Jeremy Adam Smith is the author of "The Daddy Shift," co-editor of the forthcoming anthology "Rad Dad: Dispatches from the Frontiers of Fatherhood" and a founder of the blog Daddy Dialectic.

Greater gender equality in school and on the job has led to greater equality in housework and childrearing. Today in America, fathers now spend more time with their children and on housework than at any time since researchers started collecting comparable data. I call it “the daddy shift” — the gradual movement away from a definition of fatherhood as pure breadwinning to one that encompasses a capacity of caregiving.

Fathers need to encourage each other to take advantage of leave policies and participate in family life.

Rising inequality and economic instability has meant that families can’t afford specialists anymore. And so they’re moving from a family model that stresses efficiency to one that tries to build resilience in the face of economic shocks. In the ideal resilient family, both women and men are capable of working for pay and working at home.

But families often fall short of this ideal, partially because of lingering structural and interpersonal sexism, and partially because men lack support for their new caregiving roles at both home and work. Studies consistently show that 80 percent to 90 percent of mothers still expect fathers to serve as primary breadwinners (and very few will consider supporting a stay-at-home dad). At work, only 7 percent of American men have access to paid parental leave, among other structural limitations.

How can the daddy shift continue? The to-do list is long. It includes an education campaign to help men of all social classes understand what workplace and public policies can help them be the fathers they want to be — and legal campaigns that will defend their jobs against backward attitudes at work. Men whose mindsets are still shaped by the sole-breadwinner ideal need explicit permission and encouragement from both their female partners and their bosses to take advantage of leave policies and participate in family life.

We also need to shift the language we use to discuss work-family issues in a more inclusive direction, so that it includes fathers as well as mothers. That language should stress resilience and meaning to men instead of the language of equality that has mobilized women. In the end, it's up to guys to tell the stories of our lives and speak up for what we want. No one will do it for us.



http://www.blogger.com/publish-confirmation.g?blogID=1733617819154096639&postID=7348029986607000032×tamp=1310011676971&javascriptEnabled=true

Sandrine Devillard is a Paris-based director at McKinsey and Company. She co-wrote "Women Matter," which assessed women’s role in the economic performance of corporations.

Numerous studies have demonstrated the positive impact on company performance of diversity in top management positions, and yet throughout the world, female participation in the boardroom and in the executive suite is very limited.

Women have trouble identifying with success, and need to promote themselves more assertively.

The problem is that persistent barriers prevent women from staying in the work force and achieving management positions. The main issue is that women remain at the center of family life, with all the attendant constraints (maternity, child care, organizing family life, care of the elderly). The impact of the constraints may vary from one country to another, depending on the support offered (services or tax policies to encourage women’s participation in the labor force), but on average European women continue to devote twice as much time as men to domestic tasks.

This "double burden" of work and family responsibility weigh heavily on women and is not always compatible with the performance model of "anytime, anywhere," or the constant availability and geographical mobility that corporations demand. The linear career path is also difficult for women because of maternity leave.

Barriers also exist within women themselves. Studies show that women need to be more comfortable promoting themselves and to be assertive about their performance, abilities and ambitions.

Our research at McKinsey highlights the difficulty women have in identifying with success, an attitude that appears to hamper their professional development. The absence of female role models is compounded by a heightened perception of the difficulty of achieving success in today’s business environment. "Opting out” -- a voluntary decision to discontinue one’s career -- is both the result of the barriers identified and an additional cause of the shortfall of women among corporate executives.

So how can we change this? Visible commitment by top executives and programs to develop women as leaders stands at the heart of any attempt at effective gender diversity. Of course, human resource policies and services are also critical to women's development.

But ultimately the means to removing the glass ceiling is in the hands of women themselves. Women will build their own way to the top mainly based on the supportive learning, coaching or mentoring initiatives that companies put in place. Achieving greater diversity is mostly about building a workplace where diverse talent can develop and grow without encountering specific barriers.


http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/07/05/how-can-we-get-men-to-do-more-at-home/gender-diversity-in-the-workplace-is-in-the-hands-of-women

Ute Frevert is the director of the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin and a professor of history at the Free University of Berlin.

The current state of gender inequalities in Western societies has an interesting story to tell about the longevity of mentalities. Mentalities generally change much more slowly than legal codifications and institutional policies.

Through our behavior as parents, employers and leaders, we can set a different example and serve as role models for younger generations.

People hold on to belief systems, rituals and modes of behavior far longer than real-life circumstances urge and demand them to. This has to do with how these belief systems are passed on from one generation to the next, through mimetic procedures, learning devices and artifacts whose meaning and interpretation are hard to control. Children’s literature, for example, still works with images of family and gender roles that attract feminist criticism. The further you look back in time and include books that you grew up with and want to share with your children, the more difficult it is to reconcile their implicit and explicit messages with our ideas of gender equality.

So there are strong factors out there that lead present-day women to feel responsible for the social and emotional set-up of the family. This comes in handy for men, who gladly contribute material resources but cut down on time and emotional work that they prefer to invest into their professional careers.

What can be done to change this mentality, which seems to be the main force driving women to drop out of the employment sector or reduce their commitment to a degree that hinders them to from being recruited in high-profile positions? We cannot, of course, “sanitize” the artifacts and media transporting traditional gender roles. But we can make sure, through our own behavior as parents, employers and leaders to set a different example and serve as role models for the younger generation. This is relevant for women as much as men. I personally know many more women than men who combine active parenthood with professional ambitions. Men’s education is thus badly needed. If they resist change, our striving is bound to fail.


http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/07/05/how-can-we-get-men-to-do-more-at-home/how-to-change-the-status-quo-of-gender-roles

Neil Gilbert is the Chernin Professor of Social Welfare at the University of California, Berkeley. He is the author of "Capitalism and the Welfare State" and, most recently, "A Mother's Work: How Feminism, the Market and Policy Shape Family Life."

Since the mid-1960s, men in the United States have taken on an increasing share of household and child care responsibilities. Their level of participation in these activities more than doubled between 1965 and 1999, at which point it leveled off.

The elite few, who essentially promote the commercialization of child-rearing and idealize everyone working full-time, have options that others don't.

Despite this increase, women continue to assume the brunt of these domestic responsibilities -- about 40 percent more of the unpaid work than men. Whether complete equality in the division of labor can or should be achieved in these realms is an open question. It is a question, however, that masks a much more serious issue for parents and children, particularly those in the middle and working classes.

During the first three to five years of life, the work of raising children is extremely labor intensive, a 24/7 job with no time off for vacations. No matter how it is split, the child-rearing and household production activities of a two-earner family with two children under 5 is an immensely time-consuming enterprise. Even if the children are placed in the care of others from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., a considerable amount of work -- cooking, feeding, dressing, driving, cleaning, buying and washing clothes, visiting doctors -- remains to be done by parents every day. And that’s before finding the so-called quality time to play, chatter and cuddle

The expectation that both parents work full-time during the early years of child-rearing is widely held by most of the people who regularly write, think and talk about this issue. These are journalists, professors and pundits who write, think and talk for a living. None of them has a real 9-to-5 job, with an hour for lunch. They think “doing lunch” is work. For these elite few, work is varied, interesting, with flexible hours and rewarding enough to pay for full-time nannies. For most others, after a few years on the job, paid employment is cramped and repetitious. With the increasing life-span and rising age of retirement, devoting an extra five years to caring for preschool children would still leave a stay-at-home parent, male or female, 30 to 40 years to test the joys of paid employment.

The elite have framed a discourse that promotes the commercialization of child-rearing and idealizes everyone working full-time in the market, under the banner of equality in the division of family labor. In the first three to five years of child-rearing, even if a two-earner family achieved complete equality on the domestic front it would leave both members with the equivalent of 1.5 jobs, while their children were effectively being socialized by strangers during the most critical developmental stage of life. Is this the ideal toward which modern family-life should be striving?

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/07/05/how-can-we-get-men-to-do-more-at-home/dont-work-if-you-dont-have-to

oil-lamp
The brass open-oil lamp found in the city of Vesali

The second open-oil lamp can be found in the ancient city of Vesali. It is made of brass. It measures 9 inches high from the plinth to the edge of the statue. It is a female figure and stretching her hands in prallel. The brass open-oil lamp in the form of hemisphere of the gourd, is held with her fingers. The front edge of the open-oil lamp was used to put the loop of the wick. The oil to light the open-oil lamp, was not gasoline, coconut oil and wood oil, but the butter made from the milk.

Why the open-oil lamp was used

Nowadays, lighting offering to Buddha becomes a traditional custom in Rakhine state because Rakhine people made lighting offering to Buddha from time immemorial as they believed that light offering dedicating to the three gems called Buddha, Dhamma and Samgha (or) gods, was superior to any other offierings.
The history of the open-oil lamp



oil-lamp1

The historians believe that Greek and Roman arrived in the southern part of India in order to trade goods bringing the female statues with the oil lamps in the 2nd century AD. Besides, they also believe that the southern Indian cast the oil lamps with their wanted figures modelling the statues the Europen took.

