Author: Merle Jacobs Page 5 of 7

Was RN, and now Sociologist Professor in Toronto. Health & Critical Human Rights.
Early Years in Myanmar and lived most of my life in Canada - a country that I love. AngloBurman. Think &discuss.

The day in the life of a Twitter addict

by Merle Jacobs

On 7 September 2014

In Main Blog

The reason for not blogging has been the time I spend reading different information posted on Twitter. This has become time consuming & insane. My books are left to one side and my writing undone. What has become of a balanced work day? I say to myself I need a break and that this is my summer holiday. Relax, I say. The comparing of political regimes, the issues of fundamentalism, the lop sided arguments – all found me getting deeper into a sphere where one is not only sharing ideas but that these ideas are with others who could be miles away. The intimacy and the anonymity together makes for a surreal world where people exchange 140 words. You learn to be brief and use limited space to make not only the argument but the tone. Oh, the feelings – to get one’s point across.
My husband looks at the BlackBerry in my hand and asks me what I am doing – I reply in a very innocent voice that I am reading the news. I never say I am on Twitter. I wonder why I have become ashamed of this behaviour and a liar to boot – must I admit that I am an addict? Hell no, I am looking for information about the world in which we life. Our cat Daisy just looks at me and in her way knows that I am full of BS. It is an addiction.

This Monday starts the work I must engage in while on Sabbatical. I have 2 books I wish to complete. Just thinking of leaving the hours I have spent on Twitter divorcing Facebook makes me ashamed that I did not practice what I preached – balance. Should I blame the 140 words and Twitter? or should I take responsibility for my lack of discipline in shutting off Twitter after the allotted 1 hour. I will let the reader decide.

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi & International Western mass media: Amazing Grace – no Sir! just Eurocetric

by Merle Jacobs

On 5 July 2014

In Main Blog

When I read Western mass media’s accounting on Myanmar, some articles are factual, showing evidence while others distort using old facts support by some externally funded group. My analysis on different media outlets, comparing one with the other to find out that many repeat one journalist’s view which then becomes fact. This lack of fact check occurs, half-truths become truths and self-appointed human rights gurus make statements which then becomes the sound bite of the year. Over and over again I have found Western media outlets to perpetrate this heard like approach to their truth in Myanmar.

On Twitter I get enraged and engaged with mostly White individuals who ‘fought’ for the release of Daw Aung San Su Kyi and democracy in Burma. I applaud them for their activities for the oppressed but do the peoples of Burma now owe them their allegiance? These individuals now want the Lady and others to speak out against the Buddhist in Rakhine and give status to the Muslims who live there. After all they used their time and energy fighting for human rights in Myanmar. Like South Africa, Myanmar must be allowed to build their path to freedom. Not perfect, both countries are going in the right direction. Today the same voices shout abuse at their ‘democracy baby’ as it takes small steps and they command it instead to run and jump.

As well, to define democracy is not only difficult but it is a system that really does not exist in any part of the world. One can say that pseudo democracy exist in the North where rights of minorities are still trampled on and indigenous rights ignored until they are upheld in courts.
With this new openness in Myanmar came the hordes of NGOs and Human Rights groups who post facts laced with bias on Twitter. If one does content analysis on the 140 words before the link, it would show how over and over again words such as: “sinister threats” against reporters, stop backsliding on media freedom, genocide, extremist anti-Muslim monks, Hegemony, axis of ANTI- Buddhist extremism, control by 969 mob, inciting deadly religious violence, and In Myanmar, Democracy’s Euphoria Losing Its Glow. These words are meant to produce for the overseas reader a culture where intolerance towards the press, extreme values towards minorities, Muslims, and Christians – anyone who in not Buddhist. As always, Human Rights Watch or the other groups monitoring Myanmar do not take the messages of trauma of minority groups, citizens in the North who claim genocide like our indigenous groups, or the religious violence towards women’s health in the US. After all, these nations in the North have democracy and courts. Our great justice systems will take care of human rights and social justice but we cannot leave this to Myanmar or any countries form the South.

Living in Canada, close to the US, it annoys me to read these self-appointed experts pontificate about how this country, Myanmar, should have open democracy, and how they should live. At the same time many of these experts produce Burmese images to give their readers in the North with primitive ideas of how people look with gold teeth or without teeth in their open smile. This always reminds me of how when the USIS (the US library in Rangoon) brought ‘An American Indian’ who danced and drummed for children who went there. Now, I understand that this was the stereotype of the Indian aimed at young children – the same visuals now displayed when depicting Myanmar. The visuals exist but show bias because these tweets are never balanced by showing the whole.
I became aware of how foreign visitors behaved as a little girl living in Burma. I saw tourist taking pictures of a nice hut opposite coiffured lawns, large luxury homes in brick with servant quarters. You should know that my cousin lived very close to Durbin Beach and I stayed there often. They never took pictures of the beautiful homes or hotels. Like every country in the North and South there are pockets of wealth and pockets of poverty. When NGOs and the Western media play to their bias when reporting the South, their Eurocentric interpretations presents countries such as Myanmar in a subordinate position. Their Eurocentric based analysis, I interpreted as disrespectful. Colonial Europeans always saw themselves as superior not just in behaviour but in knowledge. The great white North’s agenda can now be seen in the social media accounting of Myanmar by many in the West.

