Contents

❖ Introduction

❖ History ❖ Religion ❖ Rohingya Massacre ❖ Strategy And Activities In 2012 ❖ Rohingya Riots ❖ 2012 Unhcr Country Operations Profile - Bangladesh ❖ Why Rohingyas Being Refused Bangladesh Entry? ❖ Illegal Migrants ❖ Banned In Bangladesh ❖ Waiting For Democracy ❖ Under The 'Nasaka' ❖ Case Refferences Of Citizenship

Introduction
The Rohingya are a Muslim people who live in the Arakan region. The origin of the term "Rohingya" is disputed. Some Rohingya historians like Khalilur Rahman contended that the term Rohingya is derived from Arabic word 'Raham' meaning sympathy. They trace the term back to the ship wreck in 8th century AD. According to them, after the Arab ship wrecked near Ramree Island, Arab traders were ordered to be executed by Arakanese king. Then, they shouted in their language, 'Raham'. Hence, these people were called 'Raham'. Gradually it changed from Raham to Rhohang and finally to Rohingyas. However, the claim was refuted by Jahiruddin Ahmed and Nazir Ahmed, former president and Secretary of Arakan Muslim Conference respectively. They argued that ship wrecked Muslims are currently called 'Thambu Kya' Muslims and currently residing along the Arakan sea shore. Should the term Rohingya derive from these Muslims, "Thambu Kyas" would have been the first group to be known as Ruhaingyas. According to them, Rohingyas were descendants of inhabitants of Ruha in Afghanistan. Another historian, MA Chowdhury argued that among the Muslim populations, the term 'Mrohaung' (Old Arakanese Kingdom) is corrupted to Rohang. And thus inhabitants of the region are called Rohingya.
History
Although Muslim settlements have existed in Arakan since the arrival of Arabs there in the 8th century AD, there is no clear connection between these early Arabs and the Rohingya, especially since the Rohingya are in many ways more Bengali. The direct descendants of Arab settlers live in central Arakan near Mrauk-U and Kyauktaw townships, not in the Mayu Frontier Area, the present day Rohingya populated area.
The British census of 1891 reported 58,255 Muslims in Arakan. By 1911, the Muslim population had increased to 178,647. The waves of immigration were primary due to the requirement of cheap labor from British India to work in the paddy fields.
In 1939, The British authorities, who were wary of the long term animosity between the Rakhine Buddhists and the Rohingya Muslims, formed a special Investigation Commission led by James Ester and U Tin Htut to study the issue of Muslim immigration into the Rakhine state. The commission recommended securing the border, however, with the onset of World War II, the British retreated from Arakan.
Religion
Religion is particularly important to the Rohingya people, who are predominantly Muslims. Mosques and religious schools occupy most villages. Traditionally, men pray in congregation and women pray at home.
Rohingya massacre
During World War II, Japanese forces invaded Burma, then under British colonial rule. The British forces retreated and in the power vacuum left behind, considerable violence erupted. This included communal violence between Buddhist Rakhine people and Muslim Rohingya villagers. The period also witnessed violence between groups loyal to the British and Burmese nationalists. The Rohingya supported the Allies during the war and opposed the Japanese forces, assisting the Allies in reconnaissance.
The Japanese committed atrocities toward thousands of Rohingya, including rape, torture, and murder. In this period, some 22,000 Rohingya are believed to have crossed the border into Bengal, then part of British India, to escape the violence. In return, with the weapons supplied by the allies, Rohingya massacred 20,000 Arakanese including Deputy Commissioner U Oo Kyaw Khaing.
40,000 Rohingya eventually fled to Chittagong after repeated massacres by the Burmese and Japanese forces.
Strategy and activities in 2012
UNHCR's regional strategy with respect to the Muslim refugees from Myanmar's northern Rakhine State aims at stabilizing the communities in the countries where they currently reside, while addressing the root causes of their displacement. In Bangladesh, in addition to improving the conditions in the camps, UNHCR and its partners will seek to ensure that basic services (such as health care, education and access to justice) are provided without discrimination to all people in Cox's Bazar district.
Due to the competition over scarce natural resources and employment, local residents in Cox's Bazar feel pressured by the presence of the large number of refugees in the district. Tension has been escalating over the years between local villagers and refugees. Host-community programmes are critical to fostering co-existence between the two groups. UNHCR collaborates with the Government and other partners to improve the situation of both the host community and the unregistered population from Myanmar, mainly through community-based support and the provision of training to NGOs.
Rohingya riots
2012 Rakhine State riots are a series of ongoing conflicts between Rohingya Muslims and ethnic Rakhine in northern Rakhine State, Myanmar. The riots came after weeks of sectarian disputes and have been condemned by most people on both sides of the conflict. The immediate cause of the riots is unclear, with many commentators citing the killing of ten Burmese Muslims by ethnic Rakhine after the rape and murder of a Rakhine woman as the main cause. Over three hundred houses and a number of public buildings have been razed. As of June 13, officially there have been 21 casualties, although some reports put the actual number as high as 30.The government has responded by imposing curfews and by deploying troops in the regions. On June 10, state of emergency was declared in Rakhine, allowing military to participate in administration of the region.