The historians couldn’t give the exact answer whether the Vesali open-oil lamp was southern Indian’s masterpiece or the European’s masterpiece. Besides, it is very difficult to mention that it was cast in Rakhine or it was taken from the merchants come from the southern part of India. However, the words “tm,mem aumif;rIawmf” were inscribed at the plinth of the statue. By observing the alphabets, we can find that such alphabets were used at the beginning of the 10th century AD in Rakhine. Therefore, some of the historians allege that it was cast in Vesali between 900 AD and 950 AD because it was excavated in the ancient Vesali site and its alphabets look like the alphabets look like the alphabets stamped on the coins of king Su La San Dra, the last king of Vesali dynasty.


oil-lampdance

Rakhine oil lamp dance

Rakhine oil lamp dance is one of the traditional performances in Rakhine state. Performing the oil lamp dance is the demonstration of offering light to lord Buddha. The dancers have to dance together with striking Rakhine drums, playing the flute and singing the soft song called Tharchin. There are evidences that Rakhine musical instruments and Rakhine dances have developed with Vesali high civilization. We can prove that offering light to Lord Buddha became popular in Vesali period because the open-oil lamps from Vesali period, can be found in Rakhine state. Therefore, I believe that the oil lamp dance would relate to the open-oil lamps in Vesali period.


Reference
1. Rakhine Touristy Stupas, 2008 by Htay Win

http://tourism.goldenlandpages.com/articles/256-rakhine-open-oil-lamp.html

Opened on December 08, 2010 | Contact Petition Author
Mr. Christopher Smith,

Mr. John A. Boehner

Speaker of the House – Designate

1011 Longworth HOB

Washington, DC 20515-3508

Dated December 1, 2010

Dear Honorable House Speaker,



We are aware that on September 29, 2010 Mr. Christopher Smith, Congressman from New Jersey, have introduced and submitted a resolution H.RES.1710 to the House of Representatives at 111th Congress 2nd. Session calling on Burma’s military regime to immediately recognize the “ROHINGYA people” as full and equal citizens of Burma. The resolution also called for an end to the regime’s campaign of religious and ethnic persecution amounting to crimes against humanity throughout Burma.

Upon through study of this resolution, we regretfully found that Mr. Smith has presented false statements without having detailed knowledge of the truth. His misrepresentations are very detrimental to the people in Arakan (Rakhing) State, especially to the people living in the areas of Butheedaung and Maungdaw. We are very concerned with three points of the resolution:



1. the term “Rohingya”;
2. Rohingyas have been living in Northern Arakan (Rakhaing) state for centuries;
3. approximately one million Rohingya out of a total three million population fled Burma.

Point 1: The term “ROHINGYA” is synonym of alien Chittagonian separatists of jahadist Mujahidin known as Mujahadeen. It belongs to neither any ethnic groups nor religious category.

Point 2: This political movement started in the 1960’s, not centuries ago

Point 3: According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), there were 156,630 (not one million) who fled in 1978 during the Nagamin Operations.

We, the Arakanese(Reakhings) people that belong to one of the ethnic groups of Burma, do not deny the Burmese military regime’s campaign of religious and ethnic persecution or ethnic cleansing. But we do not agree and categorically object to the proposal for recognizing the “ROHINGYA people” as full and equal citizens of Burma because neither “ROHINGYA people” nor ROHINGYA ethnic grouping in the Union of Burma exist. The term “ROHINGYA” is never known to history nor it is ever recorded in the official documents as designation of Muslim circle in Rakhaing, ostensibly cross-bred by Arab castaways. It is only a belied term employed by the alien Muslim separatists, with the object of advancing a legal claim to ethnic grouping of the Union of Burma.

The Imperialist British, who ruled the Indian Empire, named them Chittagonians after the Chittagong District of East Bengal, where from they originated. Our Burmese history shows that the main indigenous ethnic groups of the Union of Burma are Bama, Rakhaing, Shan, Mon, Karen, Chin, Kachin and Kayah. If you will study the Burmese history you will find Bengali Muslims who settle down in Butheedaung and Maungdaw in various groups. During the last part of 1850, a large number of Bengali Muslims came to Butheedaung through Maungdaw. The local Rakhaings had to watch their movements by turn for security of their lives and properties. When the authority of the East India Company also constructed a railroad from Maungdaw to Buthidaung, the Chittagonian Bengali were engaged as labourers during 1916 to 1918. Hence they began to settle there permanently.

While the communal riots took place between Muslims and Rakhaings in 1942, Rakhaings suffered much and Buddhist temples, Buddha statutes and pagodas were burnt down. Most of the villagers of northern and southern sides of Maungdaw and Buthidaung were killed, women raped, and their properties looted. The Rakhaings from the areas of Maungdaw and Buthidaung left their belongings and ran away to nearby safety places. The houses and lands were snatched and occupied by the Muslims in their absence. Their villages were converted into Muslim villages and Buddhist temples were turned into mosques and madrashes. At that time, there were no Rakhaings people living in Maungdaw and Buthidaung because of riots, and these areas became vacuum places. Taking this opportunity, nearly 100 percent of Bengali Muslims flooded and settled down in these areas. The new generation of Bengali Muslims living in these areas wanted to be named as “ROHINGYA”. These look like recent Afghanistan Taliban, radical Muslims (jihadists) or terrorists. The term “ROHINGYA” was coined by Islamic extremists during 1950 to Islamize during turmoil after independence. Since the colonial time, there were many attempts by radical Islamists to secede Burma especially in the western part which had been flooded with illegal immigration of Muslims. There were numerous incidents in which native Buddhist Rakhaings villages and people were destroyed.

During 1980 and 1990, “ROHINGYA” organizations became powerful with the aids from the Arab Islamists and the Bengali Islamists’ man-power. At the same time, Burma had been facing great difficulty and it was the right moment for the Rohingya invaders to jihad Burma and destroy its existing cultures especially the Buddhism in Rakhaing (Arakan). It is obvious that thousands of Bengali Muslims (they called themselves ROHINGYA people) from Burma went to Afghanistan and fought along with the Talibans against US with the intention of getting help from them to make Northern Arakan (Rakhaing) an Islamic State. Arakan Rohingya Nationalist Organization (ARNO) and Rohingya Solidarity Organization (RSO) were among the groups who were trained in Afghanistan camps and were/are active in Northern Rakhaing and Bangladesh.

In light of these revelations, and on strength of the supporting documents enclosed herewith, we respectfully request you to immediately reject Mr. Christopher Smith’s resolution H.RES.1710.IH presented to the House of Representatives at 111th Congress 2nd Session in respect of the “ROHINGYA” people.

Your kind and sympathetic consideration of our request and presentation is highly appreciated.



Yours truly,


http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/stoprohingyainvasion

Dr. Aye Kyaw has written books on education and culture in Burma. He was born in Lwe Chaung village in Taungok Township in Arakan State. He has a BA in history and religion, an MA in Asian history and a BA in law from Rangoon University. He earned a Ph.D in Southeast Asia History at Monash University in Australia.

Dr. Aye Kyaw taught at universities in Burma, Thailand and the US. Now retired, he lives in New York city.

While visiting Bangkok, he was interviewed by Ba Saw Tin on his views on Arakan history, politics in Burma and the debate over Rohingya history and their troubled relationship with the Burmese military government.


Question: Describe Arakan politics before Burma's independence?

Answer: Arakan leaders always joined in Burma's struggle for independence. They participated at the forefront in the struggle against British colonial rule and the Japanese invasion. If someone asks why they participated, it was because the Arakan wanted to rule themselves. The prominent Arakan leaders during British rule were Monk U Seinda, monk U Pyinnya Thiha, U Nyo Tun, U Aung Zan Wai, U Kyaw Min, U Ba Saw and others. These leaders were prominent figures in the Arakan resistance movement and Arakan politics. Monk U Ottama was one of the first leaders in Burmese politics.

If you look at the situation of the Arakan under British rule, there were two groups. One group worked with the British, and one group joined in the independence struggle led by Gen. Aung San.

U Nyo Tun was a famous student leader in the 1936 student strike, and he was quite well-known in both the Arakan and Burmese community. While Burmese acknowledge March 27 as marking the beginning of the resistance movement against Japan, the Arakan had already started their resistance against Japan earlier, around Feb. 12 or 13.

Q. What happened to the Arakan after the independence struggle?

A. The main reason they fought was to get their own state and self rule. Unfortunately, when Burma won independence, nothing came of it. They asked Prime Minister U Nu to grant them a state, but U Nu evaded the issue.

Q. How did politics development during the following years?

A. During U Nu's Anti Fascist Peoples' Freedom League (AFPFL) rule, there were two powerful political parties in Arakan State: The AFPFL and the Arakan Unity Party (AUP). U Kyaw Min led the AUP. U Aung Zan Wai and Taung Koke U Kyaw Tin led the AFPFL in the Arakan region.

Then the AFPFL split into two factions: the "stable" AFPFL and the “clean” AFPFL. The clean AFPFL faction leader, prime minister U Nu, set up Mayu District in Arakan State. He registered Bengali as citizens through national registration and allowed them to vote. During the Colonial era, the Bengali started coming into Arakan to work. They mostly worked in the agricultural sector, and then returned when the work was done. One of the prominent leaders among Bengali was Sultan Mahmud. The AFPFL was weak in a sense. When U Nu allowed Bengalis to enter Mayu District that was the beginning of today’s Rohingya problem.

Q. Do you know when the use of the term "Rohingya" began?

A. I think it appeared during the 1960s. Because even the Bengali leader, Sultan Mahmud, when he became a member of parliament, I don’t think he used the word "Rohingya." In earlier Burmese history and in Arakan history, I haven’t seen the word Rohinhya. Even after independence, there was no such word.

Q. What does "Rohingya” mean?

A. When Sayagyi U Tha Tun was in good health, we visited whenever he was in Rangoon. We had conversations on several themes: literature, history and other social matters. Once, he explained to me the meaning of Rohingya. The word derived from an Arakan word, Lwintja.

