Talk:List of ethnic groups in Myanmar

Impossible to Ignore

How can we appear unbiased if the only mention of the Rohingya is to say they aren't counted? It's obvious this page is being reverted and white-washed by biased actors, the UN acknowledges the goings-on in Rakhine state, this is a major elephant in the room and it should be addressed in an appropriate place in this article. It doesn't have to be a novel, nor an essay, but to not mention it (besides an off-hand image caption) seems preposterous. This was an issue in 2012, it was an issue years before on here, and it's even MORE relevant today so the fact that this has been ignored on this article - in which it is very much a relevant topic, preferably under "unrecognized ethnic groups" - is a miscarriage of the purpose of this website, which if I'm not mistaken is to inform. Correct me if I'm wrong. 2601:87:4400:AF2:3535:4854:7A99:ED90 (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The Rohingya again

There was a lot of talk a few years ago about the Rohingya on this page - I can see from the history that this is still being reverted fairly often. This is of increased importance again due to recent events in Rakhine State. This problem is one of bias - but bias goes both ways. If we don't include the Rohingya, are we not appearing biased towards that view of Myanmar? The only way forward as I see it is to present both sides of the argument clearly - either here or on the Rohingya page. --Losgann (talk) 06:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Kokang

Why does Kokang say "Mandarin Chinese" after it? Aren't they ethnolinguistic Shan, as described on the various websites? Badagnani 01:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The Kokang are ethnic Chinese who fled during the Ming dynasty and formed the Yang dynasty and district which was autonomous, but in name controlled by the Ming dynasty. They speak a Mandarin dialect similar to Yunnan Mandarin, and their district was incorporated into British Burma through the Anglo-Chinese Treaty 1897. The Kokang are under "Shan National Race" only because they live in Shan State. Page 109 of Globalizing Chinese Migration: Trends in Europe and Asia (ISBN 0754617939) mentions this, as does [1] (well, sort of, the Mandarin Chinese names).--Hintha 03:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this -- so this means we can remove the hidden tag asking what the language group is. I'll take care of that. Regarding official classification as Shan, I guess that is yet another example of the government's messed-up terminology. Good thing we're not using that system in the article (though it could be mentioned, along with its deficiencies). That's one good thing about Wikipedia: it's self-correcting and can be used to explain faulty information that is promulgated elsewhere.

Further question: is the "Kokant" spelling completely wrong or is it an alternate spelling? If wrong, then at least that spelling should be mentioned as a "wrong" alternate spelling sometimes used in official government publications and websites. Badagnani 03:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

In all of the publications I have seen, none has stated "Kokant". But, considering the government's odd manner of transliterating and romanising names, I wouldn't be surprised if that is an alternative name. But if it is, 'Kokant' is certainly not Burmese or Mandarin in origin. --Hintha 03:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

EVOLUTION OF MYANMAR MUSLIMS.

Race. Ethnic Groups.

Successive Myanmar Military leaders repeatedly claim that Muslims in Myanmar (Burma) could not be called, registered or enlisted as a separate race. They are giving various reasons or lame excuses for that attempts of Ethnic Cleansing.(I hope Wikipedia could stay neutral and resist on this issue of the attemps by some of its own Burmese Chauvinist editors to erase my Burmese Muslims/Myanmar Muslims and Burmese Indian Muslims/Myanmar Indian Muslims --

1.Muslims in Myanmar (Burma) are mix-blooded people, not pure race as Burmese Buddhists.
2.Muslims are migrants only and not the original people of the land.
3.Muslims are scattered all over the country without owning a separate state as other races of Burma.
4.No race can be formed base on the religion.
5.By calling Kala, meaning Indian, the authorities equate all the Muslims with the recent migrants of Indians under the British or even trying to accuse as fresh illegal immigrant.
6.The hidden agenda is their deep-seated fear of propagation of Islam. They are scared of future Muslim dominance although it is not possible.

We hereby intend to consider some undeniable facts about the three crucial words of –
Now let us look at the “ROOTS OF MYANMAR MUSLIMS.”

Forefathers of Myanmar Muslims had landed in Myanmar (Burma’s Rakhine, Ayeyarwady delta and Tanintharyi coast) as early as ninth century, roughly about 200 years before King Anawrahta of Pagan established the first Myanmar (Burmese) empire in 1055 AD.

He later concurred the King Manuha and Buddhist Mons of Thaton. He then invited Shin Arahan to propagate Buddhist teaching among people of Pagan. So the Buddhist religion reached Burma much later than the arrival of Islam. But we had to admit that the Hindus and Buddhists arrived the lower Burma (not owned by the Burmese or Myanmar yet) earlier than the Islam.