2012 UNHCR country operations profile - Bangladesh
The context
[pic]
In what constitutes one of the most protracted displacement situations in the world, Bangladesh hosts more than 29,000 refugees from Myanmar's northern Rakhine State. These refugees, who are members of an ethnic, linguistic and religious minority in Myanmar, reside in the two camps of Kutupalong and Nayapara in Bangladesh's south-eastern district of Cox's Bazar. This population is what remains of the 250,000 refugees from Myanmar who arrived in 1991, most of whom subsequently returned home.
The Government estimates that another 200,000 unregistered people of concern from Myanmar live in Bangladesh without any legal status, mostly in the villages outside the camps. Up to 40,000 of them live adjacent to or near Kutupalong and Nayapara camps, forming two settlements called the Kutupalong Makeshift Site and the Leda Site.
Bangladesh is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention nor its 1967 Protocol. In the absence of a national refugee law, UNHCR conducts refugee status determination (RSD) of urban asylum-seekers in Dhaka. Currently there are around 230 refugees supported by UNHCR, mostly non-Muslim Myanmar nationals from Rakhine State.
Though Bangladesh is among the world's least developed countries, with a population density of more than 900 people per square kilometre, government policies have brought some improvements to the lives of registered refugees over the past few years. The quality of life for most refugees, however, remains very poor. Moreover, high levels of poverty and illiteracy in Cox's Bazar district contribute to negative attitudes towards the refugees, affecting the unregistered population in particular. This has resulted in some 30,000-40,000 unregistered people of concern from Myanmar settling spontaneously outside Kutupalong Camp, where sanitary conditions are poor, and the malnutrition rate is even higher than in the registered camps.
In the years 2006-2010, more than 900 refugees were resettled to third countries. However, in November 2010, the Bangladesh authorities suspended resettlement pending the formulation of a refugee policy. UNHCR has made strong appeals to the Government to revoke its suspension of the resettlement programme.
Why Rohingyas being refused Bangladesh entry?

MYANMAR is a multi-religious country with 60 million people. Statistics show that 89% of the population are Buddhists, 4% are Christians, 4% are Muslims, and 3% follow other religions, including Hinduism and the Bahá’í Faith. The name “Rohingya” is derived from “Rohang,” believed to be the ancient name of the Rakhine (Arakan) state of Myanmar. The recent violence in Rakhine state has led many Rohingyas to flee Myanmar and attempt to cross the 200-kilometre porous border with Bangla desh. Around 40% of the population of the Rakhine state is estimated to be Muslim. Bangladesh shares borders with two Myanmar states Rakhine (Arakan) and Chin. Most people of Chin state practice Christianity and no refugees came from Chin state to Bangladesh.

Besides Rakhine Muslims, there are Muslims living in other parts of Myanmar. They came from Gujarat (India) and China, and live peacefully with other ethnic groups in various parts of the country, including Yangon. Rohingyas look similar to Bangladesh people living in the southeast and speak in a dialect which is close to that of Bangladesh people on the border. They can easily mingle with the local people.

It is reported that the recent unrest began on June 3 after the police in Rakhine detained three Muslim men (Rohingyas) in relation to the rape and killing of a Buddhist woman late last month. That was followed by a wanton attack by Buddhists on a bus in early June in which 10 Muslims were killed. 13 Buddhist Rakhines and 16 Rohingyas have been killed, Myanmar officials told AP last week. The question is, given the unrest in the Rakine state can Rohingyas be considered as “refugees” under the UN 1951 Convention on Refugees or its 1967 Protocol.

