I have blogged about the issue of Muslims in Myanmar a few times. I am continuing to seek out information on this topic and to consider the ethnopolitical issues associated with being non-Buddhist in Myanmar. In the 1980s through roughly 2010 the situation surrounding Karen population was well documented. Why is it the case that the situation surrounding the Rohingya population is not as well documented?
I have been told by some that the question is one of religion, that the Karen population is Christian and the Rohingya population is Muslim. Most of the Karen population is still a combination of Buddhist and animist, though a particularly large pocket of Karen Christians exists in the Irrawady delta region. So, if the mostly Buddhist population of Myanmar were to take up arms against the Karen, they would be attacking many fellow believers. The facts show that the government and military attacked the Karen population but the actions against the Karen population did not have a great deal of popular support in Myanmar. However, religion does appear to be a more mitigating factor in regard to support in the population for attacks on Rohingya. In dealing with the Rohingya the attacks have been made by the rank and file Buddhists of the population of Myanmar and the government is complicit in that the government does not disuade the populace of making these attacks.
Now, nearly two years after widespread violence against the Rohingya broke out, nearly 100,000 Rohingya have fled Myanmar by boat. Most of those fleeing have gone to Bangladesh, where over 85% of the population is Muslim. Nearly 150,000 more Rohingya are living in camps still in Myanmar as internally displaced persons, but without any support from the international community as access to the Rohingya is routinely denied by the government of Myanmar.
For my two cents, I don't care if you are Muslim, Animist, Buddhist, Christian, yellow, red, purple with green polkadots, or whatever, you should not be the target of communal violence for existing as a minority population anywhere in the contemporary world. Governments that support communal violence should be held in contempt and pressured to change their behaviors, not courted as trading partners and political allies--democratic engagement and enlargement may be admirable goals, but does democratic society accept government condoned communal violence as a norm of accepted behavior?
I have been told by some that the question is one of religion, that the Karen population is Christian and the Rohingya population is Muslim. Most of the Karen population is still a combination of Buddhist and animist, though a particularly large pocket of Karen Christians exists in the Irrawady delta region. So, if the mostly Buddhist population of Myanmar were to take up arms against the Karen, they would be attacking many fellow believers. The facts show that the government and military attacked the Karen population but the actions against the Karen population did not have a great deal of popular support in Myanmar. However, religion does appear to be a more mitigating factor in regard to support in the population for attacks on Rohingya. In dealing with the Rohingya the attacks have been made by the rank and file Buddhists of the population of Myanmar and the government is complicit in that the government does not disuade the populace of making these attacks.
Now, nearly two years after widespread violence against the Rohingya broke out, nearly 100,000 Rohingya have fled Myanmar by boat. Most of those fleeing have gone to Bangladesh, where over 85% of the population is Muslim. Nearly 150,000 more Rohingya are living in camps still in Myanmar as internally displaced persons, but without any support from the international community as access to the Rohingya is routinely denied by the government of Myanmar.
For my two cents, I don't care if you are Muslim, Animist, Buddhist, Christian, yellow, red, purple with green polkadots, or whatever, you should not be the target of communal violence for existing as a minority population anywhere in the contemporary world. Governments that support communal violence should be held in contempt and pressured to change their behaviors, not courted as trading partners and political allies--democratic engagement and enlargement may be admirable goals, but does democratic society accept government condoned communal violence as a norm of accepted behavior?
No comments:
Post a Comment