Won Thar Nu
Dear Francis Wade,
Since independence of Burma from Britain in 1948, Burma has faced a number of political challenges. If you explore more about Burmese history, you'll definitely find the role of "PanLong" agreement on which nearly all ethnic leaders in that time except for Karen ethnic had signed. According to that agreement, today's Burma has been recognized as a sovereign state.
Panlong agreement played a pivotal role in the path to Burmese Independence from Britain. According to Aung San-Attlee treaty, ethnic leaders of Frontier Areas must agree to have independence together with Burma Proper. So, Aung San tried to negotiate with every ethnic leaders.
Please check English version of Panlong agreement to find out what you are referring as an ethnic group so called rohingyas. Yes, we know that there are 135 ethnic subgroups in Burma. However, today rohingya population has clearly signaled that an ethnic minority with such demographic figure could have an ethnic leader representing them for Pan Long agreement. Can you find anyone? No, you won't. Because British authorities listed them as Chittagonian Bengalis migrated to Arakan state from Indina subcontinent. Before independence, prominent Muslim politicians took part in the struggle for freedom. Even such Muslim leaders like Martyr U Razak, U Pe Khin who was an Ambassador for Pakistan didn't claim any right for Indians and Indian Muslims living in Burma since British occupation of Burma to sign on Pan Long agreement as native decedents. Why? Because they are not ethnics but legally recognized citizens of Burma. They had full citizenship right but not ethnic right to claim their own state. Why didn't such Muslims claim a state on behalf of rohigyas? Could you find any word called rohingya in Burmese history of Independence?
With reference to a book namely "Races of Burma" compiled by a British officer, we can voice loudly that THERE IS NO ROHINGYA in Burma but Bengalis as British stated. In this article, you have mentioned that there was no specific entry date of ethnic groups into Burma. Yes, there is no historically proved statistics of immigration to Burma before British occupation. However, in 1947 Burma constitution, ethnic status will be for those who have been residing in Burma before A.D 1824, just 61 years before King of Upper Burma was overthrown by British.
o, it will be very groundless if a new ethnic tribe migrated into Burma after 1824 because British have already controlled coastal lines of Lower Burma. No record of any new migration but proves of migrated Bengalis into Arakan state.
No historical record of Rohingya by British during colonial period. No evidence of them in Burmese monarchy. What does it mean?
More importantly, you should go back to population statistics of Arakan in colonial time done by British authorities so that biased approach will be avoided. In that statistics, you will surely find races and number of people properly listed by British but no name of Rohingya will be found. What are all these meaning?
Yap, they are pointing certainly to the fact that today rohingyas are formerly Chittagonian Benglis from Bangladesh.
Furthermore, what rohingyas claim today isn't a citizenship status as you superficially commented. They are claiming ethnic status which will offer the right as other ethnic groups have, for instance, to have their own state like Shan Federal State. For natives suffering for long decades of oppression by military junta, such claim of historically non-native immigrants using fake histories will be a huge blow to them. Simply, a hit to vulnerable point.
I would like to kindly ask you whether you have researched thoroughly in Burmese history, specifically in Arakan-Burmese relation and Arakanese Kingdom?
Let's turn to your way of presentation again. You did mention about Ko Ko Gyi's comment as a hipocrisy. If so, why didn't you describe the strong comment of a Muslim activist Mya Aye on this issue? Mya Aye, father of Wai Hnin who is a campaign officer at Burma Campaign UK having a good relationship with Burmese Rohingya Organization, has obviously stated that they, native muslims, have to stand out for native Arakanese in order to fight against influx of illegal immigrants from explosively pop0ulating Bangladesh. Why did you leave his strong signals in Muslim Protest at Sule?
Burmese politics is at a very fragile period and can easily be reversed by a number of situations. Even natives like ethnic Karens, Shans, Kachins and others were neglected by central government. How can such an impoverished country offer great opportunities like Australia, UK , USA and Canada to stateless people? Again, Rohingyas may account for nearly 800000 which will surely be a burden for one of the world's poorest countries.
Can first world nations offer such a number of people for residence? Please kindly answer my question. We provide our land, soil, currency and others under a highly corrupt bureaucracy. So, we are assisting them for survival with as much as we can.
Yes, we will never deny humanitarian aids to support stateless people. However, ethnicity claim is serious challenge to a state's sovereignty and strength of her history. Citizenship status is a very issue legal experts will have to consider and a local affair that will only be concerned with Burmese.
So, look before you leap Francis. Do thorough research before making presentation. It's so frustrating to see such too much superficial and less-efforted article.
http://asiancorrespondent.com/84972/the-hypocrisy-of-burmas-pro-democracy-movement/
Myo Set
Dear Francis Wade,
Since independence of Burma from Britain in 1948, Burma has faced a number of political challenges. If you explore more about Burmese history, you'll definitely find the role of "PanLong" agreement on which nearly all ethnic leaders in that time except for Karen ethnic had signed. According to that agreement, today's Burma has been recognized as a sovereign state.