Lwintja in Arakan means leaves falling from trees and blowing around without any purpose.
The word basically means anything or anyone wandering around without a cause. I analyzed the word in the linguistic sense, and I once wrote an academic article in the Pyinnya Padesa journal, published by Rangoon University.

Q. Nowadays, many Arakans see the Rohingya as a threat. Why?

A. The underlying reason was the emergence of the Mujahids, who started an armed insurrection in Arakan State to try to acquire their own land. Originally, they were Bengali from Bangladesh. In earlier days, they came to work in Arakan and returned to their homes when the work was done. Then they faced difficulties living in Bangladesh because it was so crowded. Afterward, the Mujahids attempted to set up a Muslim State in Buthee Taung, Maung Daw and Yathei Taung townships of Mayu District, where U Nu had granted them the right to live. When the Mujahids began to prosper, the Arakans didn't accept the idea. The Arakans see them as a danger, threatening their land, national identity and religion, and that is why the Arakans are so allergic to the word, Rohingya.

Q. What is the background situation of Rohinja's emergence?

A. That is a good question. The Rohingya issue is just a problem on the surface. The underlying problem is the idea of "Islamization" and the expansion of Islam. The Rohingya movement is funded by countries in North Africa and the Middle East. These countries have donated large amount of money and weapons. In Southeast Asia, organizations in Malaysia support them. They support the expansion of Islam. They operate as “Burmese nationals” and “Arakan citizens” by using the name of Rohingya. Actually, Rohinja are not a race, and they are not Burmese citizens.

Q. The Rohingya are not acknowledged by the military junta as an ethnic nationality in Burma. But the Rohingya are seeking a position on the Ethnic Nationalities Council (in exile). The Arakan representatives oppose them. How do you define an ethnic nationality?

A. In 1978, while under the Burma Socialist Programme Party rule, me, Dr. Maung Maung (the late President), and U San Thar Aung discussed a law on ethnic nationality. Dr. Maung Maung was an academic on law, I am an historian and U San Thar Aung was director general of the higher education department at that time. We discussed the matter in a room in the State Council office.

I said that for recognizing an ethnic nationality in Burma, there was a census record during the Bodaw Phaya reign, made in the 18th century. It listed all nationalities living in Burma, and it mentioned Arakans, Karens and Mons (Talaings) in the survey. The document can be taken as a base, I suggested.

Dr. Maung Maung said that survey was too early. Then I suggested the year of 1824, a turning point in Burmese history when the British annexed lower Burma. Dr. Maung Maung agreed on that date, and we drafted a law that people living in Burma during 1824 were recognized as ethnic nationalities. We found no such word as Rohingya in that survey.

http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=16946

1. At the beginning of the new year, I wish to extend prayerful good wishes for peace to Governments, leaders of nations and all men and women of good will. In a special way, I invoke peace upon all those experiencing pain and suffering, those living under the threat of violence and armed aggression, and those who await their human and social emancipation, having had their dignity trampled upon. I invoke peace upon children, who by their innocence enrich humanity with goodness and hope, and by their sufferings compel us all to work for justice and peace. Out of concern for children, especially those whose future is compromised by exploitation and the malice of unscrupulous adults, I wish on this World Day of Peace to encourage everyone to reflect on the theme: The Human Person, the Heart of Peace. I am convinced that respect for the person promotes peace and that, in building peace, the foundations are laid for an authentic integral humanism. In this way a serene future is prepared for coming generations.

The human person and peace: gift and task

2. Sacred Scripture affirms that “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27). As one created in the image of God, each individual human being has the dignity of a person; he or she is not just something, but someone, capable of self-knowledge, self-possession, free self-giving and entering into communion with others. At the same time, each person is called, by grace, to a covenant with the Creator, called to offer him a response of faith and love that no other creature can give in his place(1). From this supernatural perspective, one can understand the task entrusted to human beings to mature in the ability to love and to contribute to the progress of the world, renewing it in justice and in peace. In a striking synthesis, Saint Augustine teaches that “God created us without our aid; but he did not choose to save us without our aid(2).” Consequently all human beings have the duty to cultivate an awareness of this twofold aspect of gift and task.

3. Likewise, peace is both gift and task. If it is true that peace between individuals and peoples—the ability to live together and to build relationships of justice and solidarity—calls for unfailing commitment on our part, it is also true, and indeed more so, that peace is a gift from God. Peace is an aspect of God's activity, made manifest both in the creation of an orderly and harmonious universe and also in the redemption of humanity that needs to be rescued from the disorder of sin. Creation and Redemption thus provide a key that helps us begin to understand the meaning of our life on earth. My venerable predecessor Pope John Paul II, addressing the General Assembly of the United Nations on 5 October 1995, stated that “we do not live in an irrational or meaningless world... there is a moral logic which is built into human life and which makes possible dialogue between individuals and peoples(3) .” The transcendent “grammar”, that is to say the body of rules for individual action and the reciprocal relationships of persons in accordance with justice and solidarity, is inscribed on human consciences, in which the wise plan of God is reflected. As I recently had occasion to reaffirm: “we believe that at the beginning of everything is the Eternal Word, Reason and not Unreason(4).” Peace is thus also a task demanding of everyone a personal response consistent with God's plan. The criterion inspiring this response can only be respect for the “grammar” written on human hearts by the divine Creator.

From this standpoint, the norms of the natural law should not be viewed as externally imposed decrees, as restraints upon human freedom. Rather, they should be welcomed as a call to carry out faithfully the universal divine plan inscribed in the nature of human beings. Guided by these norms, all peoples —within their respective cultures—can draw near to the greatest mystery, which is the mystery of God. Today too, recognition and respect for natural law represents the foundation for a dialogue between the followers of the different religions and between believers and non-believers. As a great point of convergence, this is also a fundamental presupposition for authentic peace.

The right to life and to religious freedom

4. The duty to respect the dignity of each human being, in whose nature the image of the Creator is reflected, means in consequence that the person can not be disposed of at will. Those with greater political, technical, or economic power may not use that power to violate the rights of others who are less fortunate. Peace is based on respect for the rights of all. Conscious of this, the Church champions the fundamental rights of each person. In particular she promotes and defends respect for the life and the religious freedom of everyone. Respect for the right to life at every stage firmly establishes a principle of decisive importance: life is a gift which is not completely at the disposal of the subject. Similarly, the affirmation of the right to religious freedom places the human being in a relationship with a transcendent principle which withdraws him from human caprice. The right to life and to the free expression of personal faith in God is not subject to the power of man. Peace requires the establishment of a clear boundary between what is at man's disposal and what is not: in this way unacceptable intrusions into the patrimony of specifically human values will be avoided.

5. As far as the right to life is concerned, we must denounce its widespread violation in our society: alongside the victims of armed conflicts, terrorism and the different forms of violence, there are the silent deaths caused by hunger, abortion, experimentation on human embryos and euthanasia. How can we fail to see in all this an attack on peace? Abortion and embryonic experimentation constitute a direct denial of that attitude of acceptance of others which is indispensable for establishing lasting relationships of peace. As far as the free expression of personal faith is concerned, another disturbing symptom of lack of peace in the world is represented by the difficulties that both Christians and the followers of other religions frequently encounter in publicly and freely professing their religious convictions. Speaking of Christians in particular, I must point out with pain that not only are they at times prevented from doing so; in some States they are actually persecuted, and even recently tragic cases of ferocious violence have been recorded. There are regimes that impose a single religion upon everyone, while secular regimes often lead not so much to violent persecution as to systematic cultural denigration of religious beliefs. In both instances, a fundamental human right is not being respected, with serious repercussions for peaceful coexistence. This can only promote a mentality and culture that is not conducive to peace.

The natural equality of all persons

6. At the origin of many tensions that threaten peace are surely the many unjust inequalities still tragically present in our world. Particularly insidious among these are, on the one hand, inequality in access to essential goods like food, water, shelter, health; on the other hand, there are persistent inequalities between men and women in the exercise of basic human rights.

A fundamental element of building peace is the recognition of the essential equality of human persons springing from their common transcendental dignity. Equality on this level is a good belonging to all, inscribed in that natural “grammar” which is deducible from the divine plan of creation; it is a good that cannot be ignored or scorned without causing serious repercussions which put peace at risk. The extremely grave deprivation afflicting many peoples, especially in Africa, lies at the root of violent reactions and thus inflicts a terrible wound on peace.

7. Similarly, inadequate consideration for the condition of women helps to create instability in the fabric of society. I think of the exploitation of women who are treated as objects, and of the many ways that a lack of respect is shown for their dignity; I also think —in a different context—of the mindset persisting in some cultures, where women are still firmly subordinated to the arbitrary decisions of men, with grave consequences for their personal dignity and for the exercise of their fundamental freedoms. There can be no illusion of a secure peace until these forms of discrimination are also overcome, since they injure the personal dignity impressed by the Creator upon every human being(5).

The “ecology of peace”

8. In his Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II wrote: “Not only has God given the earth to man, who must use it with respect for the original good purpose for which it was given to him, but man too is God's gift to man. He must therefore respect the natural and moral structure with which he has been endowed(6).” By responding to this charge, entrusted to them by the Creator, men and women can join in bringing about a world of peace. Alongside the ecology of nature, there exists what can be called a “human” ecology, which in turn demands a “social” ecology. All this means that humanity, if it truly desires peace, must be increasingly conscious of the links between natural ecology, or respect for nature, and human ecology. Experience shows that disregard for the environment always harms human coexistence, and vice versa. It becomes more and more evident that there is an inseparable link between peace with creation and peace among men. Both of these presuppose peace with God. The poem-prayer of Saint Francis, known as “the Canticle of Brother Sun”, is a wonderful and ever timely example of this multifaceted ecology of peace.