Separating Fact from Fiction about Myanmar’s Rohingya. Merle Jacobs Response /Part 3

by Merle Jacobs

On 24 May 2014

In Main Blog

My last Response to clarify why I have some difficult in the recycling of certain ‘facts’

Another topic of controversy is the percentage of the Muslims in the total population during the 19th century before the accurate census of the late colonial period. Sources do not harmonize, but it seems reasonable to assume a percentage not above 10 to 15 percent around 1830. To assume a higher percentage such as 30 percent (as Rohingya writers today like to assume, basing themselves on a little reliable source) creates an issue with the interpretation of a much lower percentage around 1870 just before the huge labor migrations from Chittagong.
Some researchers link the Rohingya to an ethnic group within Myanmar & try to persuade the world that they are true natives of Arakan. The Rohingya themselves try to make it a Muslim kingdom. They say the documents were burned by the Burmese Kings. I have read Phayre (1844) that supports the idea that there was a Kingdom, a non Muslim kingdom – and that historical documents exist.
Phayre, A. P. “On the History of Arakan.” Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 13, no. 1 (1844):23-53. states:
“A compilation was made at my request from various ancient chronicles, by Nga-mi, one of the most learned among the literati of his country, and I proceed to furnish an epitome of its contents. Many copies of the Ra dza-weng, (History of Kings,) are to be found among the Arakanese, differing from each other in details, being ample or scanty in the narrative, according to the research or imagination of the authors, but, all agreeing in the main facts of the national history. On the Burmese conquest of the country, the ancient chronicles were sought after with avidity, and destroyed or carried away, in the hope apparently of eradicating the national feeling. These efforts were, however, futile, many of the ancient books were secretly preserved, or carried away by the owners on their emigration to the adjoining British territory, where many chiefs anxiously watched for an opportunity to recover their country.” The article is a good read via google.

Another book that I read/obtained is Races in Burma 1933 2nd Ed by Major C.M. Enriquez he describes all the different ethnic groups, classified 135 languages & states Burma belongs to the Indo-Chinese Peninsular. As well, “the aborigines disappeared unless the Andamanese are a survival” and that “Burma is ethnically distinct from India.”
In many book and articles, the Muslims in Arakan Kingdom were called by the westerners as “The Mohammedans”. The Mohammedans called the country / Arakan / Rakhaing Kingdom as “Rovingaw”, “Rekan”. Could it be that the Muslim from Rakhain Kingdom could have mentioned to Buchanan that he’s a “Rooinga” or native from Rakhaing Country?
My concerns with the limited interpretation in your article, ‘Separating Fact from Fiction about Myanmar’s Rohingya’ is that 1)you did not speak to the Rakhine people who do not have a problem with the settlers of whom you describe but will not give their land to those brought in by the British. 2) your use of selected articles.

This is also a discourse about indigenous land, and settlers. There is a space for the rights of the Rakhine and to include evidence how a land grab occurred during Independence talks with Britain. This issue and the 1942 killings has creates current distrust and resentment within the Rakhine State. Leaving out documentation of how in 1948 some Muslim Rakhine/Rohingya wanted to take a part of Rakhine and make it part of Pakistan informs the Rakhine people that this is advocacy for one group without concerns about their apprehensions. The past is the present for many with ethnic histories, unlike newly formed countries such as Australia, Canada, and the United States.

When historical facts are available it is important for researchers to include all relevant facts. Then, if said researcher wants to advocate for settlement and citizenship use moral discourse as a means for intervention. International agencies like the UN have little power in reality in these debates, especially when they appear to take sides. Therefore, it is important for all of us in the area of social justice to persuade our audience with legitimate argument on how to live together within a just society.