Because of that uniting force of Buddhist Religion, the original three Ethnic Minority Groups of Pagan: Pyu, Kan Yan and Thet assimilated homogeneously into present Myanmars. So, we hereby want to challenge present Myanmar Generals, especially BSPP/SLORC/SPDC and cohorts Burmese Chauvinists to deny that the Buddhist Religion forms the backbone of the formation of Burmans or Myanmars.

Even the Chinese, Indian Hindus, Indian Muslims, Japanese and some Anglo Burmans if they convert (or pretend to convert to) Buddhism they would be homogeneously assimilated into Burmese Buddhists. Burmese Chinese like General Ne Win, General Khin Nyunt, President San Yu etc are accepted as “PURE BURMESE” and given hightest positions. When SHIA MUSLIM U Sein Win and Sunni Dr Maung Di renounced Islam, they were accepted into the mainstream administration, Sein Win was even given PM post. Mg Di deputy Ed. Minister. There are many mixed –blooded people in Myanmar disguised as PURE Bamas. During the SPDC’s present registration on issuing National Identity Cards, if any said he or she is Buddhist no more questions, easily accepted as pure Bama. But one the relagion is Islam, even if he or se is recently converted into Islam, they refused to accept as a pure race.

It is not a simple, minor issue but the very important thing of denying a citizen’s right to posess a National Identity Card. Without it could not travel inside or outside MYANMAR/Burma.

1.Race.
2.Ethnic Minority Group and,
3.Citizen.

We should analyze which groups of people are deserved to be called or who have the sole right to be called a separate Race, separate distinct Ethnic Minority Group or a real Citizen.

1.Are only so called “pure race” should be called a race and not so pure or mixed blooded people could not stay together to form a RACE?
2.Or are those “pure blooded” races are really pure enough?
3.Are those “Original Owners of the Land” really true or just mere early Migrants, reserving and monopolizing the place?
4.Are migrants always regarded as migrants without entitlement to any Human Rights or Citizens’ Rights, even after few generations?
5.Well-established migrants, after already accepted as a citizen are still foreigners?
6.Are descendents of migrants and local mixed marriages still alien after few generations?
7.Could a conqueror of the war just annexes the new territory and regarded the locals staying in that land as Foreigners and started the ethnic cleansing?
8.Could that conqueror brought back the prisoners of war back, for various reasons e.g. slavery, to serve in various positions, civil or army, and allowed to settle in the heart of the country as permanent aliens for few generations?
9.Could the kings, after accepting the helping friendly allied forces, allow them to settle in his country, gave land, property and even brides as rewards after the victory, but a few generations later kicked them out as lousy migrants?
10.After staying few dozens of years or few centuries under a foreign powers as a colony, once got the independence, could the new local government start to kick out the migrants entered during the period of colony?
11.Could they erase the real historical fact of gaining their independence after all was obtained with the help of so-called migrants?
12.Should they neglect the promises of fair and equal treatment they had given to those Migrants and the colonial masters before gaining the independence?
13.Is a religion could never form the backbone of a race?
14.Is descendents of migrants could never form a separate or distinct race?
15.Is a religion could never form the backbone of an ethnic minority group?
16.Is descendents of migrants could never form an ethnic minority group?
17.To be regarded as a race, ethnic minority group or a citizen, is there any rule to be the original settler or owner of a land? Country? Or a State?
18.Have the Migrants no chance to be accepted as citizens?

Although all of the above questions lead to undeniable truth, we like to highlight the above axioms with the following facts. They are taken from the world’s historical theatre and our Myanmar (Burmese) geography and local history.

Race.

A group of people with a certain sense of itself and cohesiveness is called a race. There is usually a commonality or shared values such as: social, culture, attitudes and ideals.The most important bond and determining all these is a religion. There is usually a common language, literature and a territory.

It may be a ‘pure’ race (homogeneous) e.g. Arian, Mongoloid or African. Or a ‘mixed’ race (heterogeneous) that is a mixture of few tribes, clans or minority groups. They mixed, stayed and struggled together with the sense of unity.

Let us look at how Islam deals with this sensitive racial issue as Arabs were and are so proud of their race.

Islam not only recognises absolute equality between men irrespective of any distinction of colour, race or nationality, but also makes it an important and significant principle, a reality.

All Human are descendants of one father and one mother. The division of the human race is neither meant for one nation to take pride in its superiority over others nor is it meant for one nation to treat another with contempt or disgrace, or regard them as a mean and degrade other races and usurp their rights.