9. The close connection between these two ecologies can be understood from the increasingly serious problem of energy supplies. In recent years, new nations have entered enthusiastically into industrial production, thereby increasing their energy needs. This has led to an unprecedented race for available resources. Meanwhile, some parts of the planet remain backward and development is effectively blocked, partly because of the rise in energy prices. What will happen to those peoples? What kind of development or non-development will be imposed on them by the scarcity of energy supplies? What injustices and conflicts will be provoked by the race for energy sources? And what will be the reaction of those who are excluded from this race? These are questions that show how respect for nature is closely linked to the need to establish, between individuals and between nations, relationships that are attentive to the dignity of the person and capable of satisfying his or her authentic needs. The destruction of the environment, its improper or selfish use, and the violent hoarding of the earth's resources cause grievances, conflicts and wars, precisely because they are the consequences of an inhumane concept of development. Indeed, if development were limited to the technical-economic aspect, obscuring the moral-religious dimension, it would not be an integral human development, but a one-sided distortion which would end up by unleashing man's destructive capacities.

Reductive visions of man

10. Thus there is an urgent need, even within the framework of current international difficulties and tensions, for a commitment to a human ecology that can favour the growth of the “tree of peace”. For this to happen, we must be guided by a vision of the person untainted by ideological and cultural prejudices or by political and economic interests which can instil hatred and violence. It is understandable that visions of man will vary from culture to culture. Yet what cannot be admitted is the cultivation of anthropological conceptions that contain the seeds of hostility and violence. Equally unacceptable are conceptions of God that would encourage intolerance and recourse to violence against others. This is a point which must be clearly reaffirmed: war in God's name is never acceptable! When a certain notion of God is at the origin of criminal acts, it is a sign that that notion has already become an ideology.

11. Today, however, peace is not only threatened by the conflict between reductive visions of man, in other words, between ideologies. It is also threatened by indifference as to what constitutes man's true nature. Many of our contemporaries actually deny the existence of a specific human nature and thus open the door to the most extravagant interpretations of what essentially constitutes a human being. Here too clarity is necessary: a “weak” vision of the person, which would leave room for every conception, even the most bizarre, only apparently favours peace. In reality, it hinders authentic dialogue and opens the way to authoritarian impositions, ultimately leaving the person defenceless and, as a result, easy prey to oppression and violence.

Human rights and international organizations

12. A true and stable peace presupposes respect for human rights. Yet if these rights are grounded on a weak conception of the person, how can they fail to be themselves weakened? Here we can see how profoundly insufficient is a relativistic conception of the person when it comes to justifying and defending his rights. The difficulty in this case is clear: rights are proposed as absolute, yet the foundation on which they are supposed to rest is merely relative. Can we wonder that, faced with the “inconvenient” demands posed by one right or another, someone will come along to question it or determine that it should be set aside? Only if they are grounded in the objective requirements of the nature bestowed on man by the Creator, can the rights attributed to him be affirmed without fear of contradiction. It goes without saying, moreover, that human rights imply corresponding duties. In this regard, Mahatma Gandhi said wisely: “The Ganges of rights flows from the Himalaya of duties.” Clarity over these basic presuppositions is needed if human rights, nowadays constantly under attack, are to be adequately defended. Without such clarity, the expression “human rights” will end up being predicated of quite different subjects: in some cases, the human person marked by permanent dignity and rights that are valid always, everywhere and for everyone, in other cases a person with changing dignity and constantly negotiable rights, with regard to content, time and place.

13. The protection of human rights is constantly referred to by international bodies and, in particular, the United Nations Organization, which set itself the fundamental task of promoting the human rights indicated in the 1948 Universal Declaration. That Declaration is regarded as a sort of moral commitment assumed by all mankind. There is a profound truth to this, especially if the rights described in the Declaration are held to be based not simply on the decisions of the assembly that approved them, but on man's very nature and his inalienable dignity as a person created by God. Consequently it is important for international agencies not to lose sight of the natural foundation of human rights. This would enable them to avoid the risk, unfortunately ever-present, of sliding towards a merely positivistic interpretation of those rights. Were that to happen, the international bodies would end up lacking the necessary authority to carry out their role as defenders of the fundamental rights of the person and of peoples, the chief justification for their very existence and activity.

International humanitarian law and the internal law of States

14. The recognition that there exist inalienable human rights connected to our common human nature has led to the establishment of a body of international humanitarian law which States are committed to respect, even in the case of war. Unfortunately, to say nothing of past cases, this has not been consistently implemented in certain recent situations of war. Such, for example, was the case in the conflict that occurred a few months ago in southern Lebanon, where the duty “to protect and help innocent victims” and to avoid involving the civilian population was largely ignored. The heart-rending situation in Lebanon and the new shape of conflicts, especially since the terrorist threat unleashed completely new forms of violence, demand that the international community reaffirm international humanitarian law, and apply it to all present-day situations of armed conflict, including those not currently provided for by international law. Moreover, the scourge of terrorism demands a profound reflection on the ethical limits restricting the use of modern methods of guaranteeing internal security. Increasingly, wars are not declared, especially when they are initiated by terrorist groups determined to attain their ends by any means available. In the face of the disturbing events of recent years, States cannot fail to recognize the need to establish clearer rules to counter effectively the dramatic decline that we are witnessing. War always represents a failure for the international community and a grave loss for humanity. When, despite every effort, war does break out, at least the essential principles of humanity and the basic values of all civil coexistence must be safeguarded; norms of conduct must be established that limit the damage as far as possible and help to alleviate the suffering of civilians and of all the victims of conflicts(7).

15. Another disturbing issue is the desire recently shown by some States to acquire nuclear weapons. This has heightened even more the widespread climate of uncertainty and fear of a possible atomic catastrophe. We are brought back in time to the profound anxieties of the “cold war” period. When it came to an end, there was hope that the atomic peril had been definitively overcome and that mankind could finally breathe a lasting sigh of relief. How timely, in this regard, is the warning of the Second Vatican Council that “every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and humanity, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation(8).” Unfortunately, threatening clouds continue to gather on humanity's horizon. The way to ensure a future of peace for everyone is found not only in international accords for the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, but also in the determined commitment to seek their reduction and definitive dismantling. May every attempt be made to arrive through negotiation at the attainment of these objectives! The fate of the whole human family is at stake!

The Church as safeguard of the transcendence of the human person

16. Finally, I wish to make an urgent appeal to the People of God: let every Christian be committed to tireless peace-making and strenuous defence of the dignity of the human person and his inalienable rights.

With gratitude to the Lord for having called him to belong to his Church, which is “the sign and safeguard of the transcendental dimension of the human person”(9) in the world, the Christian will tirelessly implore from God the fundamental good of peace, which is of such primary importance in the life of each person. Moreover, he will be proud to serve the cause of peace with generous devotion, offering help to his brothers and sisters, especially those who, in addition to suffering poverty and need, are also deprived of this precious good. Jesus has revealed to us that “God is love” (1 Jn 4:8) and that the highest vocation of every person is love. In Christ we can find the ultimate reason for becoming staunch champions of human dignity and courageous builders of peace.

17. Let every believer, then, unfailingly contribute to the advancement of a true integral humanism in accordance with the teachings of the Encyclical Letters Populorum Progressio and Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, whose respective fortieth and twentieth anniversaries we prepare to celebrate this year. To the Queen of Peace, the Mother of Jesus Christ “our peace” (Eph 2:14), I entrust my urgent prayer for all humanity at the beginning of the year 2007, to which we look with hearts full of hope, notwithstanding the dangers and difficulties that surround us. May Mary show us, in her Son, the Way of peace, and enlighten our vision, so that we can recognize Christ's face in the face of every human person, the heart of peace!

From the Vatican, 8 December 2006.

BENEDICTUS PP. XVI

(1) Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 357.

(2) Sermo 169, 11, 13: PL 38, 923.

(3) No. 3.

(4) Homily at Islinger Feld, Regensburg, 12 September 2006.

(5) Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the collaboration of men and women in the Church and in the world (31 May 2004), 15-16.

(6) No. 38.

(7) In this regard, the Catechism of the Catholic Church indicates strict and precise criteria: cf. 2307-2317.

(8) Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, 80.

(9) Ibid., 76.


asianews

Fundamentalism and relativism, enemies of religious freedom and peace
by Bernardo Cervellera
In his message for World Day of Peace 2011, Benedict XVI shows solidarity with the many persecuted Christians (Iraq, the Holy Land, ...), but also highlights that persecution does not only come from Islamic terrorism, but also secular Western society that stifles the religious dimension, eliminating an important element for human life and coexistence between peoples.

Rome (AsiaNews)-Freedom of religion, path to peace ", the Message for World Day of Peace in 2011, made public today by Benedict XVI, rips the issue of religious freedom from the simple issue of defending against the persecution of believers and puts it right at the heart of the present and future of the global society.

He defends the presence of Christians in Iraq - recalling the terrible massacre of 31 October in Baghdad, on the Syrian Catholic cathedral - and the difficulties of many believers, unable to express their faith, to defend their religion (the case Bibi of Asia), or to change it according to their search for truth. He also remembers the oppression experienced by Christians in the Holy Land - crushed between a double fundamentalism, Jewish and Muslim, from the war of Israeli settlements and Palestinian guerrilla and terrorist radicalism, the intolerance to which the faithful in many parts of the world are subjected, Africa (Egypt, Algeria, Sudan, Nigeria, ...) and Asia (North Korea, Vietnam, China, India, Malaysia, Myanmar, ...).