Rakhine not included in Rohingya/ Part 2 In Francis Buchanan Rooinga

by Merle Jacobs

On 24 May 2014

In Main Blog

In Francis Buchanan – A Comparative Vocabulary of the Languages spoken in Burma Empire – Page 223 does not support the claims made by some researches which then becomes fact by Journalist. I am concerned that page 237 is the corner stone of this historical discourse. You do not let your reader know that ‘the proper natives call themselves Yakain.’ Buchanan goes on to state the “Bengal Hindus … have been settled in Arakan, the country is called Roffawn ….. not conceiving that it would be Arakan. Buchan goes on to say in the same page at the very bottom “The Mohommedans settled at Arakan call the country Rovingaw.”
Yes, on page 237 there is a one mention of Rooingo. Buchanan goes on to say that Hindus of Arakan wanted to persuade him that theirs was the common language of Arakan , ‘for what reason I do not know.’ There is no analysis on this claim. Francis Buchanan mentioned “Rooinga” a single time only, never appeared again in any of his writings. It should had been appeared many times if “Rooinga” is an ethnic or race name at that time.
As well, according to Jacques Leider, the word “Rohingya” (under the form “Rooinga”) appears a single time in a pre-colonial English text (BUCHANAN, Francis 1799. “A comparative vocabulary of some of the languages spoken in the Burma Empire” Asiatick Researches or Transactions of the Society instituted in Bengal for inquiring into the History and Antiquities the Arts, Sciences and Literature of Asia, volume V, p. 219-240.). You also can find it at below link (page 3 – 5):

http://www.networkmyanmar.org/images/stories/PDF13/jacques-leider.pdf

I take this analysis from Dr. Leider’s views:
“Dr. Francis Buchanan-Hamilton used the term “Rooinga” in a paper written in 1798 describing languages spoken in the “Birman Empire”. How should one interpret the fact that the term “Rooinga” appears a single time in an English language document before 1951 and never in any British colonial administrative text or census during the whole colonial period, i.e. 1826-1948?
The Muslims that Hamilton met in Amarapura in 1795 had been deported from Arakan, conquered in 1785 by the Burmese king. They referred to themselves in their own language as “Arakanese”, because the term “Rooinga”/ spelt “Roewhengya” by Ba Tha, the chief Rohingya “historian” and creator of the myth of a unified Rohingya race / now spelt: Rohingya, is derived from Rakhanga and means nothing more than Arakanese. Many fancy etymologies are circulating to explain the word, and often they tend to discard the obvious connection with Roshang or Rohang as found in Bengali sources since the 17th c.
It is is rather clear from contextual source evidence that the term heard by Hamilton was not used in the modern sense of a separate ethnic group of Muslims.
First of all, Hamilton was the best expert on Southeast Bengal and never used the term while talking about people in the region. He traveled in the Chittagong District and noted any ethnic group that he met during his travels and he specifically also mentions Muslims who had fled from Arakan after 1785 to Chittagong. Still he did not call them Rohingyas nor did they call themselves “Rooinga” because they were Muslims who integrated themselves into the local Muslim society where their forefathers had come from. Hamilton also wrote three detailed articles on the Bengal-Arakan frontier after his retirement and never mentions any distinctive ethnic group called such.
Second, no British administrative document during the colonial period mentions a separate ethnic group that referred to itself or was referred to by others as Rohingyas. This is not because the British census makers were still confused about the profile of Muslims in Arakan after 50 or 60 years of domination. They made indeed, as one sees in the 1931 census for example, a clear difference between recent migrants (called Chittagonians, to specify their origins in Bengal) and the old stock of the Muslim community referred to as Arakan Muhammedans. The old community formed then a sixth of the total of 300,000 in Akyab district.
Third, no early 19th century Western source on Arakan that mentions the Muslims, ever uses the term “Rohingya”. Muslims are each time described as being assimilated to the local Buddhist population in their living style, with the sole exception of their religion.”

The use of Francis Buchanan, on Rooinga -to Rohingya by Gregory B. Poling/ Part 1

by Merle Jacobs

On 24 May 2014

In Main Blog

Dear Gregory B. Poling:

Your Published Analysis: Separating Fact from Fiction about Myanmar’s Rohingya.
By Gregory B. Poling. Feb 13, 2014
In it you State:
“The British colonial government encouraged immigration to Myanmar from modern-day India and Bangladesh. This is a source of continued resentment within Myanmar, which is why 1823 was used as a cut-off for citizenship. The dominant narrative within the country is that the term “Rohingya” is a recent invention, and those who claim to belong to the group are actually the descendants of these colonial-era immigrants from Bangladesh.
But this narrative is demonstrably false. In 1799, Francis Buchanan, a surgeon with the British East India Company, traveled to Myanmar and met members of a Muslim ethnic group “who have long settled in Arakan [Rakhine], and who call themselves Rooinga, or natives of Arakan.” That would indicate there were self-identified Rohingya living in Rakhine at least 25 years before the 1823 cut-off for citizenship.
Even if the name “Rohingya” is too taboo to be accepted inside Myanmar, the historical record is clear that the ethnic group itself has existed in Arakan, or Rakhine State, for centuries. A significant Muslim population lived in the independent Kingdom of Mrauk-U that ruled modern-day Rakhine State from the mid-fifteenth to late eighteenth centuries. Many of the Buddhist kings of Mrauk-U even took Muslim honorifics. The evidence suggests that this community is the origin of today’s Rohingya. The group likely assimilated later waves of immigrants from Bangladesh during and after British rule, but it did not begin with them.”

