Myanmar's Enemy Within

Why did democracy in Myanmar, seen as a triumph for justice, coincide with a surge in anti-Muslim violence, shattering the narrative of peaceful coexistence?

1. The Shift to Democracy Triggered Violence

The transition from military dictatorship to democracy in Myanmar initially inspired hope, but it had unexpected consequences. In 2012, anti-Muslim violence erupted in Rakhine State during an era of newfound political openness. The military had previously suppressed political movements to maintain control, which also kept ethnic tensions in check. However, as democratic freedoms expanded, so did these suppressed ethnic hostilities.

Rakhine State’s Rohingya Muslims became targets. Many Rakhine Buddhists believed the Rohingya were Bengali immigrants from Bangladesh, not rightful citizens. This perception fueled fears that the Rohingya would claim land and erode Buddhist dominance. With the military loosening its hold, Rakhine Buddhists worried that minority rights, including those of the Rohingya, might gain visibility and diminish their own.

The fear of losing land and culture merged with nationalist rhetoric, portraying Muslims as a demographic threat. This led to groups mobilizing against the Rohingya, culminating in violence and displacement. This resentment, masked as self-defense, was exacerbated by political uncertainties.

Examples

• Busloads of armed Buddhist vigilantes attacked Muslim neighborhoods in Sittwe in June 2012.
• Rumors of assaults by Muslims created paranoia among Buddhists.
• Thousands of Rohingya were displaced into refugee camps, reinforcing segregation.

2. Media and Freedoms Amplified Extremism

The shift to democracy brought with it media freedoms, long stifled under military rule. But this new freedom also allowed extremist ideologies to flourish. Buddhist nationalist propaganda accused the Rohingya of being interlopers fabricating their identity to claim Myanmar as their own.

Religious leaders and journals actively spread these divisive narratives. Some monks and political figures portrayed Muslims as an existential threat to Buddhism, even equipping their rhetoric with derogatory terms like “kalar,” associating Muslims with terrorism. The media fed the hostility by presenting Muslims as aggressors in ongoing clashes.

The lack of oversight on newfound media freedoms created an environment where misinformation and hate speech spread unchecked. Propagandists exploited this to fan anti-Muslim sentiment, making peaceful coexistence harder.

Examples

• Buddhist newspapers framed the Rohingya as "terrorists" posing a threat to Myanmar’s sovereignty.
• Police stood by as rioters attacked Muslims, validating suspicions of state complicity.
• A false narrative linked local Rohingya issues to international events like September 11.

3. Violence Extended Beyond Rakhine State

The violence in Rakhine State quickly escalated into other parts of the country after June 2012. Tensions between Buddhists and Muslims, combined with national anti-Muslim sentiment, prompted attacks on unrelated Muslim minority groups and sparked social boycotts.

The hostilities included grenade attacks on mosques and the torching of Muslim neighborhoods. Monks promoted boycotts against Muslims widely, encouraging economic isolation. Horrific mob actions, such as the murder of an elderly Kaman Muslim woman, created an atmosphere of fear among Muslims across Myanmar.

The prevalence of anti-Muslim violence highlighted the role of state actors. Evidence of police complicity made discrimination systematic and inescapable. The growing hostilities even alienated Muslims with no connection to the Rohingya.

Examples

• A trader in Rakhine who sold rice to Muslims was beaten to death.
• A Muslim neighborhood in Mandalay was burned, creating over 12,000 refugees.
• Boycotts targeting Muslims grew into violent movements, with little state intervention.

4. British Colonial Policies Set the Stage

The roots of anti-Muslim resentment can be traced back to British colonial policies. During their rule, the British dissolved Myanmar’s western border and encouraged large-scale Indian immigration. Muslims and Hindus filled critical labor shortages but also outnumbered local populations in some regions.

By the 1930s, Yangon had more Indians than the Bamar ethnic majority in the city. This demographic imbalance fueled resentment among Myanmar nationalists, who viewed immigrants as collaborators with the British empire. Muslims were especially distrusted due to interfaith marriages requiring conversion, which nationalists believed diluted Myanmar’s Buddhist identity.

These tensions did not naturally exist before colonization. For centuries, intermarriage and coexistence were common. British policies, however, drew attention to ethnic and religious differences, laying a foundation for later nationalistic exclusions.

Examples

• In the 1930s, 250,000 Indian migrants entered Myanmar annually.
• Indian ownership of land and businesses bred resentment among the Burmese populace.
• British race-based classifications further divided Myanmar’s multi-ethnic society.