South Africa Zulu is the combination of many tribes and clans by a powerful worrier in nineteenth century. So it is obvious that they are not homogeneous. African Americans & Asian Americans are regarded as recognized Ethnic Minority Groups but there are many subgroups under them. Among Asian Americans, some of the bigger groups such as Indian Americans and Chinese Americans could be subdivided according to the clan, dialect, religion and their home state or district. So it is very obvious that non-homogeneous or more correctly, heterogeneous factor could not rule out the legality of a race.

Owning a territory, land, state or country is not very important to become a race. Israelis and Palestinians have no homeland at all earlier in the long world history. Actually they were not the original owners of that sacred land. Just because they had no land, we could not deny the fact that, the Israelis and Palestinians distinct and famous races. They were even mentioned in three holy books and their racial conflict was and is the world’s most important and dangerous problems.

Most of the American Ethnic Groups also have no separate states.

Or some Ethnic Groups’ historical territories may be occupied by different nations or countries at present.

We like to give some examples.

Mons of Myanmar, Thailand and Cambodia, now occupied by three separate countries.

Like some of the Myanmar Ethnic Groups, the Malays, Indonesians and Polynesians had descended from the Yunan But few historians are thinking about the possibility of reverse migration from Australia side. But some Polynesians have got some mixture of Africa.

But even recently some genetic experts found out that there is some evidence that the Chinese originally descended and migrated from Africa. Actually the “Bush People” featured in ‘ God is crazy 2’ are a little bit yellow and their features are some what like Myanmar or Mongoloid. (One of the Myanmar Doctor, Anaesthetic in Namabia wrote in the Myanmar Magazine in 1998).

Karens of Myanmar and Thailand. Shans, Siam and Southern Chinese (Nankhan) divided into the races of Myanmar, Thailand, Laos and some Chinese ethnic minorities.Nagas of Myanmar and India are exactly same races in different countries. And many Ethnic Minority Groups commonly found in China and India are also found and recognised as prided or precious nationals of Myanmar especially in Kachin and Shan States. So the relation of the citizenship for the same race staying in different country is totally different. Relation between the race and history of land ownership is also irrelevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darz kkg (talk • contribs) 02:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC). And the population of the Myanmar Muslims increased during the British rule of Burma because of new waves of Indian Muslim Immigration. This sharply reduced since 1941 because of Indo-Burman Immigration agreement, and totally stopped after Burma (Myanmar) gained independence in Jan.1948. So Myanmar Muslims are at least staying in Myanmar from 50 years and some of them are staying for more than 1000 years already.

Myanmar Muslims are descendants of Arabs, Persians, Turks, Moores, Indian-Muslims, Pakistanis, Pathans, Bengalis, Chinese Muslims and Malays intermarried with local Burmese and many ethnic Myanmar groups such as: Rakhine, Shan, Karen, Mon etc.

Muslims arrived Burma as travellers, adventurers, pioneers, sailors, Military Personals (voluntary and mercenary), and some of them as prisoners of wars. Some take refuge (from wars, Monsoon storms and weather, shipwreck and some for other various unforeseen circumstances). And some of them are victims of forced slavery. Some of them are professionals and skilled personals such as advisors to the kings and at various ranks of administration. Some are port-authorities and mayors and traditional medicine men. Some of them are good at various vocational skills, culture arts etc. Mixed marriages, intermarriages and assimilation process of throwing away of almost all their foreign languages, foreign dresses and foreign culture slowly shaped them in to Ethnic Myanmar Muslim group of today.

But they had drawn a line in the ongoing process of assimilation. That line of limit is their religion, Islam.

As practising Muslims they could not go beyond the limit of tolerance of Islamic principles.So Myanmar Muslims threw away Urdu, Bengali, Chinese, Hindi and all other foreign languages. 

Even Arabic is learned just to read Holy Koran and for prayers. Myanmar Muslims speaks Myanmar as their mother tongue, wear Myanmar dress and even have an official Myanmar name as well as Islamic Arabic name. Because they could not compromise their faith in Islam in matters such as: only eating halal foods and drinks, marriage, divorce, inheritance, and other customs which heavily depend on Islam e.g. circumcision, funeral and burial rituals etc. So Myanmar Muslims could not assimilate homogeneously as Chinese, Hindus and others, except for those who convert or renounced Islam. Complete Assimilation of a minority group always need a compromise of their tradition, their culture and some of their rights. ETHNIC MINORITY BASED ON RELIGION.