Most importantly, this message shows that religious freedom is a true "weapon of peace", whose mission statement is historical and prophetic for the contemporary world (see No. 15).

It is not difficult to recognize that in most countries where violence is practiced against religious freedom, there is a wide range of violations of all human rights, and a tension that heralds the possibility of war. It is so in Iran and North Korea, Pakistan and China in Myanmar, Sudan and Egypt.

In this way, religious freedom is manifested - even if not yet understood - to be the basis of all human rights, “the litmus test for the respect of all the other human rights” (5).

Above all, Benedict XVI says that religious freedom allows believers to offer without fear their contribution to society, ensuring ideals that go beyond grim commercialism (2).

For the pope, religious freedom is also the basis for social cohesion because it allows individuals to look at each other with respect and collaborate for a society that is committed to the common good and not only self interest or those of single ethnic groups (No.3).

In the document the Pope names of the enemies of religious freedom which thereby are also the enemies of peace. They are fundamentalism and relativism.

The first exploits the freedom of religion (of a particular religion) " to disguise hidden interests, such as the subversion of the established order, the hoarding of resources or the grip on power of a single group, can cause enormous harm to societies" . And here, the pope once again condemns all violence done in the name of God, remembering that the truth imposes itself by its own force (see paragraph 7). In the words of the Pope allusions to Islamic and Hindu radicalism, terrorism can be seen.

But what is curious and a sign of great depth is his placing relativism close to fundamentalism (which everyone condemns). That relativism which empties religious conviction of value and condemns it to being foreign in society. And here Benedict XVI is targeting the Western world where, with the excuse of not offending other religions, sees sacred signs erased from public life and religious experience compelled to the private sphere: "the laws and institutions of a society - cries the pope - cannot be shaped in such a way as to ignore the religious dimension of its citizens or to prescind completely from it. "(No. 8). One is reminded of some debates and attempts to condemn the Catholic Church as "racist" because it does not allow women priests, it does not recognize unions between gays as equal to marriage between man and woman, or the attempt on behalf of "women's rights", to force conscientious objectors to perform abortions.

A vast majority of the Western world looks at these tensions as sacristy nonsense, attempts by Catholics to defend an outdated morality. Benedict XVI says that these statements of position in the secularist and relativist world against religious freedom are the signs of an impending war. The empty materialism of the West, which marginalizes religion, is one step away from destroying all civil development created in two millennia of Christianity and European culture.

For this very reason, the pontiff asks that the legislation of various countries take into account international law in terms of human and religious rights, and proposes as a symbol for a future of peace the meeting in Assisi in 1986.

“The year 2011 - he says - is marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the World Day of Prayer for Peace convened in Assisi in 1986 by Pope John Paul II. On that occasion the leaders of the great world religions testified to the fact that religion is a factor of union and peace, and not of division and conflict. The memory of that experience gives reason to hope for a future in which all believers will see themselves, and will actually be, agents of justice and peace" (n.11).

asianews

Religious freedom is the path to peace, Pope says
Pope Benedict XVI’s message for World Peace Day was released today. The Holy Father remembers the Holy Land and the Baghdad cathedral massacre, noting that Christians are the most persecuted religious group in the world. He warns against the threats of fundamentalism, secularism and the politicisation of faith. Religious freedom is a right founded on the dignity of the person; it is not a concession by the state. He speaks about the public role of religion.

Vatican City (AsiaNews) – “Religious freedom, the path to peace” is the title of Pope Benedict XVI’s message for the 44th World Peace Day that is celebrated on 1 January.

Released today, the message begins with some thoughts for Iraqi Christians and the massacre carried out in Baghdad’s Syro- Catholic cathedral, stressing that “in some areas of the world it is impossible to profess one’s religion freely except at the risk of life and personal liberty.”

The message, which also refers to the Holy Land, goes on to say that“Christians are the religious group which suffers most from persecution on account of its faith”. It laments the fact that religious freedom continues to be threatened by an intolerant secularism that is opposed to every expression of religion, by fundamentalism, secularism’s mirror image, by the politicisation of religion and the imposition of state religions, and by the “illusion that moral relativism provides the key for peaceful coexistence [when in fact it] is actually the origin of divisions and the denial of the dignity of human beings.”

In fact, for Benedict XVI religious freedom, like other human rights, neither depends on the recognition of the state nor is it a concession by the state because it pre-exists the state, and is based on the natural dignity of the person.

It is a “path to peace” since the recognition of the inalienable human right to seek or deny God and adapt one’s behaviour to the truth gives a community the ethical basis on which it can search a positive and full development that is respectful of mankind. Religion’s “public dimension” stems from that, so does the positive contribution it can make to social, economic and political life.

“Religious freedom is,” the Pope writes, “also an achievement of a sound political and juridical culture. It is an essential good: each person must be able freely to exercise the right to profess and manifest, individually or in community, his or her own religion or faith, in public and in private, in teaching, in practice, in publications, in worship and in ritual observances. There should be no obstacles should he or she eventually wish to belong to another religion or profess none at all.”

“The world needs God,” the Pope says. “It needs universal, shared ethical and spiritual values, and religion can offer a precious contribution to their pursuit, for the building of a just and peaceful social order at the national and international levels.”

Here is the full message:

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, THE PATH TO PEACE

1. at the beginning of the new year I offer good wishes to each and all for serenity and prosperity, but especially for peace. Sadly, the year now ending has again been marked by persecution, discrimination, terrible acts of violence and religious intolerance.

My thoughts turn in a special way to the beloved country of Iraq, which continues to be a theatre of violence and strife as it makes its way towards a future of stability and reconciliation. I think of the recent sufferings of the Christian community, and in particular the reprehensible attack on the Syro-Catholic Cathedral of Our Lady of Perpetual Help in Baghdad, where on 31 October two priests and over fifty faithful were killed as they gathered for the celebration of Holy Mass. In the days that followed, other attacks ensued, even on private homes, spreading fear within the Christian community and a desire on the part of many to emigrate in search of a better life. I assure them of my own closeness and that of the entire Church, a closeness which found concrete expression in the recent Special Assembly for the Middle East of the Synod of Bishops. The Synod encouraged the Catholic communities in Iraq and throughout the Middle East to live in communion and to continue to offer a courageous witness of faith in those lands.

I offer heartfelt thanks to those Governments which are working to alleviate the sufferings of these, our brothers and sisters in the human family, and I ask all Catholics for their prayers and support for their brethren in the faith who are victims of violence and intolerance. In this context, I have felt it particularly appropriate to share some reflections on religious freedom as the path to peace. It is painful to think that in some areas of the world it is impossible to profess one’s religion freely except at the risk of life and personal liberty. In other areas we see more subtle and sophisticated forms of prejudice and hostility towards believers and religious symbols. At present, Christians are the religious group which suffers most from persecution on account of its faith. Many Christians experience daily affronts and often live in fear because of their pursuit of truth, their faith in Jesus Christ and their heartfelt plea for respect for religious freedom. This situation is unacceptable, since it represents an insult to God and to human dignity; furthermore, it is a threat to security and peace, and an obstacle to the achievement of authentic and integral human development.1

Religious freedom expresses what is unique about the human person, for it allows us to direct our personal and social life to God, in whose light the identity, meaning and purpose of the person are fully understood. To deny or arbitrarily restrict this freedom is to foster a reductive vision of the human person; to eclipse the public role of religion is to create a society which is unjust, inasmuch as it fails to take account of the true nature of the human person; it is to stifle the growth of the authentic and lasting peace of the whole human family.

For this reason, I implore all men and women of good will to renew their commitment to building a world where all are free to profess their religion or faith, and to express their love of God with all their heart, with all their soul and with all their mind (cf. Mt 22:37). This is the sentiment which inspires and directs this Message for the XLIV World Day of Peace, devoted to the theme: Religious Freedom, the Path to Peace.



A sacred right to life and to a spiritual life

2. The right to religious freedom is rooted in the very dignity of the human person,2 whose transcendent nature must not be ignored or overlooked. God created man and woman in his own image and likeness (cf. Gen 1:27). For this reason each person is endowed with the sacred right to a full life, also from a spiritual standpoint. Without the acknowledgement of his spiritual being, without openness to the transcendent, the human person withdraws within himself, fails to find answers to the heart’s deepest questions about life’s meaning, fails to appropriate lasting ethical values and principles, and fails even to experience authentic freedom and to build a just society.3

Sacred Scripture, in harmony with our own experience, reveals the profound value of human dignity: "When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars which you have established, what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man, that you care for him? Yet you have made him little less than God, and crowned him with glory and honour. You have given him dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet" (Ps 8:3-6).

Contemplating the sublime reality of human nature, we can experience the same amazement felt by the Psalmist. Our nature appears as openness to the Mystery, a capacity to ask deep questions about ourselves and the origin of the universe, and a profound echo of the supreme Love of God, the beginning and end of all things, of every person and people.4 The transcendent dignity of the person is an essential value of Judeo-Christian wisdom, yet thanks to the use of reason, it can be recognized by all. This dignity, understood as a capacity to transcend one’s own materiality and to seek truth, must be acknowledged as a universal good, indispensable for the building of a society directed to human fulfilment. Respect for essential elements of human dignity, such as the right to life and the right to religious freedom, is a condition for the moral legitimacy of every social and legal norm.