To be eligible as a refugee, there must be “well-founded fear of persecution” by the state. The present unrest emanated from an allegedly criminal act on a Buddhist female by some Rohingyas and did not arise from persecution by the authorities. It is considered as a law and order issue for Myanmar. Bangladesh is not a party to the UN Convention of the Refugees and there is no legal obligation to accept them. There could be, however, a moral or humanitarian obligation in a war-like situation, but given the sectarian clash between minority and majority groups in the Rakhine state, Rohingyas cannot arguably come within the definition of “refugees.”

On June 13, Bangladeshi Foreign Minister Dr. Dipu Moni said Bangladesh was not willing to give shelter to Rohingyas despite international calls for opening the border. “We’re already burdened with thousands of Rohingya refugees staying in Bangladesh and we don’t want any more,” she reportedly said. In my view, the stance of the government is correct. Some reasons are given below:

First, Bangladesh is an overpopulated country compared to its territorial size (about 160 million people squeezed in an area of 147, 570 square kilometres). Bangladeshi officials estimate that there are 300,000 Rohingyas already in the country, with about a tenth of them in two official refugee camps in the southern district of Cox’s Bazaar. Second, Rohingya refugees are a heavy burden on Bangladesh’s economy and scant resources.
Illegal Migrants
Rohingya activists claim a centuries-old lineage in Rakhine, which like the rest of Burma is predominantly Buddhist. The government regards them as illegal migrants from neighboring Bangladesh and denies them citizenship. "There is no ethnic group named Rohingya in our country," immigration minister Khin Yi said in May.
Communal tensions had been rising in Myanmar since the gang rape and murder of a Buddhist woman last month that was blamed on Muslims. Six days later, apparently in retribution, a Buddhist mob dragged 10 Muslims from a bus and beat them to death.
Violence then erupted on June 9 in Maungdaw, one of the three Rohingya-majority districts bordering Bangladesh, before spreading to Sittwe, the biggest town in Rakhine. Scores are feared dead, and 1,600 houses burnt down.
One measure of the pressure the Rohingya are under is the growing number of boat people. During the so-called "sailing season" between monsoons, thousands of Rohingya attempt to cross the Bay of Bengal in small, ramshackle fishing boats. Their destination: Muslim-majority Malaysia, where thousands of Rohingya work, mostly illegally.
Last season, up to 8,000 Rohingya boat people - a record number - made the crossing, says Chris Lewa, director of the Arakan Project, a Rohingya advocacy group based in Thailand. She has studied their migration patterns since 2006.
Banned In Bangladesh
The violence in Rakhine could cause a surge in Rohingya boat people when the next sailing season begins in October, Rohingya leaders say. "The amount of boat people will increase and increase," said Abu Tahay, chairman of the National Democratic Party for Development, a Rohingya political party.
In what could be the start of a regional refugee crisis, many Rohingya are already attempting the shorter voyage to neighboring Bangladesh.
Bangladesh, like Myanmar, disowns the Rohingyas and has refused to grant them refugee status since 1992. Now, according to a Bangladeshi commander, hundreds have been turned away.
At Shah Pari, a Bangladeshi island on the Naf River dividing Bangladesh and Myanmar, Lieutenant Colonel Zahid Hassan of the Bangladesh Border Guard said the force has sent back 14 wooden country boats since the violence flared in early June, bearing a total of some 700 men, women and children.
Hassan said the boat people were given food, water and medicines before being turned back. His men are now holding back local Bangladeshi villagers and limiting how far fishermen can go out into the river to prevent them from helping would-be "illegal intruders." Peace has been restored since Myanmar imposed its state of emergency, he said, and his men are telling the boat people it is safe to return.
Asked to explain why majority-Muslim Bangladesh did not feel an obligation to take the Rohingyas in, he said: "This is an over-populated country. The country doesn't have the capacity to accommodate these additional people."
Waiting For Democracy
Government officials say they already harbor about 25,000 Rohingyas with refugee status, who receive food and other aid from the United Nations, housed in two camps in southeastern Bangladesh. Officials say there are also between 200,000 and 300,000 "undocumented" Rohingyas - with no refugee status and no legal rights. These people live outside the camps, dependent on local Bangladeshis in a poverty-plagued district for work and sustenance.
Among them is 48-year-old Kalim Ullah, a Rohingya father of three living in an unofficial camp where children bathe in a chocolate-brown pond. He fled here in 1992, after violence that followed the watershed 1990 vote won by Suu Kyi and overturned by the military. He holds up a hand to show a half-stump where his thumb had been before he says it was shot off by a Myanmar soldier.
"They tortured me and I was evicted from my house so we came to Bangladesh," he said. "Now I am waiting for repatriation, I am waiting for democracy in my own country."
Myanmar's neighbors have quietly pressed the country to improve conditions in Rakhine to stop the outflow of refugees. Perhaps as a result, Thein Sein's government this year began easing some travel restrictions, says Rohingya leader Kyaw Min. But these small gains look likely to be suspended or scrapped after the recent bloodshed.
The Rohingya in Myanmar are usually landless as well as stateless, and scratch a living from low-paid casual labor. Four in five households in northern Rakhine State were in debt, the World Food Program reported in 2011. Many families borrow money just to buy food.
Food insecurity had worsened since 2009, said the program, which called for urgent humanitarian assistance. A 2010 survey by the French group Action Against Hunger found a malnutrition rate of 20 percent, which is far above the emergency threshold set by the World Health Organization.
Under The 'NASAKA'
The Rohingya are overseen by the Border Administration Force, better known as the Nasaka, a word derived from the initials of its Burmese name. Unique to the region, the Nasaka consists of officers from the police, military, customs and immigration. They control every aspect of Rohingya life.
"They have total power," says Abu Tahay, the Rohingya politician. Documented human-rights abuses blamed on the Nasaka include rape, forced labor and extortion. Rohingya cannot travel or marry without the Nasaka's permission, which is never secured without paying bribes, activists say. The former military government has in the past called these allegations "fabrications."
"There are hundreds of restrictions and extortions," says Rohingya leader Kyaw Min. "The Nasaka have a free hand because government policy is behind them. And that policy is to starve and impoverish the Rohingya."
Burmese officials say the tight controls on the borders are essential to national security. Speaking in Myanmar's parliament last September, immigration minister Khin Yi made no mention of alleged abuses, but said the Nasaka was vital for preventing "illegal Bengali migration" and cross-border crime.
Case Refferences of Citizenship
1. Bangladesh Vs. Professor Golam Azam (46 DLR (AD) 192)

