Burma is for Buddhists

[alaungphaya]

If we give it a couple of centuries, at this rate, even Burma can say that there was no ethnic group by the name "Rohingya"!! No?



That's exactly what I am talking about! The double standards we have when we talk about countries like India and Burma! We may have declared ourselves as democratic and secular but we are perfect and hopefully we will be 100% secular one day.

But what about the Muslim countries who are not secular even for namesake and continue to persecute non-Muslim even as we speak (even in Bangladesh which shares borders with Burma)? Don't their lives matter much? What right do Muslim countries have when they criticise Burma when they don't provide basic rights to their non-Muslim citizens?

It's inevitable that the ones who belong should be integrated but these people don't do themselves any favours. They need to start sending their kids to state schools and not madrassas, learn to speak Burmese, accept that sharia law does not apply including keeping 4 wives, that you can't just stay in your own ghetto and not integrate with the local culture and understand that the Myanmar-Bangladesh border is not a garden fence that you can bring your relatives over from.

It'll be hard to overcome some of the worst excesses of violence but when the above happens the healing can begin.

 

[alaungphaya]

Then you started talking about the Rohingya being "illegal Bangladeshis" and not Burmese people. I told you that no serious historians agree with this viewpoint and asked you for proofs of your claim.

Well, that's plain wrong as I have shown.

I have not claimed that SOME Rohingya people are NOT from Bangladesh originally. What I have written is that I do not believe that ALL of them are. I doubt that anyone truly does.

I took a quick glance on your link and I saw that the author talks about some migrations from what is now Bangladesh and those migrations apparently took place already 180 years ago.

Now is that not a long enough time to be considered a native? In KSA we have people with ancestral ties to every single Muslim country (due to the hajj and our location between Europe, Africa and the remaining Asia and the most major ancient sea routes of the world) and some of them did first arrive to KSA in the early 20th century. Today they are nevertheless citizens and considered Saudi Arabians.

OK so now you concede that few if not any of the 'Rohingya' are from these mythical millenia old communities. Now we have moved the discussion to the colonial era where some of the Rohingya began their migration to provide coolie labour for the British. However, if they were all from this era, surely there wouldn't be communities that only speak Bengali and not Burmese. Surely these people came over more recently. And this is where my point comes in. Because such communities exist, it is obvious they came over more recently. It is a common practice. Even the Bangladeshis on here, in their private discourse, acknowledge these people go back and forth and between family members. These are fathers and sons, wives and husbands, not ancient cousins from 200 years ago.

Also can you be sure that all Buddhists in Burma have lived that long in Burma? Maybe some came from nearby Thailand, China or India? Well, I know that you guys have a sizable Chinese diaspora (people of Chinese origins). Why not deport them as well? They are after all not "natives" in your eyes. Or does that not matter because those people are not Muslims?

Chinese illegal migration is a problem and it's acknowledged. Chinese bribe their way into citizenship just like he Bengalis and the bureaucracy now crack down very harshly on it especially in Yangon Division. However, communal violence does not occur in the same way as the Chinese are smarter and are quicker to integrate.

And he was gone like other people that cannot answer my posts when I first get started on various topics on PDF….

What a conceited thing to say.

@alaungphaya

Can you please answer my post number 80?

Do you think I just keep myself glued onto the forum? Is that what you do?

 

[al-Hasani]

Well, that's plain wrong as I have shown.



OK so now you concede that few if not any of the 'Rohingya' are from these mythical millenia old communities. Now we have moved the discussion to the colonial era where some of the Rohingya began their migration to provide coolie labour for the British. However, if they were all from this era, surely there wouldn't be communities that only speak Bengali and not Burmese. Surely these people came over more recently. And this is where my point comes in. Because such communities exist, it is obvious they came over more recently. It is a common practice. Even the Bangladeshis on here, in their private discourse, acknowledge these people go back and forth and between family members. These are fathers and sons, wives and husbands, not ancient cousins from 200 years ago.



Chinese illegal migration is a problem and it's acknowledged. Chinese bribe their way into citizenship just like the Bengalis and now the bureaucracy now crack down very harshly on it especially in Yangon Division, however, communal violence does not occur in the same way as the Chinese are smarter and are quicker to integrate.




What a conceited thing to say.

From what I could see your link does not say anything about all Rohangya people being illegal Bangladeshi migrants.

I did that from the beginning. Please reread my posts.

I am still waiting for evidence of all Rohingya being Bangladeshi migrants. Whether recent or from 180 years ago.

Also you only answered half of my post.

Are all Buddhist Burmese originally from Burma? The answer is no. Are there millions of Chinese? Yes. What about people originally from Thailand or elsewhere? Probably similar. Those Bangladeshis that moved to what is now Burma 180 years ago are they not considered natives today?

But should you not want those same Chinese out then? They are illegals too according to your logic.

Nevertheless it is often the reality.