My Response to clarify why I have some difficult in the recycling of certain ‘facts’:
You cite both Dr. Zarni and Rogers, are they the only know scholars of the Rakhine file and why did you leave an expert on Rakhine like Professor Leider out? Yyou do not mention of his work. You also do not mention Dr. Aung Thwin on why the takeover of the government of Burma occured. This presents a bias in presenting the facts. U Nu was a weak and terrible Prime Minster of Burma. Ask me or my family regarding all his antics. He nearly destroyed the country with his deals.
In your scholarly article you state, “The Rohingya and many of their international defenders are concerned that the census will mark the first step in a campaign to cement their status as non-citizens.” As a Fellow, it is mandatory to explore this topic with both parties having the same rights within this research area? There is the plight of the ‘Rohingya’ which we now know will not be a name used in Myanmar’s census. The plight is very real, we need to get them accepted and have them live together. To do this, the international defenders will have to make sure that those who brought papers or crossed illegally into Rakhine maynot be part of this ‘Rohingya’ group. This would be unfair to the Rakhine people. It would also be helpful if the international defenders would ask this group to learn either Burmese or Arakanese language. There are members who speak Burmese and I have met them in Canada. However, there are those who claim to be Rohingya and have no language skills of the country they claim to have lived in for centuries. International defenders must be fair and sort this out before they try to shove their truth down the throats of the Rakhine people or belittle them in the media.

Mother’s Day 2014 – Almost the end of the day &…….

by Merle Jacobs

On 12 May 2014

In Main Blog

Thinking all day of what to say about this day was not difficult. I wrote on my Facebook and twitter accounts wishing Mothers’ a Blessed day.

It is hard to think about Mother’s day when 6 years have gone by after the death of my mother. She always told us children to do for her when she was alive and not when she was dead. Following that rule, there was nothing to do or say. I had said my thank you, my I love you and of course our good old fights. Two strong headed women who loved control. She also said what she needed to say to me before she died. A strong mind in spite of her stroke she made sure I knew that she loved me but not in a messy way. Firm and fast.

In a way today was kind of empty – she was not there to buy the roses I always gave her – and I thought of the children who have difficult relationships with their mothers. Like Christmas and other ‘family’ holidays these days leave a little pit or hole in one’s heart. That empty feeling or the odd person out while everyone is dancing to the music that the whole world knows. With social media our world is a lot closer yet strangely not more loving. It is the love of parents, biological or not, that makes the difference for a child. Growing up in this knowledge makes days like this have meaning. When there is a void of this meaning such days take on a different picture. One where most people take the inside space, while the others stand on the outside looking in. And the wars, the bombs that leave families broken. What do we say to those children? Countries play war games but people die. The empty seat on a day like today is not taken into account when mad men go to war in the name of democracy or any strange feel good sound bite.

Well Mother, the day is over. Thank you for teaching me to do for the living. That paid off well as really there is nothing to say or do for you. And you would know, I speak of you often just like you did when Dad died. You taught us well: to live in the present, give to others and to treat everyone equally.

Thank you to all mothers who took time with your children teaching them some life lessons

Back to Blog – 2014: How student engagement stopped my blog engagement :-)

by Merle Jacobs

On 4 May 2014

In Main Blog

Teaching Research Methods at York U was not just fulfilling but it got me thinking of my research. Informing students that they needed to keep an open mind while wanting to research areas where they “knew” the outcome was difficult. The light bulb and the ‘ah ha’ moments thrilled me. It thrilled me watch how topics on Aboriginal justice, Human Rights, Multiculturalism, Sexuality and Gender Rights,all based on survey research, secondary research which made students acknowledge that there were many views relating to their ‘truth.’

Time management was an issue for me which left me away from this site. I missed the time I spent with my ‘brain’ and researching ‘my truth’. Reading 60+ drafts, and final papers takes time. But that was one course – the other had over 20 papers which was a major paper. Of course l must remember the other two classes. Overload is never good and it made me speak to several students about their lives. One mother with a year old child came to 8.30 AM classes, the other was had a part-time job which he loved plus instead of taking 5 courses was taking 6 major courses. On top of the course load, this young man was actively involved with civic activities at the university. Then the 20% who I no longer base my evaluation of student participation avoided most classes, assignments but could show up for exams – just hoping the 40% would let them slide through – what I do not know. I sure would love to communicate with them as to why register for a course and waste over $1000.

As I want to engage with all my students I attended ‘Rethinking Retention’ where I heard Vincent Tinto the Distinguished University Professor Emeritus at Syracuse U. We discussed Purpose and how to develop this, about Engagement, Connectedness and Academic Culture. Cam we help students answer this question: “what is a university?”