5. National Unity Became a Military Obsession

Myanmar’s military dictatorship adopted an ideology emphasizing "one voice, one blood, one nation." They claimed that unity behind a single religion—Buddhism—was essential to survival. Ethnic and religious diversity, they argued, threatened the nation.

The military promoted a narrative whereby ethnic minorities and Muslims were introduced by British rule to undermine Myanmar’s identity. This fear of external and internal threats became central to the regime’s policies, using force to ensure unity.

This ideology rebranded assimilation as loyalty and used exclusion to police disloyalty. As such, the military saw multicultural identities as vulnerabilities rather than strengths.

Examples

• Signs warned citizens of the danger of "extinction" through infiltration by foreign races.
• British policies were blamed for bringing “alien groups” into the country.
• The military confiscated properties from Indians and Chinese, driving them out in the 1960s.

6. Citizenship Redefined Ethnic Belonging

Ethnic fluidity was once a hallmark of Myanmar’s identity. Historical records show that ethnic groups interchanged identities under different rulers without issue. However, the military redefined citizenship to rigidly align identity with ethnic belonging.

The introduction of ID cards in 1952 initially avoided dividing people by ethnicity, but the 1982 Citizenship Act reversed that. Citizenship now required belonging to one of 135 “national races.” Groups like the Rohingya were omitted, rendering them stateless.

This new policy cemented exclusion. Even historical evidence supporting Rohingya ties to Myanmar was disregarded, revealing a systematic effort to permanently erase their status.

Examples

• Ethnicities were added to ID cards after 1982, marking legal and social hierarchies.
• A British-era study identified the Rohingya as a distinct ethnic group in the 1700s, contradicting modern claims.
• Rohingya ID cards were confiscated and never replaced in the late 1980s.

7. State-Led Resettlements Undermined Muslims

In the 1990s, Myanmar’s government began resettling Buddhist criminals in Rakhine State, placing them in Muslim-majority areas. These prisoners were given homes, subsidies, and farmland to alter demographics intentionally.

This plan stemmed from fears that a growing Muslim population, seen as "outsiders," would destabilize the region. Resettlement was deemed necessary to secure the region politically and religiously.

Similar tactics targeted the Rohingya, who were considered a conspiracy by Buddhist leaders to expand Islamic influence in Myanmar.

Examples

• Convicted criminals received housing, food, and monthly stipends in Rakhine State.
• Securing the “Western Gate” against “Islamization” was invoked as justification.
• Army officers supported efforts to transform Muslim-majority regions.

8. Pro-Democracy Groups Ignored the Rohingya

The persecution of the Rohingya revealed not only the malice of the military but also the indifference of Myanmar’s pro-democracy movement. These activists, celebrated as freedom fighters, largely remained silent on the plight of the Rohingya.

Pro-democracy leaders echoed nationalist rhetoric, denying the Rohingya’s ethnic ties to Myanmar. Even Aung San Suu Kyi, a global symbol of resistance, refused to fully condemn the violence, instead framing it as a conflict between equal parties.

This reflected the challenge of balancing democratic ideals with the practical need to appeal to a majority populace rooted in Buddhist nationalist beliefs.

Examples

• Prominent dissident Ko Ko Gyi dismissed the Rohingya as not legitimate Myanmar citizens.
• Aung San Suu Kyi called the violence in Rakhine fault of “both sides.”
• Fear of losing votes deterred pro-democracy activists from opposing nationalist groups.

9. Deep Nationalist Ideologies Sustain Conflict

The violence against the Rohingya stems from Myanmar’s deeply ingrained nationalist ideology. This belief system depicts ethnic and religious minorities as ploys to weaken Buddhist unity. This narrative, taught over decades, influences both military and civilian populations.

Changing this ideology requires new interpretations of history that embrace inclusivity, but nationalist sentiments have proven resistant to such shifts. Until this ideology is comprehensively challenged, the plight of minorities like the Rohingya will continue.

Examples

• Nationalist slogans linking Buddhism with statehood reinforced fears of diversity.
• Anti-Muslim violence was widely supported by Buddhist communities.
• Generational mistrust, rooted in British colonial policies, justified exclusion today.

Takeaways

1. Promote critical media literacy to counter misinformation and hate speech that fuel ethnic conflict.
2. Foster dialogue between Myanmar's diverse communities to challenge stereotypes and foster shared understanding.
3. Advocate for inclusive historical education in Myanmar to reshape divisive nationalist narratives.