No, but when you are replying to other users afterwards but not my post one could easily think that you ignored my post. Anyway you answered now and I deleted that part of my post.

 

[alaungphaya]

From what I could see your link does not say anything about all Rohangya people being illegal Bangladeshi migrants.

I did that from the beginning. Please reread my posts.

I am still waiting for evidence of all Rohingya being Bangladeshi migrants. Whether recent or from 180 years ago.

Also you only answered half of my post.

Are all Buddhist Burmese originally from Burma? The answer is no. Are there millions of Chinese? Yes. What about people originally from Thailand or elsewhere? Probably similar. Those Bangladeshis that moved to what is now Burma 180 years ago are they not considered natives today?

But should you not want those same Chinese out then? They are illegals too according to your logic.

Nevertheless it is often the reality.

No, but when you are replying to other users afterwards but not my post one could easily think that you ignored my posts. Anyway you answered now and I deleted that part of my post.

The point is you cannot use your millenia old argument as it does not apply. That's why the discussion moves into the colonial era. Therein the picture becomes more blurred. There is insufficient research into the more recent era but the salient point is that their migration is recent. Again, you cannot use the academic argument in this case. As you conceded, there is a similar situation with Chinese migrants. However, there is little problem with them because they aren't troublemakers. Simple as that.

Yes, Burmese Buddhists have been here for generations. We don't need to prove anything because this is our country. However, in reality, getting a national registration card is just as difficult for Burmese as it is for everyone else. It's a hassle getting all the paper in order but that;s just the way of things.

 

[al-Hasani]

The point is you cannot use your millenia old argument as it does not apply. That's why the discussion moves into the colonial era. Therein the picture becomes more blurred. There is insufficient research into the more recent era but the salient point is that their migration is recent. Again, you cannot use the academic argument in this case. As you conceded, there is a similar situation with Chinese migrants. However, there is little problem with them because they aren't troublemakers. Simple as that.

Yes, Burmese Buddhists have been here for generations. We don't need to prove anything because this is our country. However, in reality, getting a national registration card is just as difficult for Burmese as it is for everyone else. It's a hassle getting all the paper in order but that;s just the way of things.

Did you really read my posts? Once again I have never claimed that Rohingya people are the inheritors of the few Arab merchants, sailors, clerics, soldiers etc. who settled in what is now Burma. All I have been saying is that the presence of Muslims in Burma is over 1 millennium old. Moreover that there are other Muslim groups than just the Rohingya in Burma. Lastly that some of the Rohingya indeed may have ancestral ties to other Muslim groups of Burma or those earliest Muslim settlers.

It's not just about being a troublemaker (whatever that is here) or not. It's about closing your eyes for 1 group of people and complaining about the other. Yet both (in your eyes) are illegal migrants.

All I was trying to allude to is that there is undoubtedly a lot of Burmese Buddhists who are not originally from Burma.

Anyway we are not going any further I see. Nevertheless thanks for the discussion and you must admit that I am not as clueless about Burma as you might have thought.

I do admit, as I also wrote in my first post, that I am not very knowledgeable about the ongoing conflict in Burma but I do know about the history of Islam in Burma and the history of Arabs in South East Asia which is very long and prominent and the millions of South East Asians of Arab ancestry are one of the proofs of that connection as is the Islamic history.

 

[alaungphaya]

Did you really read my posts? Once again I have never claimed that Rohingya people are the inheritors of the few Arab merchants, sailors, clerics, soldiers etc. who settled in what is now Burma. All I have been saying is that the presence of Muslims in Burma is over 1 millennium old. Moreover that there are other Muslim groups than just the Rohingya in Burma. Lastly that some of the Rohingya indeed may have ancestral ties to other Muslim groups of Burma or those earliest Muslim settlers.

And my response is these communities are irrelevant. I don't know how many times I have to make this point.

It's not just about being a troublemaker (whatever that is here) or not. It's about closing your eyes for 1 group of people and complaining about the other. Yet both (in your eyes) are illegal migrants.

All I was trying to allude to is that there is undoubtedly a lot of Burmese Buddhists who are not originally from Burma.

Anyway we are not going any further I see. Nevertheless thanks for the discussion and you must admit that I am not as clueless about Burma as you might have thought.

Unfortunately it is absolutely the issue. You can't expect to integrate if you can't allow yourself to integrate. That's a fundamental problem with Muslims wherever they are and what ever ethnicity they are.

I guess it's back to your Pan-Arabia posts now.

 

[Jay12345]

Muslim are not welcome in Burmese. Muslim treat minority even worse in Saudi so any Muslim criticize other religion shall never taken seriously.