I will be teaching the same courses but I hope this new learning will help the 20% who may not have the same interest as the 70%. Well the 10% who are high achievers will always visit me in my office without the usual ‘please come with your draft to see me in my office.’

Welcome back Merle

Canadian Multiculturalism

by Merle Jacobs

On 8 February 2014

In Main Blog, Uncategorized

Multiculturalism has some positive aspects but it is more about demographic diversity, a recognized hyphenated Canadianism, as well as funding for some formal and informal ethnic minority organisations in civil society.
Minority ethnic identity is not truly respected as part of the larger Canadian identity when there are Anglophones and Francophones and others are labeled as Allophones.

Some in Canada like to identify multiculturalism and Aboriginal issues overlapping around concerns of racism and discrimination. To this discussion I assert that our First Nations peoples and their concerns that must not be linked with ethnic minorities as their official rights and the government’s obligations predate this Act with Aboriginal self-government rights. Canada officially is a bilingual and a multicultural country with Aboriginal peoples left out of this debate.

Multiculturalism is not only about visible minority groups, it includes all immigrant groups such as Italians, Greeks, and Portuguese. If Multiculturalism in Canada had initially been demanded by non-European rather than the Ukrainians in the West and Italians who were a large ethnic group in the GTA, European groups who were perceived by the dominant founding groups as having strong religious ties and liberal practice that fit into their Canadian mosaic, rather than groups like the Tamils from Sri Lanka, Muslims from Pakistan, immigrants from China, India, Somalia or the Middle East with cultural commitments to illiberal practices, and if their demand for multiculturalism was perceived as a demand for such illiberal practices to be tolerated and accommodated, then I am quite sure that this Act would have been written differently or stayed Bicultural.

Today we have a Multicultural Act – Is it working: I say NO!

Rakhine people: How do they get voice in today’s world?

by Merle Jacobs

On 6 February 2014

In Main Blog

During the past fifteen years I became involved once again with Canadians from Burma now know as Myanmar. Having only been involved with Canada and Canadian issues, I was unaware of the different issues that now was part of the ex-pats. I knew they wanted democracy and Daw Aung San Su Kyi needed to be released from house arrest. That was all!

Today, complex ethnic interactions is for a sociologist a mine field, especially when we speak about rights. On twitter tags like #HelpRohingyaHugo or tweets that include “Rohingyans, victims of Genocide in Burma” ; one can read about how one side is creating a problem with a lack of balance or facts. Then I hear from the Rakhine ex-pats how upset they are with the lack of a honest discourse and that religion is not the issue as their is interfaith dialogues occurring in Myanmar.
I have commented on the word THUGS and allowed a piece from a guest to speak to how they view the world in which they live.
Living in a so called Multicultural country which states it adheres to Human Rights many INGOs in Canada like to point out the ‘sins’ of developing countries. The EU, the USA as well are full of organizations making a living out of the misery of others. At first glance one does not see the missionary zeal that comes along with these individuals, and how they know better than those they try to help. Along with interfering with local issues these INGOs and their supporters back home make it their business to advise all of us how we should think about issues in a land that we came from or live in. As a researcher, it is incumbent to find out ‘the best’ truth there is. Apart from current scholarly work, History helps to find out the who, where, what, and why.

Q: Who are the original population in Rakhine? The Rohingya state they were there for centuries and the government say there are illegal Bengali nationals within an older Muslim group – Arakanese Muslims . Checking the article below, there was a Rakhine Kingdom and it was not Muslim. Other articles state how the Mulsims did live within the Rakhine Kingdom and lived together with Buddhist. Rather than distorting facts, INGOs could benefit their advocacy without advancing inflammatory statements like Genocide, and Thugs. Not one INGO looks at their own countries and how they treat anyone that is viewed as illegal – that includes Canada which has deported many refugee applicants even after 15 years in this country.
In order to make sure I read the article below to support the idea that there was a Kingdom and that historical documents exist.
Phayre, A. P. “On the History of Arakan.” Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 13, no. 1 (1844):23-53. states:
“A compilation was made at my request from various ancient chronicles, by Nga-mi, one of the most learned among the literati of his country, and I proceed to furnish an epitome of its contents. Many copies of the Ra dza-weng, (History of Kings,) are to be found among the Arakanese, differing from each other in details, being ample or scanty in the narrative, according to the research or imagination of the authors, but, all agreeing in the main facts of the national history. On the Burmese conquest of the country, the ancient chronicles were sought after with avidity, and destroyed or carried away, in the hope apparently of eradicating the national feeling. These efforts were, however, futile, many of the ancient books were secretly preserved, or carried away by the owners on their emigration to the adjoining British territory, where many chiefs anxiously watched for an opportunity to recover their country.”

