The Seeker's Guide

The final decision rests with man and man alone is accountable for his actions. Satan cannot make a person commit sins. He can only act as a catalyst. Peace: The Summum Bonum What is the Rohingya crisis? F rom the ninth century onwards, Arab and other traders have visited the Rakhine state, formerly Arakan, on the western coast of Burma (Myanmar), and in the early days, a group of them settled there. As a result of interaction with the local population, Islam gradually spread, until a large part of the Rakhine state became Muslim. For centuries, the Muslims of Arakan lived peacefully with the rest of Burma and had no separatist tendencies. However, when East Pakistan was formed in 1947, certain emotional Muslim leaders tried to make a separate Muslim state out of the region where the Rohingya people lived. They described their efforts as ‘selfdetermination’. This movement picked up pace and many extremist Muslims took an active part in it. The Myanmar central government saw these actions as revolt, as in essence, it was a movement for separation from Myanmar. Prior to the insurgency, Rohingya Muslims had lived peacefully alongside the other people of Myanmar. But emotional speeches made by separatist leaders kindled separatism in the Rohingya. To curb their activities, the Myanmar government took tough action and stern measures against them, which, according to Rohingya leaders, were an act of ‘oppression’. The government’s response was designed to bring discipline to their country. In 1971, when Bangladesh was formed, it gave a kind of political boost to the Rohingya leaders, who further intensified their separatist activities, due to which the Myanmar government reacted more stringently than before. This is the story of the Rohingya Muslims in brief. When I was in Lucknow — perhaps in 1966 — one day, a Muslim scholar came to me and said he was going to Burma and asked if I would accompany him. When I asked why, he replied that a movement for the formation of a Muslim state was going on in Myanmar and that we, too, should lend our full support to it. I strongly disagreed with his suggestion. I explained to him that people who thought like him might be trying to form a state in the name of Islam, but that such an act would only lead to strife. I told him that I disapproved of their method of proceeding, as a movement that took shape in such a manner was not truly Islamic and could only lead to conflict and dispute. I made it clear that I could not endorse such a cause. He became angry and left. Since 1966, my opinion on the Rohingyas is only one and that is: The case of the Rohingya Muslims is not one of ‘oppression’, but rather, it is the outcome of ill-judged political activities instigated by unwise leaders. If the whole picture were to be seen, one would arrive at the conclusion that the Rohingya Muslims are not victims of oppression but are rather paying the