[postlink]
https://burmacampaignjapanteam.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-rohingya-identity-trick.html
[/postlink]
# THE ‘ROHINGYA’ - IDENTITY TRICK
...................................................
# The Invention of the ‘ROHINGYA’ and the Manipulation of History and Facts
# In 1960, the Mujahid insurgency was finally (but only temporarily) defeated by General Ne Win. Then the Muslim leadership realized that they needed a new story about the Muslims in Arakan - and they embraced a new identity - and they now called themselves ‘Rohingya’.
This new word helped to make it much easier to manipulate media and opinion. The terms Bengali-Muslim and Chittagong-Muslim indicate - quite obviously - that they came from outside Burma, and that they had roots in, Bengal or specifically the Chittagong area of Bengal. The term Rohingya carries no similar eaning, making it much easier to spread the ‘new history’ which now says that the Rohingya actually have been inhabitants of this land for a long long time. To dominate the region, they must become ‘indigenous residents’ of the region and they need that to be unquestionably accepted by the international community.
# Repeated lies become a false truth over time - it is happening now.
# The Rohingya and the pro-Rohingya groups will make these claims and others:
# Claim 1 -The Rohingya are Actually Indigenous to Arakan.
• Arakan has had a Buddhist identity (before that - Vedic/Hindu), verified by archaeology (royal capital cities, inscriptions on stone which lists kings and royal dynasties), artifacts, books and manuscripts, and many of these date back over 1000 years before Islam even existed.
• There is no archeological evidence of major Muslim cities, palaces, or large
population.
# Claim 2 - The Rohingya came from Muslim Persian, Turkish, and Bengali Traders,
Shipwrecked in the 7th century, on the Shores of Arakan.
• It was in the 13th century that the Bengal area and the Turkish lands even started to become Muslim. Bengal was mostly Buddhist for nearly 2000 years. Its last Buddhist dynasty - starting in the 8th century and known as the Pala Empire - weakened after the destruction of the famous ancient Buddhist university of Nalanda by Muslim invaders in the late 12th century and succumbed to the Muslim conquest in the 13th century, with large scale conversions starting, and continuing for centuries. Turkey started changing to Islam in the 13th century, and its Roman Empire capital of Constantinople (now Istanbul) fell to the Muslim armies in the 15th century. Non-Muslims were required to pay a ‘jiyza’ (tax) in order to remain non-Muslim. For a couple of centuries the majority of Persians were not Muslim, though they were ruled by the Arab Muslims.
• It is in the 7th century that Mohammed lived and Islam began - and Arakan was 5000 long miles away. The shipwreck stories are just that - stories. There is no evidence or correlating material. Around the world there are stories of shipwrecks and ship journeys - including the story of Noah’s Ark.
• Thus, it is abundantly clear that such statements as we have today, about Muslims arriving in Arakan in the 7th century, are undisputedly false, and impossible to be true. And, it verifies, again, the fact that the Rohingya and their supporters are engaged in putting out so much false media.
• It can even be said that if, indeed, sailors from those areas actually landed in Arakan, then they most certainly most certainly were not Muslim!
# Claim 3 - The language ‘Rohingya’ and the ‘Rohingya’ people originated and existed
long ago, in Arakan.
• The only old reference to ‘Rohingya’ is in a book printed in 1799 - A Comparative Vocabulary of Some of the Languages Spoken in the Burma Empire - by Francis Buchanan8. The Rohingya mention this book and quote one sentence, which they think validates their claims.
Much of the book deals with the four main languages of the Burma area - which include the Burmese and the Arakanese languages. Buchanan then mentions three small dialects, derived from the languages of the‘Hindu Nation’ (India), one of which he called ‘Rooinga’ which is spoken by ‘Mohammedans’ (Muslims) who live in Arakan.
# From the book:
• The proper natives of Arakan, call themselves Yakain, which name is also commonly given to them by the Burmas. (Yakain = Rakhine. Burmas = Burmese) The ‘proper natives’ is quite definitive.
• I shall now add three dialects, spoken in the Burma empire, but evidently derived from the language of the Hindu nation. (The Hindu nation = India, at that time British India, which included Bengal areas, but not Arakan.)