The article is a good read via google. However, in order that Religion alone is not the problem we have to understand the long standing tensions. One reason is language and identity, the other a historical fact when the Rohingyas not only formed their own army but also approached the ‘Father of Pakistan,’ Muhammad Ali Jinnah, ‘asking him to incorporate Northern Arakan into East Pakistan.
It is not outsiders that will resolve this issue. They add to the animosities. Goodwill on all parties within the country can reconcile the differences and bring about stability in this baby democracy.

IN THE NAME OF HUMAN RIGHTS By Maung Tha Hla

by Merle Jacobs

On 20 January 2014

In Special Guest Blog

Saturday, December 28, 2013

IN THE NAME OF HUMAN RIGHTS : By Maung Tha Hla

The Human Rights issue is a noble purpose to pursue, but if misled conscientiously or un-conscientiously it might just be the opposite, leading to the probability of bringing misunderstanding upon the objective and integrity of the pursuers.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted on December 10, 1948 in consequence of the Second World War and ever since mania for human rights has captivated the West which takes a role to set a moral standard by their own utopian notions. The crux of the matter is that centuries before and decades after the adoption of the Declaration the European expansion of empery had denatured the so-called Third World into living hell flagrantly violating the dignity of person of the servile people who lived in subhuman conditions in their own lands. Regrettably, the Western society who claimed moral high ground, despite the gory past, condescendingly decried the former colonies, which were being besieged by political crisis and social exigency, the intrinsic legacy of Imperial Empires of the bygone days. Over the years there was the mushroom-growth of organizations mostly based in Europe, which claimed to be working for the cause of human rights. But one is constrained to question the devotional claim and cast doubt on the dedication and integrity of self-assertive organizations as most of them have become agents and the mouthpiece of special interest groups. The recent inter-communal strife in Rakhaing state of Myanmar is a case in point. They slavishly mounted a slew of charges against Myanmar of alleged mistreatment of the illegal immigrant Bengalis.

THE ORGAN GRINDER AND THE MONKEYS:
It is much of a conspiracy that once the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) woefully howled echoing canards of illegal Bengali secessionists, the Human Rights monkeys sprang up to franticly dance to the tune wailing over the alleged violation of Bengali human rights. The parallels are striking between the OIC and Human Rights Organizations which not only made adverse comments about the government for its handling of the Bengali matters but also strewed lopsided reports demonizing the indigenous Rakhaings who had long been fallen victims to atrocities committed by the pugnacious alien Bengalis in the course of the virulent campaign for a free Islamic state in the Rakhaing land. The Bengali Muslims ruthlessly slaughtered the once dominant Rakhaing communities of Maungdaw and Buthidaung townships where they squatted in the looted lands, having made up the majority in the ratio of 97 to 3 per cent over the indigenes; yet the Bengalis, who lived by the legacy of lies, played the victim card, hurling accusations at the native Rakhaings of ethnic cleansing.

The United Nations Organization, which is supposed to be icon of morality and impartiality, is suffering from credibility problem as it now buckled under pressure of the OIC comprising of 57 Muslim nations and European Union of 28 Christian nations, let alone being bypassed by regional groups such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) or used as a tool by powerful nations to advance their political agenda. The world organization, which had been increasingly in partnership with the powerful groups, passed Resolution (A/C.3/68/L.55) on situation of human rights in Myanmar, which was sponsored, with the OIC’s approbation, by the European nations plus the United States. It brought pressure bearing upon Myanmar to allow equal access to full citizenship for alien Bengali separatists in contravention of the law of Myanmar. Also the resolution spewed accusations of religious persecution, racial discrimination and human rights violation against the Muslims but purposely pretermitted the Bengali atrocities and violation of human rights against the native population, nor did it reflect on the perfidy of the British imported Bengalis who raised the banner of Mujtahid separatist movement for an Islamic state which they laid a plan to accede to their former homeland, now Bangladesh. It is the general notion that citizenship comes with loyalty to the host nation compounded with the obligation to uphold its constitution, solute the national flag, adapt to the native language, admire native culture, tolerate the religion of the land, and thus assimilating into the life of adopted country. Notwithstanding the egregious breach of the above fundamentals, the organization pushed for the citizenship of illegal Bengalis, having touted the politically motivated terminology which the Bengalis had hankered after in excuse of the demand for the entitlement to a national race, and hence a free Islamic state. The world organization unjustly rested onus of Bengali delictum with the host nation. The partisan resolution could only be construed as interference in the internal affairs of Myanmar, hence amounting to impingement on the sovereignty of a member nation.

How prejudicial is the resolution of the world organization, but what is more reprehensible is a set of parochial reports by the human rights organizations predisposed to anti-Myanmar agenda, which are perfect examples of how a situation can be exploited and facts distorted to serve the political purpose of an interest group. Sadly there seem to be no bottom to the pit of abasement in which some organizations and apologists had been falling, who throve on the business of human rights.