In the leading judgment on citizenship in the case of Bangladesh Vs. Professor
Golam Azam (46 DLR (AD) 192), the Appellate Division has pronounced that “during the British period, the collective British legislation known as the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914 to 1943, determined the citizenship of British citizens as well as the sub-continental inhabitants who were known as “British subjects”. The concept of “British subjects” was a concept of common law. The Appellate Division further pronounced: “ when this common law doctrine became unworkable, the UK Parliament enacted the British Nationality Act, 1948,following a general agreement between the U.K. Government and Commonwealth countries including India and Pakistan. Thereafter separate laws of citizenship were passed by the different Commonwealth countries including India and Pakistan on similar lines”.

The Appellate Division further says, “ During the period from 1948 to 1951,
Pakistani citizens were only potentially so. They enjoyed Commonwealth Citizenship which was synonymous with British subjects without citizenship. The
Commonwealth Citizenship was to continue under section I of the British Nationality Act, 1948 until Pakistan enacted its own citizenship laws.”

When Pakistan enacted its citizenship law in 1951, provisions were made for 7 different classes of citizens, namely, (1) a person who shall be deemed to be a citizen of Pakistan, i.e. who will be citizens by a legal fiction (2) citizen by birth (3) citizen by descent (4) citizen by migration (5) citizen by naturalization (6) citizen by registration and (7) citizen by incorporation of territory. P.O. No. 149 of 1972, as amended up to date, takes care of only the above-mentioned class (1) of citizen and of acceptance of dual citizenship (not permitted by section 14 of the said Act.) On all other provisions governing citizenship, P.O. No. 149 of 1972 does not contain anything further. Our law of citizenship is still governed by Temporary Provisions and is an incomplete law.