• The first is that spoken by the the Mohammedans, who have been long settled in Arakan, and who call themselves Rooinga, or natives of Arakan. (This is the one sentence that the Rohingya try to use to support their claims.) ‘long settled’ is vague. How long? 50 years? 100 years? However, it is clear what ‘long settled’ does NOT mean - it doesn’t mean ‘native’, or ‘proper natives’, or ‘indigenous’. And ‘settled’ means, came from somewhere else and settled here or there, though not long enough to be considered ‘native’.
Hence, the next sentence:
• Both these tribes, by the real natives of Arakan, are called Kulaw Yakain, or stranger Arakan. (Buchanan is referring to the ‘Mohammedans’ and the ‘Hindus’ when he writes: ‘Both these tribes’). Again, he recognizes that the Yakain (Rakhine) Buddhists are the ‘real natives’ which implies, ‘the mother culture’, and that the Muslims and Hindus are ‘outsiders’ or ‘strangers’ who use languages from India.
The adaptation of the term ‘Rohingya’ was a clever political move - to reinvent the history and claim a solid link to the land. However, the term ‘Rooinga’ or ‘Rohingya’ was not noted at all - during the following 150 years - in any other study or reference other than Buchanan’s book. This indicates that the term was so unimportant, and/ or the population of Muslims at that time was so small and insignificant, that perhaps Muslims in one town, or a small area, called themselves ‘Rooinga’, but other small communities of Muslims didn’t know that term. And, when the term was seemingly invented, or reinvented - in the 1950s, nobody knew it or recognized it, many even didn’t like it.
Most people in the world do not forget what they call themselves - The French didn’t forget that they were French and spoke French language, and the Chin didn’t forget that they are called Chin and spoke one or more Chin languages. However, the term ‘Rooinga’ was entirely forgotten for 150 years, since being briefly mentioned in Buchanan’s book. It was not mentioned by the Dutch, the Portuguese, the Chinese, the Indians, or the bureaucratic British.
The Muslims didn’t seem to use it, which means that it obviously was not an important word for them, they forgot about it, it was not used by the Bengal Muslims, not used by the Chittagong Muslims, not used by the Bengali V-force, not used by the Mujahid Party in 1948 when they gave an ultimatum to the government, and not used by the Mujahidin Army which launched a ‘jihad’ (holy war in the name of Allah) on Burma. It was not used by Bogyoke Aung San, and also not used by U Nu - who had many dealings with the Muslims of Burma.
• During the British colonial period the Muslims called themselves Bengali Muslims, or often more specifically, Chittagong Muslims.
• Buchanan’s book actually proves that the Bengali Muslims (Rohingya) are not indigenous to Arakan. Buchanan defined the Yakain (Rakhine) as the ‘native’ people of the land, and also, the ‘proper’ people.
• When ‘Rohingya’ started to be used, it was a new word for everybody - and it had a purpose - to turn attention away from the terms ‘Bengali Muslims’ or ‘Chittagong Muslims’ or ‘Arakan Muslim’ which clearly show the origins of the person in question.
If the word ‘Rohingya’ or ‘Rooinga’ existed long ago to describe those people why did they never use it?
# Claim 4 - Many Arakan Kings Were Muslim.
• It is rather absurd to claim that some Arakan Kings were actually Muslim. Some point to coins of a certain time that had a Persian script on them (4th coin below). But that does not prove the Kingdoms were Muslim at all. For some time the Arakan Kingdom included parts of Bengal (including the Chittagong area) which had become majority Muslim after q nearly 2000 year Buddhist history.
• Persia was defeated and occupied by the Muslim Arab armies in the 7th century, but, only an estimated 10% of the Persian population became Muslim at that time. The conversion to Islam was very gradual in Persia, and took a couple of centuries - during which time more than a millenium of Buddhist history. Having the Persian script on the coins gave the Buddhists more legitimate rule over the Muslims.
• Also, concerning the coins - consider that U.S. one dollar bills have Latin phrases, Roman numerals, an Egyptian pyramid and the ‘Eye of Horus’ on them. Chinese money has five languages on them: Chinese Mandarin, Tibetan, Mongolian, Zhuang, and the Muslim minority Uigher language - and, in addition, has Western numbers - and China clearly is not beholden to any one of those cultures. Hilltribe people in many areas of Southeast Asia still have and value old British Indian Rupees. Even North Korean and Iranian money has some English and western numbers. So, the appearance of other languages on a country’s currency does not necessarily show power or influence of those other entities.