Religious freedom and mutual respect

3. Religious freedom is at the origin of moral freedom. Openness to truth and perfect goodness, openness to God, is rooted in human nature; it confers full dignity on each individual and is the guarantee of full mutual respect between persons. Religious freedom should be understood, then, not merely as immunity from coercion, but even more fundamentally as an ability to order one’s own choices in accordance with truth.

Freedom and respect are inseparable; indeed, "in exercising their rights, individuals and social groups are bound by the moral law to have regard for the rights of others, their own duties to others and the common good of all".5

A freedom which is hostile or indifferent to God becomes self-negating and does not guarantee full respect for others. A will which believes itself radically incapable of seeking truth and goodness has no objective reasons or motives for acting save those imposed by its fleeting and contingent interests; it does not have an "identity" to safeguard and build up through truly free and conscious decisions. As a result, it cannot demand respect from other "wills", which are themselves detached from their own deepest being and thus capable of imposing other "reasons" or, for that matter, no "reason" at all. The illusion that moral relativism provides the key for peaceful coexistence is actually the origin of divisions and the denial of the dignity of human beings. Hence we can see the need for recognition of a twofold dimension within the unity of the human person: a religious dimension and a social dimension. In this regard, "it is inconceivable that believers should have to suppress a part of themselves – their faith – in order to be active citizens. It should never be necessary to deny God in order to enjoy one’s rights".6



The family, the school of freedom and peace

4. If religious freedom is the path to peace, religious education is the highway which leads new generations to see others as their brothers and sisters, with whom they are called to journey and work together so that all will feel that they are living members of the one human family, from which no one is to be excluded.

The family founded on marriage, as the expression of the close union and complementarity between a man and a woman, finds its place here as the first school for the social, cultural, moral and spiritual formation and growth of children, who should always be able to see in their father and mother the first witnesses of a life directed to the pursuit of truth and the love of God. Parents must be always free to transmit to their children, responsibly and without constraints, their heritage of faith, values and culture. The family, the first cell of human society, remains the primary training ground for harmonious relations at every level of coexistence, human, national and international. Wisdom suggests that this is the road to building a strong and fraternal social fabric, in which young people can be prepared to assume their proper responsibilities in life, in a free society, and in a spirit of understanding and peace.



A common patrimony

5. It could be said that among the fundamental rights and freedoms rooted in the dignity of the person, religious freedom enjoys a special status. When religious freedom is acknowledged, the dignity of the human person is respected at its root, and the ethos and institutions of peoples are strengthened. On the other hand, whenever religious freedom is denied, and attempts are made to hinder people from professing their religion or faith and living accordingly, human dignity is offended, with a resulting threat to justice and peace, which are grounded in that right social order established in the light of Supreme Truth and Supreme Goodness.

Religious freedom is, in this sense, also an achievement of a sound political and juridical culture. It is an essential good: each person must be able freely to exercise the right to profess and manifest, individually or in community, his or her own religion or faith, in public and in private, in teaching, in practice, in publications, in worship and in ritual observances. There should be no obstacles should he or she eventually wish to belong to another religion or profess none at all. In this context, international law is a model and an essential point of reference for states, insofar as it allows no derogation from religious freedom, as long as the just requirements of public order are observed.7 The international order thus recognizes that rights of a religious nature have the same status as the right to life and to personal freedom, as proof of the fact that they belong to the essential core of human rights, to those universal and natural rights which human law can never deny.

Religious freedom is not the exclusive patrimony of believers, but of the whole family of the earth’s peoples. It is an essential element of a constitutional state; it cannot be denied without at the same time encroaching on all fundamental rights and freedoms, since it is their synthesis and keystone. It is "the litmus test for the respect of all the other human rights".8 While it favours the exercise of our most specifically human faculties, it creates the necessary premises for the attainment of an integral development which concerns the whole of the person in every single dimension.9



The public dimension of religion

6. Religious freedom, like every freedom, proceeds from the personal sphere and is achieved in relationship with others. Freedom without relationship is not full freedom. Religious freedom is not limited to the individual dimension alone, but is attained within one’s community and in society, in a way consistent with the relational being of the person and the public nature of religion.

Relationship is a decisive component in religious freedom, which impels the community of believers to practise solidarity for the common good. In this communitarian dimension, each person remains unique and unrepeatable, while at the same time finding completion and full realization.

The contribution of religious communities to society is undeniable. Numerous charitable and cultural institutions testify to the constructive role played by believers in the life of society. More important still is religion’s ethical contribution in the political sphere. Religion should not be marginalized or prohibited, but seen as making an effective contribution to the promotion of the common good. In this context mention should be made of the religious dimension of culture, built up over centuries thanks to the social and especially ethical contributions of religion. This dimension is in no way discriminatory towards those who do not share its beliefs, but instead reinforces social cohesion, integration and solidarity.



Religious freedom, a force for freedom and civilization: dangers arising from its exploitation

7. The exploitation of religious freedom to disguise hidden interests, such as the subversion of the established order, the hoarding of resources or the grip on power of a single group, can cause enormous harm to societies. Fanaticism, fundamentalism and practices contrary to human dignity can never be justified, even less so in the name of religion. The profession of a religion cannot be exploited or imposed by force. States and the various human communities must never forget that religious freedom is the condition for the pursuit of truth, and truth does not impose itself by violence but "by the force of its own truth".10 In this sense, religion is a positive driving force for the building of civil and political society.

How can anyone deny the contribution of the world’s great religions to the development of civilization? The sincere search for God has led to greater respect for human dignity. Christian communities, with their patrimony of values and principles, have contributed much to making individuals and peoples aware of their identity and their dignity, the establishment of democratic institutions and the recognition of human rights and their corresponding duties.

Today too, in an increasingly globalized society, Christians are called, not only through their responsible involvement in civic, economic and political life but also through the witness of their charity and faith, to offer a valuable contribution to the laborious and stimulating pursuit of justice, integral human development and the right ordering of human affairs. The exclusion of religion from public life deprives the latter of a dimension open to transcendence. Without this fundamental experience it becomes difficult to guide societies towards universal ethical principles and to establish at the national and international level a legal order which fully recognizes and respects fundamental rights and freedoms as these are set forth in the goals – sadly still disregarded or contradicted – of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

An issue of justice and civility: fundamentalism and hostility to believers compromise the positive secularity of states

8. The same determination that condemns every form of fanaticism and religious fundamentalism must also oppose every form of hostility to religion that would restrict the public role of believers in civil and political life.

It should be clear that religious fundamentalism and secularism are alike in that both represent extreme forms of a rejection of legitimate pluralism and the principle of secularity. Both absolutize a reductive and partial vision of the human person, favouring in the one case forms of religious integralism and, in the other, of rationalism. A society that would violently impose or, on the contrary, reject religion is not only unjust to individuals and to God, but also to itself. God beckons humanity with a loving plan that, while engaging the whole person in his or her natural and spiritual dimensions, calls for a free and responsible answer which engages the whole heart and being, individual and communitarian. Society too, as an expression of the person and of all his or her constitutive dimensions, must live and organize itself in a way that favours openness to transcendence. Precisely for this reason, the laws and institutions of a society cannot be shaped in such a way as to ignore the religious dimension of its citizens or to prescind completely from it. Through the democratic activity of citizens conscious of their lofty calling, those laws and institutions must adequately reflect the authentic nature of the person and support its religious dimension. Since the latter is not a creation of the state, it cannot be manipulated by the state, but must rather be acknowledged and respected by it.

Whenever the legal system at any level, national or international, allows or tolerates religious or antireligious fanaticism, it fails in its mission, which is to protect and promote justice and the rights of all. These matters cannot be left to the discretion of the legislator or the majority since, as Cicero once pointed out, justice is something more than a mere act which produces and applies law. It entails acknowledging the dignity of each person11 which, unless religious freedom is guaranteed and lived in its essence, ends up being curtailed and offended, exposed to the risk of falling under the sway of idols, of relative goods which then become absolute. All this exposes society to the risk of forms of political and ideological totalitarianism which emphasize public power while demeaning and restricting freedom of conscience, thought and religion as potential competitors.



Dialogue between civil and religious institutions

9. The patrimony of principles and values expressed by an authentic religiosity is a source of enrichment for peoples and their ethos. It speaks directly to the conscience and mind of men and women, it recalls the need for moral conversion, and it encourages the practice of the virtues and a loving approach to others as brothers and sisters, as members of the larger human family.12

With due respect for the positive secularity of state institutions, the public dimension of religion must always be acknowledged. A healthy dialogue between civil and religious institutions is fundamental for the integral development of the human person and social harmony.



Living in love and in truth

10. In a globalized world marked by increasingly multi-ethnic and multi-religious societies, the great religions can serve as an important factor of unity and peace for the human family. On the basis of their religious convictions and their reasoned pursuit of the common good, their followers are called to give responsible expression to their commitment within a context of religious freedom. Amid the variety of religious cultures, there is a need to value those elements which foster civil coexistence, while rejecting whatever is contrary to the dignity of men and women.

The public space which the international community makes available for the religions and their proposal of what constitutes a "good life" helps to create a measure of agreement about truth and goodness, and a moral consensus; both of these are fundamental to a just and peaceful coexistence. The leaders of the great religions, thanks to their position, their influence and their authority in their respective communities, are the first ones called to mutual respect and dialogue.

Christians, for their part, are spurred by their faith in God, the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, to live as brothers and sisters who encounter one another in the Church and work together in building a world where individuals and peoples "shall not hurt or destroy … for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea" (Is 11:9).