In Myanmar (Burma), General Ne Win ordered not to allow the registration of the Muslims as Burmese Muslims (Myanmar Muslims) and present Military Junta not only simply follow his tradition and laws but tightening their grips on Burmese Muslims. Although the whole world accepts that the persons who worships Islam are called Muslims. Ne Win and present Junta refused registration based on religion. They refused to allow the Muslims of Burma to be registered as Myanmar Muslims (Burmese Muslims). They are forced to register as Indian hybrid, Pakistan hybrid, and Bengali hybrid, worshipping Islam. So in order to avoid been labelled or registered or discriminated as a foreigner or a lower graded citizens, a few of the Myanmar Muslims even enlisted or registered themselves as Burmese-Buddhists. Actually the religion is the most important factor in the formation of the Ethnic Minority Groups in the whole world. This is really the most explosive issue in most of the Ethnic- conflicts, leading to wars around the world throughout the history. In former Yugoslavia: Serbs, Croats Kosovo and Bosnia differences are mainly based on religion. In Lebanon, Christian and Arabs are the two opposing Ethnic groups. Even among main religions, sometimes different sects fought each other e.g. Sunni Muslims and Shia’ Muslims, Roman Catholics and Protestants of North Ireland are fighting based on religious differences in their Ethic groups. In Sri Lanka, Buddhist and Sinhalese are fighting. In Indonesia the people from Bali are different from other parts of Indonesia because of the religion only. They remained Buddhist without converting to Islam. Because of the religion, they could not assimilate totally with Indonesian Muslims. They maintained some of their customs and rituals. The main difference of Indian and Pakistan is religion. Internal Racial Riots and continuos internal conflicts in these countries are based on religion. Cyprus, Germany, Italy, Spain UK and USA also have differences and voting-trends based on religious lines. (No Catholic could be elected President of USA for nearly 200 years until J.F.Kennedy became President in 1960).

Karens in Myanmar are also subdivided by religion. Christian Karens are more numerous and different from Buddhist Karens and Muslim Karens. They differ not only in religion and customs but their political alienation or alignment is totally different. Ruling Myanmar Governments always look the Christian Karens with a suspect, because the Christians are more close and loyal to ex-colonial masters. Just after the independence of Myanmar, mostly Christian Karens rebelled against the central government. And the Myanmar army lost most of the country. Christian Karens even arrested a group of top ranked military officers including the Deputy Commander-in- Chief of the Myanmar army. Buddhist Karens betrayed and rescued them back. They were honoured with the highest awards in Myanmar Military’s history. Presently also, we could see the same kind of alignment. Buddhist Karens deserted the fellow Christian Karen rebels. Buddhist Karens joined their hands with Myanmar Army and raided the Christian-Karens across the Myanmar-Thai border. Apart from them, there are also Muslim Karens in Myanmar. Some of them even formed the Kawthoole Muslim Liberation Force (KMLF) and formed alliance with the Christian Karen rebels.

Buddhist-Rakhines are also different from Muslim Rakhines or Rohingyas. Some of them are even active as a rebel group called, the Rohingya Patriotic Front. Panthays or Chinese Myanmar Muslims are also totally different from other Chinese or other Myanmar Chinese. Buddhist Shan and Muslim Shans are also quite different. So it is obvious that the new Ethnic Minority Groups will appear depending upon their religion.

The religions will become the main and very strong bonds in the formation of the various Ethnic Minority Groups in Burma / Myanmar . And the religion is the main obstacle obstructing the complete assimilation of the minority groups. In other words, religion sometimes prevents the disappearing of the Ethnic-minority groups. Daw Aung San Su Kyi in her book “The Voice of Hope” told Alan Clements about the politics and religion: A journalist said to me, “When you speak to the people you talk a lot about religion, why is that?” I said, “Because politics is about people, and you can't separate people from their spiritual values.” And he said that he had asked a young student who had come to the weekend talks about this: “Why are they are talking about religion?” The student replied, “Well that's politics. ”Our people understand what we are talking about. Some people might think it is either idealistic or naive to talk about ‘metta’ in terms of politics, but to me it makes a lot of practical good sense. AC: It's a matter of debate, but politics and religion are usually segregated issues. In Burma today, the large portion of monks and nuns see spiritual freedom and sociopolitical freedom as separate areas. But in truth, dhamma (Religion) and politics are rooted in the same issue - freedom. D A S S K: Indeed, but this is not unique to Burma. Everywhere you'll find this drive to separate the secular from the spiritual. In other Buddhist countries you'll find the same thing - in Thailand, Sri Lanka, in Mahayana Buddhist countries, in Christian countries, almost everywhere in the world.

I think some people find it embarrassing and impractical to think of the spiritual and political life as one.  

I do not see them as separate. In democracies there is always a drive to separate the spiritual from the secular, but it is not actually required to separate them. Whereas in many dictatorships, you'll find that there is an official policy to keep politics and religion apart, in case I suppose, it is used to upset the status quo.

HISTORY AND GEOGRAPHY alone could not be the basic factors determining the legality of the official recognition of the Ethic Minority Groups of a country. Especially history is a very poor guide. There was almost always someone else there first. