So to give an overview of the entire situation, I would like to give a brief run
through, as a historical perspective, of the underlying problems and issues until
the present day. It will be necessary to go into more detail about ethnic
terminology later on, but it is also important to clarify at the very beginning that
different sides have some very different views about names of the same places and
peoples, and this argument has recently intensified. Therefore for
the sake of
simplicity I
will generally refer to the modern Rakhine State by its historic name
of Arakan; if speaking about both Muslims and Buddhists, I will use the term
Arakanese, which for many years was the traditional international style; and if I
am only referring to the main Buddhist ethnic group, then I will use the word
Rakhine. For Muslims, in general, I will also continue to use this general religious
word, since in Arakan as
elsewhere in Burma there
are a number of different
kinds of Muslim communities, and I will turn later to the specific question of
"Rohingya" ethnicity that has become so very controversial in recent years.
So first, because the present MuslimBuddhist
or BurmanBengali
crisis
can not be looked at in isolation, it is necessary to put Arakan and the historical
situation in the regional context. In particular, the postcolonial
tendency to see
Bangladesh as a historic BengaliMuslim
nation or Burma as a BurmanBuddhist
nation has been extremely damaging to the minority groups in both countries.
The proof of this can clearly be seen in the continuing ethnic instability and
violence that has greatly arrested the development of both countries since the
British departure in 194748.
In fact, much of Burma and all of its borderland
regions are multiethnic,
and they have historically remained in a state of social
and political flux. Bangladesh, too, with its Chakma and other Buddhist
minorities has faced a history of similar religious and ethnic problems.