Dialogue as a shared pursuit

11. For the Church, dialogue between the followers of the different religions represents an important means of cooperating with all religious communities for the common good. The Church herself rejects nothing of what is true and holy in the various religions. "She has a high regard for those ways of life and conduct, precepts and doctrines which, although differing in many ways from her own teaching, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men and women".13

The path to take is not the way of relativism or religious syncretism. The Church, in fact, "proclaims, and is in duty bound to proclaim without fail, Christ who is the way, the truth and the life (Jn 14:6); in Christ, in whom God reconciled all things to himself, people find the fullness of the religious life".14 Yet this in no way excludes dialogue and the common pursuit of truth in different areas of life, since, as Saint Thomas Aquinas would say, "every truth, whoever utters it, comes from the Holy Spirit".15

The year 2011 marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the World Day of Prayer for Peace convened in Assisi in 1986 by Pope John Paul II. On that occasion the leaders of the great world religions testified to the fact that religion is a factor of union and peace, and not of division and conflict. The memory of that experience gives reason to hope for a future in which all believers will see themselves, and will actually be, agents of justice and peace.



Moral truth in politics and diplomacy

12. Politics and diplomacy should look to the moral and spiritual patrimony offered by the great religions of the world in order to acknowledge and affirm universal truths, principles and values which cannot be denied without denying the dignity of the human person. But what does it mean, in practical terms, to promote moral truth in the world of politics and diplomacy? It means acting in a responsible way on the basis of an objective and integral knowledge of the facts; it means deconstructing political ideologies which end up supplanting truth and human dignity in order to promote pseudo-values under the pretext of peace, development and human rights; it means fostering an unswerving commitment to base positive law on the principles of the natural law.16 All this is necessary and consistent with the respect for the dignity and worth of the human person enshrined by the world’s peoples in the 1945 Charter of the United Nations, which presents universal values and moral principles as a point of reference for the norms, institutions and systems governing coexistence on the national and international levels.



Beyond hatred and prejudice

13. Despite the lessons of history and the efforts of states, international and regional organizations, non-governmental organizations and the many men and women of good will who daily work to protect fundamental rights and freedoms, today’s world also witnesses cases of persecution, discrimination, acts of violence and intolerance based on religion. In a particular way, in Asia and in Africa, the chief victims are the members of religious minorities, who are prevented from freely professing or changing their religion by forms of intimidation and the violation of their rights, basic freedoms and essential goods, including the loss of personal freedom and life itself.

There also exist – as I have said – more sophisticated forms of hostility to religion which, in Western countries, occasionally find expression in a denial of history and the rejection of religious symbols which reflect the identity and the culture of the majority of citizens. Often these forms of hostility also foster hatred and prejudice; they are inconsistent with a serene and balanced vision of pluralism and the secularity of institutions, to say nothing of the fact that coming generations risk losing contact with the priceless spiritual heritage of their countries.

Religion is defended by defending the rights and freedoms of religious communities. The leaders of the great world religions and the leaders of nations should therefore renew their commitment to promoting and protecting religious freedom, and in particular to defending religious minorities; these do not represent a threat to the identity of the majority but rather an opportunity for dialogue and mutual cultural enrichment. Defending them is the ideal way to consolidate the spirit of good will, openness and reciprocity which can ensure the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms in all areas and regions of the world.


Religious freedom in the world

14. Finally I wish to say a word to the Christian communities suffering from persecution, discrimination, violence and intolerance, particularly in Asia, in Africa, in the Middle East and especially in the Holy Land, a place chosen and blessed by God. I assure them once more of my paternal affection and prayers, and I ask all those in authority to act promptly to end every injustice against the Christians living in those lands. In the face of present difficulties, may Christ’s followers not lose heart, for witnessing to the Gospel is, and always will be, a sign of contradiction.

Let us take to heart the words of the Lord Jesus: "Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted … Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied … Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven" (Mt 5:4-12). Then let us renew "the pledge we give to be forgiving and to pardon when we invoke God’s forgiveness in the Our Father. We ourselves lay down the condition and the extent of the mercy we ask for when we say: ‘And forgive us our debts, as we have forgiven those who are in debt to us’ (Mt 6:12)".17 Violence is not overcome by violence. May our cries of pain always be accompanied by faith, by hope and by the witness of our love of God. I also express my hope that in the West, and especially in Europe, there will be an end to hostility and prejudice against Christians because they are resolved to orient their lives in a way consistent with the values and principles expressed in the Gospel. May Europe rather be reconciled to its own Christian roots, which are fundamental for understanding its past, present and future role in history; in this way it will come to experience justice, concord and peace by cultivating a sincere dialogue with all peoples.


Religious freedom, the path to peace

15. The world needs God. It needs universal, shared ethical and spiritual values, and religion can offer a precious contribution to their pursuit, for the building of a just and peaceful social order at the national and international levels.

Peace is a gift of God and at the same time a task which is never fully completed. A society reconciled with God is closer to peace, which is not the mere absence of war or the result of military or economic supremacy, much less deceptive ploys or clever manipulation. Rather, peace is the result of a process of purification and of cultural, moral and spiritual elevation involving each individual and people, a process in which human dignity is fully respected. I invite all those who wish to be peacemakers, especially the young, to heed the voice speaking within their hearts and thus to find in God the stable point of reference for attaining authentic freedom, the inexhaustible force which can give the world a new direction and spirit, and overcome the mistakes of the past. In the words of Pope Paul VI, to whose wisdom and farsightedness we owe the institution of the World Day of Peace: "It is necessary before all else to provide peace with other weapons – different from those destined to kill and exterminate mankind. What are needed above all are moral weapons, those which give strength and prestige to international law – the weapon, in the first place, of the observance of pacts".18 Religious freedom is an authentic weapon of peace, with an historical and prophetic mission. Peace brings to full fruition the deepest qualities and potentials of the human person, the qualities which can change the world and make it better. It gives hope for a future of justice and peace, even in the face of grave injustice and material and moral poverty. May all men and women, and societies at every level and in every part of the earth, soon be able to experience religious freedom, the path to peace!



From the Vatican, 8 December 2010

BENEDICTUS PP XVI

_____________________________

1 Cf. BENEDICT XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate, 29, 55-57.

2 Cf. SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae, 2.

3 Cf. BENEDICT XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate, 78.

4 Cf. SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions Nostra Aetate, 1.

5 ID., Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae, 7.

6 BENEDICT XVI, Address to the General Assembly of the United Nations (18 April 2008): AAS 100 (2008), 337.

7 Cf. SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae, 2.

8 JOHN PAUL II, Address to Participants in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) (10 October 2003), 1: AAS 96 (2004), 111.

9 Cf. BENEDICT XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate, 11.

10 Cf. SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae, 1.

11 Cf. CICERO, De Inventione, II, 160.

12 Cf. BENEDICT XVI, Address to Representatives of Other Religions in the United Kingdom (17 September 2010): L’Osservatore Romano (18 September 2010), p. 12.

13 Cf. SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions Nostra Aetate, 2.

14 Ibid.

15 Super Evangelium Joannis, I, 3.

16 Cf. BENEDICT XVI, Address to Civil Authorities and the Diplomatic Corps in Cyprus (4 June 2010): L’Osservatore Romano (6 June 2010), p. 8; INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION, The Search for Universal Ethics: A New Look at Natural Law, Vatican City, 2009.

17 PAUL VI, Message for the 1976 World Day of Peace: AAS 67 (1975), 671.

18 Ibid., p. 668.

[01797-01.01] [Original text in Italian]

[B0780-XX.01]


asianews

A few weeks ago, it was announced on a broadcast of BBC Burmese program that a Burmese national of the Rohingya ethnic group had been granted political asylum in Japan. We should be pleased with this sign of the Japanese government’s humanitarian attitude towards people who could face various kinds of dangers in their homeland, including death, regardless of their race, religion or nationality. However what concerns me in this case, as a native historian of Burma, is the ethnicity of the so-called Rohingyas. Who are the Rohingyas? This issue has been a problem for Burma since it gained independence from Great Britain.

The person who was granted asylum in Japan is Mr. Zaw Min Htut, the author of a book titled “The Union of Burma and Ethnic Rohingyas,” published in Japan in 2001. The book deals with the history of the so-called Rohingya people of Arakan State, presently called Rakhine State, in the Union of Myanmar. An article of mine was given special reference in his book. However, I am not happy with the way it was referred to. Zaw Min Htut has clearly abused the academic platform for political purposes, producing a false picture of the Arakenese history. The bizarre phenomenom created by Zaw Min Htut and his precursors is the literary wing of the political scheme that aims at changing the northwestern part of Arakan(Rakhine) State of Union of Myanmar, the original homeland of Arakanese (Rakhine) people into the Rohingya State.

In this article, I want to discuss whether the Rohingyas are an indigenous ethnic group of Burma or not. Being a scholar, I want to handle this matter without any prejudice or misconception. In this regard, I can confidently say that there has never been such an ethnic group throughout the history of Burma. The people called Rohingyas by Zaw Min Htut and his mentors are direct descendents of immigrants from the Chittagong District of East Bengal (present day Bangladesh). The British colonial officials called them Chittagonians in their administrative records. They migrated into Arakan after the province was ceded to British India under the terms of Treaty of Yandabo concluded at the end of the First Anglo-Burmese War in 1826. Most of them settled down in the Buthidaung and Maungdaw Districts of Arakan State, the frontier areas near Burma’s border with Bangladesh. This, of course does not mean that they do not deserve the equal rights that the other ethnic groups of Burma should enjoy regardless of whether or not democracy is restored in the country.