You shall never be taken seriously with English Like that

 

[fallstuff]

That's funny because the peer reviewed, academic literature that's out there doesn't say anything about the link between Rohingya and these ancient Muslim communities in Myanmar.

https://www.soas.ac.uk/sbbr/editions/file64388.pdf

Cambridge Journals Online - Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies - Abstract - Moshe Yegar: <i>The Muslims of Burma: a study of a minority group</i>. (Schriftenreihe des Südasian-Instituts der Universität Heidelberg.) xiii, 151 pp. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1972. DM 38.

(The latter is behind a pay wall but I'm sure you can search yourself)

Interesting sources.

Moshe Yegar is a rabid Zionist.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Did you really read my posts? Once again I have never claimed that Rohingya people are the inheritors of the few Arab merchants, sailors, clerics, soldiers etc. who settled in what is now Burma. All I have been saying is that the presence of Muslims in Burma is over 1 millennium old. Moreover that there are other Muslim groups than just the Rohingya in Burma. Lastly that some of the Rohingya indeed may have ancestral ties to other Muslim groups of Burma or those earliest Muslim settlers.

It's not just about being a troublemaker (whatever that is here) or not. It's about closing your eyes for 1 group of people and complaining about the other. Yet both (in your eyes) are illegal migrants.

The presence of Buddhists in Burma is over 3 millenia old. The Rohingyas never crossed the Arakans anyway.

The Rohingya separatists started their terror movement in 1947 when the British left. The nascent Burmese Government faced a number of setbacks but finally in a couple of decades gained the upper hand. From a position of claiming Northern Burma as a Muslim country, the losing Rohingyas now demand for equal citizen status. But the Burma Govt has always followed a consistent approach.

Also the Arakanese non Muslims don't like the Rohingyas(who ruled them and massacred them a number of times). So, what they do with terrorists hideouts now is entirely their prerogative. And let's just say, in the Burmese, the Rohingyas have found a match. Both offer each other no quarter.

 

[fallstuff]

The Indians owned properties were nationalized with the Indians essentially kicked out of Burma by Ne Win . I fail to understand Indian's jubilation at the plight of the Rohingas.

Ne Win did to Indians what Mugabe did in Zimbabwe.

 

[Hindustani78]

There are natural gas reserves off the Arakan coast which are sold to China through a pipe line that begins in Maungdaw which is where some of the worst violence was but that's not the beginning of the problems IMO. These tensions have always been there. It's just that in the pre-democracy days, they never got international media airing. The central Burmese government is trying to support the native Arakanese and quite right too. The reason for this could be related to the pipeline but it's not the main motivating factor.

Separatists again struck in Myanmar

Guerrillas killed 7 soldiers in ambush last week: Myanmar military | Zee News
Last Updated: Monday, December 15, 2014 - 12:12

angon: Seven Myanmar soldiers were killed and 20 wounded in an attack by rebels in the northeastern frontier with China five days ago, state media said Monday.

The military accused insurgents of ambushing an army patrol and laying siege to a base near Kunlong, about 30 km (20 miles) from the Chinese border last Wednesday, the state-backed Global New Light of Myanmar newspaper reported on Monday.

This City is near the oil pipe which goes inside China.

 

[ashok mourya]

You ="fallstuff, post: 6545407, member: 21481"]The Indians owned properties were nationalized with the Indians essentially kicked out of Burma by Ne Win . I fail to understand Indian's jubilation at the plight of the Rohingas.

Ne Win did to Indians what Mugabe did in Zimbabwe.[/QUOTE]
You are right bro.....Indian origins were more humiliated by burmese than present day rohingyas...I just read your article....Some times we become religious blind don't see the real truth....Burma is more anti india than bangladesh......

 

[alaungphaya]

You ="fallstuff, post: 6545407, member: 21481"]The Indians owned properties were nationalized with the Indians essentially kicked out of Burma by Ne Win . I fail to understand Indian's jubilation at the plight of the Rohingas.

Ne Win did to Indians what Mugabe did in Zimbabwe.

You are right bro.....Indian origins were more humiliated by burmese than present day rohingyas...I just read your article....Some times we become religious blind don't see the real truth....Burma is more anti india than bangladesh......[/QUOTE]
What nonsense. We are not anti-anyone. In the colonial era, Indians, specifically Chettiars were brought over by the British as the business class. Burmese were not allowed to own land or lend money as the British did not trust us. The nationalisation affected everyone. The Indian community in Myanmar now is thriving after the imbalance was redressed.

 

[Ragnar]

What nonsense. We are not anti-anyone. In the colonial era, Indians, specifically Chettiars were brought over by the British as the business class. Burmese were not allowed to own land or lend money as the British did not trust us. The nationalisation affected everyone. The Indian community in Myanmar now is thriving after the imbalance was redressed.

Be very careful of such refugees. Look at what another refugee is doing in Australia. Forget gratitude, you will have another Islamic state in Burma.

 

[alaungphaya]

Be very careful of such refugees. Look at what another refugee is doing in Australia. Forget gratitude, you will have another Islamic state in Burma.

There's no way that will happen. Islam will not spread further east than Burma.