Myanmar's 'Rohingya' Conflict by Ware Anthony; Laoutides Costas;

Author:Ware, Anthony; Laoutides, Costas;
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Oxford University Press, Incorporated
Published: 2018-12-15T00:00:00+00:00

Comparing the Muslim data across Tables 4 and 5 presents a compelling picture. The Muslim population in northern Arakan clearly grew much faster than the Burman–Arakanese Buddhist population. In absolute numbers, Muslims grew more than fourfold between 1872 and 1931, while the Buddhist population grew less than twofold. They shot as a proportion of the population from 21 to 38 per cent. It is thus quite understandable that many Arakanese might have felt that their land was being overrun by Muslims: in a real sense, it was.

The 1931 census found that 92.7 per cent of people in Akyab District were born in Burma (Bennison 1931, p. 28), meaning that by then Chittagonian seasonal labourers were only a very small proportion of the Muslim population in Akyab. Almost all were born in Arakan—even if most families had migrated from India in the earlier part of the colonial period.

This data contradicts the ‘Rohingya’ narrative claims they are not the descendants of migrants. The colonial administration so heavily promoted Indian migration that during the early 1900s Burma had the world’s highest rate of migration, outstripping even New York (Charney 2009; Taylor 2009). By 1921 some 55 per cent of Rangoon was Indian (Charney 2009), and 480,000 new Indian migrants arrived in Burma during the year 1927 alone (Hall 1956, p. 159). It would be most astounding if Arakan did not have similar rapid Indian migration—and, unsurprisingly, the evidence does not support the ‘Rohingya’ narrative on this point. Instead, it strongly suggests that by the end of the colonial era the vast majority of Muslims in northern Rakhine State were the descendants of colonial-era migrants.

The implications of this high rate of immigration did eventually come to concern to the colonial authorities. In his report on the 1911 census, Webb expressed concern that, due to Bengali immigration, ‘if the present tendencies continue, the existence of the Arakan as a separate branch of the Burma racial group will cease in the ordinary course of time’ (Webb 1912, pp. 190, 257; see also Leider 2015). Smart, reflecting back on earlier records, commented:

In 1879 it was recorded that those who were bona fide residents, though recruited [into seasonal agricultural work] by immigrants from Bengal, were, for the most part, descendants of slaves captured by the Arakanese and Burmese in their wars with their neighbours. … They differ little from the Arakanese except in their religion and in the social customs which their religion directs; in writing they use Burmese, but amongst themselves employ colloquially the language of their ancestors. Since 1879 immigration has taken place on a much larger scale and the descendants of the slaves are resident, for the most part, in the Kyauktaw and Myohaung [Mrauk U] townships. Maungdaw township has been overrun by Chittagonian immigrants. Buthidaung is not far behind and new arrivals will be found in almost every part of the district. (Smart 1917, pp. 89–90)

Financial Secretary James Baxter’s Report on Indian Immigration expressed concern that the high rate of Muslim migration from Chittagong was problematic and ‘contained the seed of future communal troubles’ (Baxter 1941).

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.