Bharat cannot afford to invite a fresh security threat in the immigrant Rohingyas who have started building militant cells in the refugee camps
S Chandrasekaran
On August 25 last, the Arkan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) attacked Myanmar Police and Military installations resulting in heavy casualties. On September 5, the Myanmar Government Information Committee released a statement saying “cities that could be attacked included Naypyitaw, Yangon, Mandalay and Mawlamyine, and that the ARSA has foreign ties and that its members had received training abroad as migrants”. The Britain moved an agenda in United Nations Security Council for discussions on Rohingya issue but was overruled by China with the support of Russia. It is just a fortnight old development with continuous actions and reactions.
The ARSA is led by Ata Ullah, a Rohingya man who was born in Karachi, Pakistan, and grew up in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. Reports indicate that the Cox’s Bazaar and remote areas in Bangladesh are becoming refugee recruitment places by Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jamatul Mujahideen and Pakistani Taliban. Top Myanmar daily Kaler Kantha also confirmed that Rohingya militants received training in Pakistan in 2012. According to reports, their aim was covert killings in Bangladesh, India and Myanmar, with most of the Rohingya militants reportedly being recruited from refugee camps in Cox’s Bazaar area. On September 2, in a video message released by Al Qaeda’s al-Malahem media foundation, Khaled Batarfi called on the Muslims in Bangladesh, India, Indonesia and Malaysia to support their Rohingya Muslim brethren against the “enemies of Allah.” Batarfi, who was freed from a Yemeni prison in 2015 when Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) seized the port city of Mukalla, also urged Al Qaeda’s Indian Subcontinent (AQIS) branch to carry out attacks. The issue of Rohingya cannot be seen just in the prism of humanity but also in the context of history, security and future of Bharat and Bharatiya ethos.
Pak Connection
While going into history, it is evident, at the meet of the Muslim League, which was held at Lahore in March 1940, Jinnah declared that Muslims “must have their homelands,
their territory, and their state”. Subsequently, a resolution was passed calling for the creation of autonomous and sovereign Muslim states in areas where the Muslims were in a majority, which were to be welded together into a single Muslim nation. In order to create Northern part of Rakhine, separate from the native majority of Myanmar in much a replica of Pakistan, was initiated post-1948 with a title of Mujtahid Seperatist movement, a by-product of the nationalist movement of the Muslim League.
The origin of so-called “Rohingya” issue has its historical roots in Pakistan. Evidence to this, Pakistan refused to extradite the fugitive Mujtahid Leader, Abdul Kassim, who along with most military operatives and political activists sought refuge in then East Pakistan. No wonder, the creation of ‘Rohingyasthan’ could have given a contiguous geographical area for Pakistan in East and also a strategic advantage to disturb over India’s the North East States.
While looking into the issue of ‘Rohingya’, it is necessary to look into the genesis of this term. No historical records like gazetteer, reports, files, etc of British India ever mention the term “Rohingya”. The moot point is that the identity of “Rohingya” is a ‘political construction’. Looking after those refugees with food, water and shelter could be based on our culture, but at the same time, it is inevitable to assess the “state of mind” of Individual Refugee, Group of Refugees and their linked organizations such as Rohingya Solidarity Organization, the Arakan Rohingya National Organization and Arakan Rohingya Islamic Front. The issue of Rohingya and related organisations have been historically supported by the number of nations on basis of ‘Muslim brotherhood’. The issue of deporting 40,000 Rohingya refugees from Bharat should not only be seen in human perspective but also the vulnerability of their “state of mind” to influence the security architecture of Bharat. We may remember, the Indian Army conducted a surprise raid on camps relating to North Eastern State Insurgency group in Rakhine, Myanmar. If Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army is allowed to position politically and militarily, it will become a direct threat to the security of North Eastern States of Bharat.
Migrants’ Making
Voluntary repatriation to their home countries is the preferred outcome for refugees. A migrant is a migrant and cannot stay for indefinite period in any country. Hungary, Austria, Macedonia, Croatia, and Slovenia never allowed migrants to even pass through. In July, 2017, Italy planned to issue temporary travel visa for migrants in the European Union. Austria immediately threatened to shut the borders with Italy. Though Germany allowed a number of migrants during 2016, it had suffered terrorist attacks and faced constant security threat. Entire Europe is reeling under security threat for last two years. The Syrian Migrant crisis created a huge uproar in the European Union and finally led to economic catastrophe – BRXIT, which is a historical lesson
post- World War II for each nation.
The Policy Position of European Commission and Germany has now changed from 2016 to 2017 and it made a deal with Turkey worth of Rs. 22,110 Crore for deportation of the Syrian refugees. Similarly, European Commission had discussed financial package with Afghanistan to send its refugees. Being, just a developing economy with resource constraints, Bharat has to spend its finances judiciously and cannot afford to take a role like European Commission in view of financial assistances. NGOs rather than applying huge pressure on Bharat’s Government, should discuss with resource rich oil countries to support such migrants.
The issue of Rohingya refugee has direct ramifications for global powers in view of strategic positioning powers in Indian Ocean Rim through energy, pipeline, ports, etc in Myanmar. An eminent leader like Myanmar leader Aung San Suu Kyi, a noble peace prize winner, must be taking a neutral position based on facts. She never supported Rohingya, which underlines the gravity of the issue.
The history has taught lessons on migrations. The dilution of ethnicity and cultural identity will result in change of maps. Such cartographical changes may not happen in a day or month or years but through such processes and designs in long-term. On January 16, 2016, the reputed Economist Magazine quoted, “To absorb newcomers peacefully, Europe must insist they respect values such as tolerance and sexual equality”. The underlining caption is to “respect values”, which is a fundemental issue in the context of ‘Rohingya’. Our humanity and value system should not threaten our own existence in future. The deportation of 40,000 Rohingya Refugee should not only be seen as problem of refugee but also as ‘State of Mind’ and ‘Recognition of Value’.
Deadly Designs
If there is a serious analysis and study on migrants in Bharat, it will bring out new facts to the public on the designs relating to security and demographic re-engineering. Though various reports suggest that Bharat has got 40,000 Rohingya refugees, the UNHCR has merely issued 14,000 identification cards. Managing such large number of migrants is a serious security issue. These refugee camps never prevent them working outside its premise. So refugees has got open access to near by places and also anti-national elements could access them. These refugees are vulnerable to get recruited by the terrorist organization and could be used by ISI, which is a real threat to Bharat. A continuous stay with such “State of Mind” by Refugees, Bharat provides an opportunity to Pakistan and anti-national forces to use them in their design. The forces cannot mis-utilize Bharat’s secular and liberal values to endanger our security and social fabric. Any attempt to undertake demographic re-engineering in selected pockets using Rohingya refugees, who are ethinically and culturally distinct from Bharat, is a long-term threat to nation’s parliament and constitution.
(The write is a South-East Asia expert)
Comments