Special rapporteurs or independent experts are appointed by the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council to examine and report back on a country situation or a specific human rights theme. The positions are honorary and the experts are not UN staff, nor are they paid for their work. That he was not paid for his work prompted the public to frown at UN expert Thomas Ojea Quintana who accused Myanmar of committing “genocide” against the illegal Bengalis in the greatly exaggerated report based on the fabricated Bengali source. He went too far reporting with complete impunity morphed accounts on Bengali situation, which only tarnished the image of the world organization. The worst was that he overstepped the mandate to demand granting of citizenship to the disfranchised Bengali separatists, thus encroaching on Myanmar’s sovereign.

Human Right Watch made public a one-sided and offensive report on inter-communal riots in Myanmar. Despite its claim being so upright and impartial the organization was criticized for its unfair and biased reporting on the human rights by national governments, other NGOs, the media and even its founder and Chairman Emerita Robert Bernstein. It came under criticism on the issues in Eritrea and Ethiopia and the Arab-Israel conflict. The HRW which depended on wealthy donors had to comply with the desire of financiers who liked to see its reports made headlines which the media had put in the limelight. Accusations were also leveled against it for being influenced by US foreign policy with regard to unbalanced reporting on Latin America and the Palestinians. That’s bad enough, but worse was the accusation that it requested donations from Saudi Arabian citizens on the basis of criticism of Israel; which posed a vex question as to the integrity of the author and credibility of the lopsided report on Myanmar, wildly deploying the terms, “crime against humanity”, “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide”.

HUMAN RIGHTS OR BENGALI RIGHTS:
In seeking to achieve their goal the alien Bengalis made desperate efforts through powerful Islamic lobbyists to boost political influence courting Western proxies. The self-seeking, multicultural zealots who see nothing but to pander to the Muslim world were using their political clout to enforce a permanent solution to the illegal Bengali issue embarking on the infringement upon the sovereignty of Myanmar. Posing in the forefront as key players was the duo of the United States and the United Kingdom, which ridiculously asserted that the belligerent Bengali Muslims were innocent victims of Buddhist aggression. Siding with the Bengali secessionists they demanded citizenship rights for them. The Bengali problem started with the British colonialists who imported them for their invested interests and now the United States which had been the chief target of Muslim hate campaign thrust itself as the champion of the Bengali rights with sole purpose of pacifying the anti-American Muslim world. Being powerful is not a license to manipulate the internal affairs of others.

Why was the United States, which had been duped into leading the NATO to establish an Islamic State in the heart of Europe, so impassioned about the Jihadist Bengali separatists who slyly sought the patronage of the powerful West to help bring their separatist movement into the vortex of international politics having deluded themselves into the precedent of Kosovo? In virtue of the potential levers of economic sanction against Myanmar the United States, which had been in the business of aggressive lobbying with illusion about possibility of making the illegal Bengalis citizens of Myanmar and entitlement to a national race, escalated its efforts to shape a pro-Bengali strategy in such intensity that it came to the point of raising a question as to whether it was lobbying or abuse of super power position.

The American pressure cooker gathered steam with the visits of state actors. Barack Obama was followed by former presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, with Ex-British Prime Minister Tony Blair following in his footsteps. They all are peace-brokers by their own rights, who were involved in peace missions and human rights campaign; at the same time none of them had a success in the Middle East peace process, the trade mark of the nation’s highest office. It was of much doubt whether their righteous orations, which much the same as the language of OIC stooges of human rights syndicate, would help bring about a solution to the communal conflict in Myanmar, and in the least their patronizing remarks would have positive effects on the natives, if not make them feel like sickening.

Interestingly, timing of Clinton’s visit coincided with that of European Union delegation headed by foreign policy chief, Catherine Aston, being trailed by the OIC delegation. Concurrently, the coercive measures effectuated in Myanmar were complemented at the home front where a Bengali delegation was received in audience by the Senate foreign relation committee, which resulted in introduction of House Resolution 418, which if adopted would urge Myanmar to end the persecution of illegal Bengali Muslims. However, any fair-minded lawmaker would not compromise his or her conscience to go along with the resolution since it failed to address the violence and crimes perpetrated by the Bengali immigrants against the indigenous people. It may be noted that a similar pro-Bengali resolution was doomed in 2010. It is not surprising that the powerful Islamic lobbying was gaining influence on the American foreign policy issues given the instance that Obama had faithfully played a pro-Bengali card in his Islamic surrogate mission to Myanmar in 2012.

