Pan-Rohingya Scholar-Activists Fabricated the History of Arakan
 |
| Monks and Pagodas in Famous Koe-Thaung Temple |
For years, a network of pan-Rohingya scholar-activists has worked to manufacture an alternative history of Arakan, presenting it as academic research while advancing a political project rooted in historical falsification. Under the cover of scholarship, this group has attempted to overwrite Arakan’s documented past and replace it with a narrative designed to legitimize present-day claims over land, identity, and political authority.
At the core of this project lies the repeated assertion that Rohingya Muslims are an ancient indigenous people of Arakan, allegedly present since the 7th century. This claim is endlessly recycled in books, articles, conferences, and advocacy materials, yet it collapses under scrutiny. No inscriptions, no archaeological remains, no contemporary chronicles, and no credible foreign accounts confirm such an early Muslim presence. What does exist, in abundance, are records of Rakhine Buddhist kingdoms, language, culture, and political institutions that defined Arakan long before any documented Muslim settlement.
Rather than relying on primary evidence, pan-Rohingya writers selectively quote secondary sources, mistranslate terms, and stretch vague references beyond recognition. Isolated mentions of foreign traders or captives are inflated into proof of an indigenous population. Temporary Muslim court officials are reimagined as rulers. Diplomatic interactions are reframed as civilizational foundations. This method is not historical inquiry; it is narrative engineering.
The Mrauk-U Kingdom is a prime target of this distortion. Some Rohingya activists portray it as a Muslim-influenced or even Muslim-founded state, citing Persian titles and symbolic gestures toward neighboring Islamic powers. Yet the kingdom’s kings were Rakhine Buddhists, ruling through Rakhine systems of governance, patronizing Buddhist institutions, and inscribing their authority in the Rakhine language. The selective emphasis on foreign titles ignores the broader political reality of the kingdom and serves only to mislead international audiences unfamiliar with Arakanese history.
Equally deceptive is the treatment of colonial-era migration. Large-scale Muslim settlement in northern Arakan occurred primarily during British rule, driven by labor needs, administrative restructuring, and open borders with Bengal. Colonial censuses, administrative correspondence, and district reports document this clearly. However, pan-Rohingya narratives deliberately blur the line between pre-colonial Arakan and colonial migration, presenting recent demographic changes as ancient continuity. This conflation is essential to sustaining the myth of indigeneity.
These historical fabrications are not academic mistakes; they are political tools. By recasting Rohingya Muslims as the original inhabitants and Rakhine Buddhists as later arrivals, activist scholars invert historical reality and frame the Rakhine people as usurpers in their own homeland. This inversion is then weaponized in international forums, where simplified moral narratives replace historical complexity.
The long-term objective behind this rewriting of history is increasingly evident. Some activists openly envision a separate Muslim-administered entity in northern Arakan, detached from the rest of the state. Others speak in broader regional terms, hinting at ideological and religious linkages extending beyond Myanmar’s borders. These ambitions, however unrealistic, are rooted in the same fabricated historical foundation.
The damage caused by this campaign extends beyond academic debate. International policymakers, media outlets, and human-rights organizations have absorbed these narratives with little scrutiny, marginalizing Rakhine perspectives and ignoring the historical experiences of the region’s Buddhist population. As a result, external pressure and humanitarian discourse are often built on a deeply flawed understanding of Arakan’s past.
Arakan’s history was never static or isolated. It was shaped by trade, conflict, migration, and cultural exchange. But acknowledging complexity does not require inventing origins, erasing documented civilizations, or transforming colonial migration into ancient belonging. Genuine historical scholarship rests on evidence, not ideology.
Until history is reclaimed from political manipulation and returned to serious, evidence-based study, any discussion of justice, coexistence, or reconciliation in Arakan will remain built on false premises. A future grounded in truth cannot be constructed on a past that has been deliberately falsified.
Comments
Post a Comment