Miss Havisham of Myanmar

Shamsad Mortuza
Published : 3 Sept 2017, 04:57 AM
Updated : 3 Sept 2017, 04:57 AM

A retired civil servant posted an interesting comment about Aung San Suu Kyi's brief affair with a fellow student from Pakistan while at Oxford. The relationship did not flourish apparently because of the disapproval of the boy's close friends. Suu Kyi then went on to marry a History Major from Durham named Michel Aris and remained devoted to him until his last breath. The bitterness over the failed love led her to hate Muslims.

The comment made me curious, as my impression of the Burmese Nobel laureate (until very recently) had been nothing but positive. Even her nonchalance about the Rohingya could be contributed to a number of political factors: she must appease her Buddhist supporters as well as distance herself from her marital relationships with foreigners – an issue that has been exploited by the army backed Opposition. But to think that her hatred for the Rohingya Muslims originated from the memory of being ditched by a Muslim man is to find her parallel in Miss Havisham in Charles Dickens' novel Great Expectations.

While in house arrest Suu Kyi used to play her piano from her lake side house to remind her people that she was alive. Her message of hope suddenly appeared like Havisham's scorn against men after being ditched by her fiancé, and my memory of going near the house reverted to an image of Satis House and its macabre setting.

Suu Kyi's off the cuff remarks like "no one told me I was going to be interviewed by a Muslim" about being interviewed by BBC presenter Mishal Husain in 2013 suddenly acquires a new meaning. It is strange how one change of interpretive code changes the meaning, and how we perceive truth.

In the interview, Suu Kyi reminded: "This is what the world needs to understand; that the fear is not just to the side of the Muslims but on the side of the Buddhists as well." So 96 per cent Buddhists are afraid of 4 per cent Muslims. Well, in the Rakhine province in the West, the Rohingya Muslims outnumber their Buddhist compatriots.

In 1982, the military junta proclaimed Burmese citizenship law under which British Indians who came to Burma after 1823 were denied of their state identity. In one fell swoop, the Rohingyas became "single biggest stateless community in the world". They were branded as Bengali settlers who fled Bangladesh during the liberation war in 1971. Even though the Rohingya are living in Myanmar for more than four generations, the military government denied their national identity with retrospective effect.

The Rohingyas share a mutually intelligible dialect of people from Chittagong, and it's difficult to distinguish them from the locals regarding looks and demeanours. That does not, however, give Myanmar the right to take away an entire population group from its ethnic list. Their ethnic cleansing has been marketed as a 'clearance operation' following a raid by Rohingya militia that killed 9 Burmese policemen. The retaliation is causing thousands flee their homelands and head towards Bangladesh.

Ironically, at the state level, our government's attitude has been rather lacklustre. Officially, Bangladesh cannot say that the border is open for all refugees and allow the last remaining 10 lac Rohingyas to enter our territory. Refugees are pouring in perhaps due to an accommodating attitude is shown by our border guard personnel who must have received an unofficial soft signal from the highest level.

But, are we a nation that enjoyed the hospitality of a neighbouring nation during its gestation period, doing enough for our neighbours? Where are our fellow feelings? Or are we afraid to call evil by its name? Especially in the festive mood of sacrifice, I was reminded of a hadith that I heard as a child. You cannot go to Hajj even if a single man in your neighbourhood is starving. So, I googled, "Is it possible to go on a hajj or offer sacrifice while keeping your neighbours hungry?" Don't know why, instinctively I typed: "If there is a war between Bangladesh and Myanmar, who will win?"

For the first, Muslim scholars think the mandatory obligations will take precedence over secondary duties. So, if you have the means, you should immediately perform the duties of sacrifice or pilgrimage unless there is an absolute need demanded by your brothers.

For the second, regarding military strength, Myanmar ranks 31 among 133 nations while Bangladesh is poised at 57. That doesn't mean we are a pushover given our military's professionalism and UN exposure. Besides we have a huge population that can potentially become guerilla fighters in case of any invasion. The two Ming submarines have given our Navy some edge, although Myanmarese frigates are comparatively new and updated.

Myanmar has the second active armed forces in South East Asia (the first being Vietnam). I have a personal memory of getting a glimpse of the militarisation in Myanmar. A local man told me that one of the reasons why the military junta moved their capital from Yangon to Nay Pai Taw was due to a royal soothsayer who warned General 'one' that the only attack on Myanmar soil could come from its western frontier. This shows how hostility is inculcated in the mass using superstition as a weapon. In all probability, the soothsaying was used as an excuse to build a heavily fortified administrative capital far away from Yangon.

During the same tour, one of our delegates had a meeting with their agriculture ministry and found their minister himself was monitoring the market price of daily essentials in Bangladesh. "You should get some onions on your way back home," he joked, to add, "I hear the prices are soaring."

Myanmar is a nation that does not trust us, but it has no problem in trading with us. Again, what will happen if Rakhine becomes an autonomous region with access to the Bay of Bengal? How will it change the regional power dynamics? So giving shelter to millions, sponsoring insurgency, and opting for military option analogous to India in 1971 are tricky, to say the least.

So, can we go on and give shelter to a few thousand more and do what India did in 1971:

1. Respond to immediate humanitarian needs;
2. Pursue international diplomacy;
3. Mobilise foreign media and
4. Keep military on high alert.

But will that make us walk right into the trap of Myanmar: making Rohingyas Bangladesh's problem?

I don't think Bangladesh should do anything on its own. While we need to give shelter to the refugees in the no-man's land or pay attention to their immediate needs, we should not do anything without the involvement of UNHCR.

Our trump card should be exerting pressure on Myanmar. We import good worth $150 million against a $10 million export. We can immediately stop importing goods from Myanmar stating that they must stop persecuting the Rohingyas labelling them as "Bengali" terrorists.

The second card should be about involving China. Unless China exerts pressure on Myanmar, Bangladesh should go slow on Silk Road connectivity as Myanmar's obstinacy is hampering the regional cooperation efforts envisioned by China.

And finally, let us not forget about the UN, and mobilisation of world opinion. We can bring in journalists from different parts of the world to visit the refugee camps so that they can listen to the harrowing experience of the Rohingya inside Myanmar and the ongoing genocides.

It requires smart diplomacy and visionary politics: does Bangladesh have them?