HYPOCRISY AT WORK:
It is plain hypocrisy that the bigoted Muslim countries which consolidated into a world Muslim organization nursed feeling of solidarity with the Islamist Bengali separatists and exerted pressure on Myanmar demanding to take measures to eliminate the alleged offences of religious persecution and racial discrimination, notwithstanding human rights violation and persecution of religious minorities were the order of the day in their own nations. Following the disintegration of Sadden Hussein’s Iraq and Gaddafi’s Libya, the powerful Islamic nations which vied for leadership of the Muslim world conveniently exploited the inter-communal violence of Rakhaing state in hopes of redressing the failure to mollify the ongoing turmoil across the Muslim world, particularly the Middle East which had been convulsed with the deadly sectarian conflicts among the Muslims who claimed themselves being the most peaceful and nonviolent people on earth.

Among the leading Muslim countries that rallied behind the illegal Bengali separatists were Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Egypt as well as Islamic members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, which unfairly played upon the inter-communal conflict to their own advantage, despite their own notorious human rights records. Turkey, for one, bolstered by the prestige of membership to the NATO, thrust itself forward as the global protector of Muslim rights having put up a good show through the visits to Myanmar of Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu accompanied by teary-eyed Mrs. Emine Erdogan and crying OIC secretary-general Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, who led the organization delegation, in a measure to demonstrate the Turkish leading role in promoting the welfare and the human rights of the Bengali Muslims. It is ironic that Turkey denounced Myanmar for the speculative genocide of alien Bengalis against its horrific past and prevailing situation in human rights violation. Turning to its past, the country was still haunted by the ineffaceable crime against humanity and the 1915 genocide of Christian Armenians, the first ever of the sort in the history of modern world, which was perpetrated at the height of the Ottoman Empire that comprised an area covering 45 sovereign nations today. Pope Francis bestowed sainthood on “Martyrs of Otranto”, to honour the 813 Italians who were slain in the southern Italian city in 1480 for defying demands by Turkish invaders who overran the citadel to renounce Christianity. The modern day Turkey is not exonerated from the ethnic cleansing being blatantly executed against the Kurds and Arab minorities as well as religious persecution of the Alevis. Did the Turkish First Lady or the OIC secretary general ever shad tears over such crimes? Is it not hypocrisy that espoused their pious hearts bleed for the Islamist separatist Bengalis?

Saudi Arabia, which has ironically been elected to serve on the United Nations Human Rights Council, used religion as a tool of oppression. The kingdom, which is the chief promoter of international Islamic fundamentalism and the backbone of the OIC, reached the deep pocket to insensately impose Islam on the non-Muslim nations and pulverize other religions. It sanctimoniously condemned Myanmar for religious persecution, ethnic cleansing and human rights violations of the jihadist Bengalis, despite its own record of human and civil rights violations and the religious persecution of Shiite Muslims in the kingdom where no other religion was allowed to establish or being practised, much less a non-Muslim would ever take the risk of being beheaded to set foot in Mecca. Pakistan is the home of the world’s most notorious hatcheries for fanatic jihadists and suicide bombers, where sectarian butchering of minority Shiites and attacking Christians, Ahmadis and Hindus were unchecked. The Pakistani Taliban who carried out deadly suicide mission day in and day out declared to attack Myanmar to avenge their Muslim brothers. Iran is infamous for human rights violations and persecution of religious minorities such as Sunni and Sufi Muslims, Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians; so too is Bangladesh which is ill-famed for discrimination against religious minorities, such as Hindus, Buddhists, Christians and other Muslim minorities. Egypt was widely criticized for persecution of the Coptic Christians as well as Shiite and Sufi minorities. In Indonesia where Ahmadis were persecuted and Christians attacked, the religious extremists stoked religious violence against the local Buddhists in reprisal for the alleged persecution of Muslim brothers in Myanmar. Malaysia is not exculpatory of discrimination against minorities, where the Islamic fundamentalism is on the rise.

CONCLUSION:
In a twist of event Myanmar which transformed itself into a democratic society on being aspired to wiggle free from the economic sanctions imposed by the West placed great expectation to foster close relationship with the West, particularly the United States. Appreciative as was of the continued commitment to the country’s transition to democracy, nonetheless all that was anticipated turned to somewhat disenchantment over the unwarranted Western pressure in favour of the illegitimate demands made by the disfranchised Bengalis based on beguiled claims. The Bengali Muslims are small in numbers but are lousy on the international scene and awfully good on manipulating the general public. The bellicose rhetoric addressing on the identity woes compounded with religious colouring not only agitated the Muslim world but also held the Western audience spell-bound. The Bengali population who concentrates in Rakhaing state constitutes a fraction of the Muslim community in Myanmar. They are not recognized by the government of Myanmar as a national race, nor were they featured as an indigenous race by the Imperialist British but only categorized them in the religion grouping along with other Muslims from different parts of India. Those who brought pressure on Myanmar should not ignore that the Islamist separatists Bengalis were economic immigrants from what is now Bangladesh, who fought the national army flying Pakistan flag, or the fact how the Bengalis look