34 years unto independence it is high time that a full-fledged and consolidated law of citizenship be enacted to cover all classes of citizens and to meet all manners of situations presently perceived in relation to them, keeping in view the vested rights of citizens already accrued under P.O. No. 149 of 1972 and also omitting as unnecessary owing to passage of time and change of circumstances some of the obsolete provisions of P.O. No. 149 of 1972.

For the purpose of recommending for enactment of a single comprehensive law for the citizenship of Bangladesh we have studied the Indian Constitution, the
Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 (Act No. 57 of 1955), the Sri Lankan Citizenship Act,
1955 Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 (Act No. II of 1951), Article 152 of the
Constitution of Bangladesh and our P.O. No. 149 of 1972, as amended up to date, and the Rules framed there under.

In the landmark Appellate Division case of Bangladesh v. Professor Golam Azam,
MH Rahman J. emphasized the importance of citizenship in Bangladesh:
“Our Constitution, although repeatedly using the term citizen, did not define Bangladesh citizenship. Citizenship, though not mentioned as a fundamental right in our Constitution, is to be considered as the right of all rights as on it depends one’s right to fundamental rights expressly provided for a citizenship in Part III of the Constitution and his right to seek Court’s protection of those rights.”
Latifur Rahman J. further explained:
“The citizens of a country are members of a political community to which they belong and they compose State and they establish the Government for the promotion of their general welfare and for the protection of their individual as well as their collective rights in the State. The citizens of a State enjoy full fundamental, civil and political rights.”
Article 6 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh 1972, merely states that “the citizenship of Bangladesh shall be determined and regulated by law.”

2. Mukhtar Ahmed v.Government of Bangladesh and Abdul Khaleque v. Court of Settlement

It is said that the mere filing of an application for the citizenship of another country or application for “repatriation” to Pakistan did not affect one’s Bangladeshi citizenship status. In the Mukhtar Ahmed case, the High Court held:
“The mere fact that he filed an application for going over to Pakistan cannot take away his citizenship. The Bangladesh Citizenship Order, PO 149 of 1972, has enumerated different situations in which a person shall be deemed to be a citizen of Bangladesh, but it has not discriminated among its citizens no matter in which way they have become citizens of this country. So, the petitioner is on the same footing as any other citizen. His citizenship, therefore, clings to him. He could voluntarily renounce it or he could be deprived of it if he had incurred any disqualification. Though he filed the application, he did not even pursue it. He filed an affidavit affirming his allegiance to Bangladesh in 1972. The petitioners having not acquired the citizenship of any other country, his citizenship of Bangladesh which he has acquired long before cannot evaporate and he continues to be a citizen of this country.”

The High Court in the Abid Khan case further cited with approval the Professor Golam case and observed that “even a diehard pro-Pakistani, born in this country, is entitled to be a citizen of Bangladesh if he fulfils the requirements under Article 2 and is not disqualified under clause (1) of Article 2B.”24 The High Court in the Abid Khan case continued and said that the petitioners “are in a much better footing than the petitioners in the above cited cases. They did not even apply for citizenship of another country nor did they apply for repatriation in Pakistan.”25 Accordingly the first group of petitioners was found to be Bangladeshi citizens under Article 2(i) of the Citizenship Order as they were not disqualified under Article 2B (1).

For the petitioners who were born after independence (the second group), the court said “their case appears to be simple in view of section 4 of the Citizenship Act 1951.”26 Section 4 states: “Citizenship by birth – Every person born in Bangladesh after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of Bangladesh by birth.” The court reiterated that the continued residence of the second group in the Geneva Camp is of no consequence as they are Bangladeshi citizens by birth.
The court then directed the respondents to enroll the names of the petitioners in the electoral roll and register them as voters. This case is important for several reasons. Even though the decision is not strictly speaking binding on the Appellate Division or the High Court, as it stands, it is the most up to date and clear decision on the citizenship status of the Biharis. The Government did not appeal the case to the Appellate Division and it remains a precedent. Even though in general, the courts have been protective of the rights of the Biharis living in the settlements as evident from the many disputes over the settlement land and the supply of electricity, this is the first time that issues that touch upon their citizenship were decided.