Probably Zaw Min Htut is an activist of younger generation. However, the movement of his precursors brought great bloodsheds to Arakan in the wartime and the opening decade of independent Burma. Some Arakanese people of that region in their early seventies and eighties have still not forgotten the atrocities they suffered in 1942 during the short period of anarchy between the British evacuation and the Japanese occupation of the area. For all these public disorders experienced by both of the Arakanese Buddhists in the western frontier and the Muslims in the Arakan proper (Mrauk-U and Kyauktaw townships), I certainly feel much reasonable to blame British Governor Sir Dorman Smith’s colonial administration for arming those Chittagonians in frontier area as the volunteer forces to deter the Japanese incursions and create a buffer between the Japanese occupied Burma and British India. An intelligence report said that the volunteers, instead of fighting the Japanese, destroying the Buddhist monasteries and pagodas, massacred thousands of innocent Arakanese civilians. It also expressed the grave concern among the authoritiesof British administration in exile about the holocaust of Arakanese community in the western fringe of Burma by those Chittagonians [British Library:IOR : B/8/9].

The Arakanese folk in rural areas again became the victims of the rebellion which those intrusive settlers launched against the Union of Burma in the 1950s.These innocent Arakanese people faced killing, kidnapping, arson, plunder and rape for a decade after the independence. We should recall what the great archeologist Emile Forchhammer, seeing the persistent flights of the immigrants from the adjacent areas of the British India, predicted:” This land of strange prophesies, Arakan, the Palestine of the Farther East.” [Forchhammer: 1892: 1]

If Zaw Min Htut calls his work a history, he seems to be a poorly trained historian. He not only lacks knowledge of research methodology but also knowledge of the background history of Southeast Asia. He does not seem to have learned about the Indianization of Southeast Asia nor that there were some dynasties in Southeast Asia, who assumed Indian titles, for instance the Varman dynasty in Cambodia, the Vikrama and Varman dynasties in the Irrawaddy Valley of Pre-Pagan Burma, and the Chandra dynasty in Arakan in the first millennium of Christian era. He is completely ignorant of folk migrations that have taken place in the Southeast Asia since the pre-historic times. The forerunners of the Tibeto-Burman races arrived in the Irrawaddy Valley around the beginning of the Christian era and some of them entered the Arakan coastal strip. The presence of Tibeto-Burman races, such as the Chakma in the Chittagong Hill Tract of modern Bangladesh and the Tripuris (known as Mrun to the Arakanese) in Tripura State

in modern India, is a proof of the waves of ethnic migration from central Burma to the Arakan coast and then to the northeastern parts of the Indian subcontinent.

Furthermore Zaw Min Htut does not know how epigraphy and paleography affords conclusive evidence that northern Arakan owes its Buddhist and somewhat Hindu traditions to India. At the same time, there is strong presumption that southern Arakan had cultural contacts with the states of Irrawaddy Valley or perhaps even farther eastward to Dvaravati [Paul Wheatly: 1983:184]. The Pyu inscriptions found in Sandoway District and the silver coins of Chandra dynasty found everywhere in Arakan State demonstrate the close cultural and ethnic relationships of the inhabitants of Arakan in Dynnyawaddy and Wethali periods (c. AD 400-1000) with their cousins in the contemporary Irrawaddy Valley. There are four Sanskrit stone inscriptions datable to the AD fourth to tenth centuries found in Arakan, and all of them tell about the Buddhist rituals and ceremonies performed by the people of nobility and gentry. The elite groups of the old Arakan, like those of other Indianized kingdoms of mainland and island Southeast Asia used Sanskrit as court language.

Zaw Min Htut’s book attempts to prove that the so-called Rohingyas are the descendents of Arab castaways from shipwrecks on the Arakan coast in the ninth century and that they had been inhabitants in Arakan at least two centuries before the Arakanese people of Tibeto-Burman family reached Arakan. This illogical spectulation is based on an account of the Arakanese chronicle, written by Sara Nga Mei in 1826 [Nga Mei: 1826:so-ob 5-8; so-re 1-5]. Following the chronicle, R.B.Smart, the Deputy Commissioner of Akyab District, wrote that in the ninth century several ships were wrecked on Ramree Island and the Muslim crews placed in the villages in Arakan [R.B.Smart:1957:86]. Other chronicles also tell the story of some shipwrecks; however none of them say that the crews were Arabs or Muslim. The word for Arab and Persian in archaic Burmese and Arakanese is Pathi. The chroniclers do not say that there were any Pathis (Arabs or Persians) sent to Wethali, the capital city of Arakan, or that they were allowed to build mosques for their community. All these sentences, plus the word “Arab castaways,” and the statement that those Arabs were allowed to settle down in Wethli were intentionally added by Zaw Min Hut and his precursor, Ba Tha, one of the Rohingya storytellers [Ba Tha : 1964].

In the field of research methodology, he does not seem to grasp the importance of primary sources of information in historical research. Although he does give reference to some works of the authorities on Burmese history, his way of quoting from scholarly writings shows an explicit insincerity. In his bibliography, either the date of publication or the title of the article or the name of the publisher is not given for some works. Furthermore, his style of writing is logically weak, for while he confidently asserts that the language spoken by the Rohigya people is similar to the Bengali and Sanskrit, linguistically of the Indo-Aryan languages family, he cannot bring forward any linguistic affinities of their language with the Semitic languages that Arabic belongs to.

Altogether eight paragraphs from one of my articles were excerpted in his book with a forwarding statement that he was citing an original text of mine [Aye Chan: 1975:56-7]. However, when I carefully examined them, I found that he dropped some sentences of mine and substituted them with his own, using them to draw a conclusion that the people whom he called Rohingyas had been the earlier settlers of the Mayu Frontier area in the northwest Arakan, namely present day Buthidaung and Maungdaw Districts. My research presented in that article had nothing to do with the migration of the Bengali people from Chittagong District of modern Bangladesh into Arakan. The intent of my article was to examine the fall of Wethali dynasty in the last decades of the tenth century.

If Zaw Min Htut asks me about the people of Old Arakan in the Dynnyawaddy and Wethali Periods (c.A.D.400-1000), I will answer with certainty that they were of Mongoloid stock, not very distant cousins of the Pyus of Irrawaddy Valley. Every student of Burmese history knows that the Anandachandra Inscription in Sanskrit is the only source of Arakanese chronology before the Lemro period (AD1018-1406) and also that the information and list of the kings of the Dynnyawaddy and Wethali dynasties given by the chronicles contain much legend and are not reliable for historical research. This is because the tradition of writing chronicles began in the early eighteenth century, and most of the works of Arakanese chroniclers were brought to the Burmese capital, Amarapura after the Burmese conquest of the country in 1784. The numismatic evidences have proved the reigns of some kings of the Chandra dynasty as mentioned by the inscription in the later half of the AD first millennium. The sculptural scrutiny of leading archeologists and art historians has proved that the earliest inhabitants of Arakan were of Mogoloid stock [Pamela Gutman: 2001:5]. The other sources we can rely for the study of early Arakanese history are the Buddhist pagodas, the Buddha images, and the variety of artifacts thus far unearthed. Unfortunately no archaeological evidence to prove the presence of the Muslim community in Arakan prior to the beginning of the fifteenth century has been found yet.

However, I do not mean there was no Muslim community in Arakan before the state was absorbed into British India. Some Bengali retinues of King Saw Mun (r.1430-1433) who regained the throne with the military aid from Sultanate of Bengal were allowed to settled down in the suburban area of Mrauk-U, the new royal capital. They were the earliest Muslim settlers who do not seem to count many. There had been a minor Muslim presence mostly made up of Muslim mercenaries, itinerant merchants from Persia and Golkonda and some Bengali captives of the Arakanese and Portuguese pirates sold into slavery. The descendants of those people can be found in the vicinity of Royal capital Mrauk-U and Kyauktaw Township. [R.B. Smart: 1957: 87] Professing the Islamic faith, they have lived in Arakan since the early seventeenth century, where their way of life pertains to their lands of origin. Speaking Arkanese dialect, they never claim themselves being Rohingyas. They want to be called themselves Arakanese Muslims.

It is obvious that the term “Rohingya” was created in 1950s by the educated Chittagonian descendants from Mayu Frontier area (present day Buthidaung and Maungdaw Districts) and that it cannot be found in any historical source materials in any language till then. The creators of that term might be of the second or third generations of the Bengali immigrants from the Chittagong District in modern Bangladesh. R.B. Smart wrote:

“Since 1879, immigration has taken place on a much larger scale and the descendants of the slaves are resident, for the most part in the Kyauktaw and Myohaung [Mrauk-U] townships. Maungdaw township has been overrun by Chittagonian immigrants. Buthidaung is not far behind and new arrivals will be found in almost every part of the district [R.B. Smart: 1957: 87].

It is not a painstaking work to write a well documented piece of research on the migration of those Chittagonians into Arakan State in the nineteenth century. Plenty of primary source materials are available at the Oriental and India Office Collection at British Library in London, Department of National Archives in Rangoon, and the Rangoon University Central Library. It will be my pleasure to help with some source materials from my own collection if Zaw Min Htut and his colleagues want to rewrite the history of their people with the objective reality. If they stubbornly refuse to accept the truth I am ready for a debate in the publicity.

.........................
Title: Who Are the Rohingyas
Author: Dr. Aye Chan
About Author: Dr. Aye Chan
Date: 12/28/2008
Page Hits: 10719

rakhapura