Panlong agreement played a pivotal role in the path to Burmese Independence from Britain. According to Aung San-Attlee treaty, ethnic leaders of Frontier Areas must agree to have independence together with Burma Proper. So, Aung San tried to negotiate with every ethnic leaders.
Please check English version of Panlong agreement to find out what you are referring as an ethnic group so called rohingyas. Yes, we know that there are 135 ethnic subgroups in Burma. However, today rohingya population has clearly signaled that an ethnic minority with such demographic figure could have an ethnic leader representing them for Pan Long agreement. Can you find anyone? No, you won't. Because British authorities listed them as Chittagonian Bengalis migrated to Arakan state from Indina subcontinent. Before independence, prominent Muslim politicians took part in the struggle for freedom. Even such Muslim leaders like Martyr U Razak, U Pe Khin who was an Ambassador for Pakistan didn't claim any right for Indians and Indian Muslims living in Burma since British occupation of Burma to sign on Pan Long agreement as native decedents. Why? Because they are not ethnics but legally recognized citizens of Burma. They had full citizenship right but not ethnic right to claim their own state. Why didn't such Muslims claim a state on behalf of rohigyas? Could you find any word called rohingya in Burmese history of Independence?
With reference to a book namely "Races of Burma" compiled by a British officer, we can voice loudly that THERE IS NO ROHINGYA in Burma but Bengalis as British stated. In this article, you have mentioned that there was no specific entry date of ethnic groups into Burma. Yes, there is no historically proved statistics of immigration to Burma before British occupation. However, in 1947 Burma constitution, ethnic status will be for those who have been residing in Burma before A.D 1824, just 61 years before King of Upper Burma was overthrown by British.
o, it will be very groundless if a new ethnic tribe migrated into Burma after 1824 because British have already controlled coastal lines of Lower Burma. No record of any new migration but proves of migrated Bengalis into Arakan state.
No historical record of Rohingya by British during colonial period. No evidence of them in Burmese monarchy. What does it mean?
More importantly, you should go back to population statistics of Arakan in colonial time done by British authorities so that biased approach will be avoided. In that statistics, you will surely find races and number of people properly listed by British but no name of Rohingya will be found. What are all these meaning?
Yap, they are pointing certainly to the fact that today rohingyas are formerly Chittagonian Benglis from Bangladesh.
Furthermore, what rohingyas claim today isn't a citizenship status as you superficially commented. They are claiming ethnic status which will offer the right as other ethnic groups have, for instance, to have their own state like Shan Federal State. For natives suffering for long decades of oppression by military junta, such claim of historically non-native immigrants using fake histories will be a huge blow to them. Simply, a hit to vulnerable point.
I would like to kindly ask you whether you have researched thoroughly in Burmese history, specifically in Arakan-Burmese relation and Arakanese Kingdom?
Let's turn to your way of presentation again. You did mention about Ko Ko Gyi's comment as a hipocrisy. If so, why didn't you describe the strong comment of a Muslim activist Mya Aye on this issue? Mya Aye, father of Wai Hnin who is a campaign officer at Burma Campaign UK having a good relationship with Burmese Rohingya Organization, has obviously stated that they, native muslims, have to stand out for native Arakanese in order to fight against influx of illegal immigrants from explosively pop0ulating Bangladesh. Why did you leave his strong signals in Muslim Protest at Sule?
Burmese politics is at a very fragile period and can easily be reversed by a number of situations. Even natives like ethnic Karens, Shans, Kachins and others were neglected by central government. How can such an impoverished country offer great opportunities like Australia, UK , USA and Canada to stateless people? Again, Rohingyas may account for nearly 800000 which will surely be a burden for one of the world's poorest countries.
Can first world nations offer such a number of people for residence? Please kindly answer my question. We provide our land, soil, currency and others under a highly corrupt bureaucracy. So, we are assisting them for survival with as much as we can.
Yes, we will never deny humanitarian aids to support stateless people. However, ethnicity claim is serious challenge to a state's sovereignty and strength of her history. Citizenship status is a very issue legal experts will have to consider and a local affair that will only be concerned with Burmese.
So, look before you leap Francis. Do thorough research before making presentation. It's so frustrating to see such too much superficial and less-efforted article.
http://asiancorrespondent.com/84972/the-hypocrisy-of-burmas-pro-democracy-movement/
Myo Set
He is christian extreme. He would like to see Musulim fight with buddhist. So he could prove that buddhism is no longer peaceful.
ReplyDelete