Rohingya Muslims: Deprived
Of Essential Fundamental Rights In Myanmar – Analysis
 |
A Rohingya youth sleeps on
the street in Burma.
Photo Source: Queen Mary, University of London.
BY SOUTH ASIA MONITOR
FEBRUARY 18, 2017
By Amity Saha
Myanmar is an ethnically
diverse country of Asia with its ethnic and religious minorities having a
complex and contested history. There are 135 recognised national ethnic groups,
according to the 1982 Citizenship Law. They are again labelled into eight major
national ethnic races — such as Bamar (approximately two-thirds of the
population), Chin, Kachin, Kayin, Kayah, Mon, Rakhine and Shan.
Among them, almost 90 per
cent of the population is Buddhists, four per cent Muslims, four per cent
Christians and about two per cent Hindus. Most Christians belong to ethnic
minorities, including Chin, Kachin and Kayin. Some Muslim communities are
officially recognised as a distinct ethnic group (like the Kaman), others are
known as “Bamar Muslims”, “Chinese Muslims” or “Indian Muslims”.
Rohingya Muslims comprise
the largest percentage of Muslims in Myanmar, with the majority living in
Rakhine state. They self-identify as a distinct ethnic group with their own
language and culture. Rohingya people have always felt the ancient connection to
Rakhine state. Successive governments have rejected these claims and Rohingya
were not included in the list of recognised ethnic groups. So, now most
Rohingya people are documented as stateless.
The 1947 Panglong Conference
visualised the creation of a federal union based on voluntary association and
political equality. Upon getting independence in 1948, Myanmar was a
quasi-federal union largely dominated by the Bamar ethnic group. Later,
self-determination, greater autonomy and an equitable share of power and
resources claimed by ethnic minorities have driven armed conflicts within the
country in diverse range and quantity.
In 2015, the preceding
Parliament adopted a package of laws seeking to “protect race and religion”.
These laws discriminate against ethnic and religious minorities and women in
violation of Myanmar’s international obligation. The “Religious Conversion Law”
launches a State-regulated system for changing religion, which contravenes the
right to freedom of religion or belief. The “Population Control Healthcare Law”
approves a selective and coercive proposition to population control, including
a potential requirement of 36 months birth spacing that would violate women’s
right to choose the number and spacing of their children. The law could be used
to target areas with significant minority communities. The “Buddhist Women’s
Special Marriage Law” bars Buddhist women from marrying non-Buddhist men —
irrefutably that is violating a person’s right to choose a spouse.
A State’s prerogative to grant
or remove nationality is guarded under international law. The 1982 Citizenship
Law of Myanmar is discriminatory and breaches the prohibition of arbitrary
deprivation of nationality. According to CRC, Article No.7; this violates the
right of every child to obtain nationality; as it fails to defend the
attainment of citizenship for children born in Myanmar with no genuine link. It
also gives overly wide powers to the government to invalidate citizenship
without due protection. It has led and continues to lead to statelessness.
Myanmar has one of the
largest stateless populations — around 1,090,000 — in the world; predominately
Rohingyas in Rakhine state. The Rohingyas’ lack of citizenship worsens their
vulnerability to a range of human rights violations.
In June 2014, the government
initiated a citizenship verification process, piloted in Myebon town; located
in Sittwe district of Rakhine state. Rohingyas refusing to identify themselves
as “Bengali” were disqualified from the verification process. Those granted
citizenship in Myebon were allowed to vote in 2015 but their freedom of
movement and access to basic services and livelihood after receiving
citizenship has not been enhanced. On June 7, 2016, a citizenship verification
process — conducted within the framework of the 1982 Citizenship Law — was
relaunched in Kyaukpyu, Myebon and Ponnagyun.
Rohingya and Kaman people
face harsh boundaries in freedom of movement. Their stated purpose is to ensure
security but their application is disproportionate and discriminatory by
exclusively targeting Muslims. The majority of Rohingyas live in northern
Rakhine state, where they require official authorisation to move between, and
often within, townships. For example, a village departure certificate is
required to stay overnight in another village. The procedures to secure travel
are arduous and time-consuming. Failure to comply with requirements can result
in arrest and prosecution. Restrictions routinely lead to felony, so law
enforcement people and government officials are used to harassing people.
Since the June 2012
violence, township administrators have imposed a curfew in northern Rakhine
state, allegedly to “protect the safety of both communities”. It has been
regularly extended since 2012. The curfew is reportedly based on Section 144(1)
of the Myanmar Code of Criminal Procedure, which permits temporary orders in
urgent cases and requires a Magistrate or delegate to issue the curfew order.
OHCHR has received credible allegations that the applicable procedure as per
Section 144(1) has not been meeting the terms. The curfew gives wide
discretionary powers to the authorities, including limitations on assembly and
prohibiting movement between dusk and dawn. The curfew limits the ability of
Muslims to worship and practice religion freely by limiting gatherings of more
than five people. Apparently, it is only enforced against the Rohingyas. While
a separate Presidential State of Emergency order was lifted in March 2016 in
northern Rakhine state, the curfew remains in place.
Most of those displaced by
the 2012 violence reside in central Rakhine state, in approximately 39 IDP
camps. Restrictions on movement in camps are severe and many are under extreme
security measures. In certain locations, there is strict control of access and
exits through security checkpoints. According to the nature of these camps,
many camps could be considered as places of deprivation of liberty, even like
passing life in confinement, under international law.
The blanket restrictions on
freedom of movement for Muslim communities clearly violate international human
rights law, which requires any limitations to be necessary and proportionate.
The restrictions discriminatingly target the Muslim population and severely
constrain their access to livelihoods, food, healthcare and education. Lifting
these restrictions is essential to addressing other human rights and
humanitarian concerns in Rakhine state.
*Amity Saha is a Research Assistant (International
Affairs) at Bangladesh Institute of Law and International Affairs (BILIA).
Comments and suggestions on this article can be sent to editor@spsindia.in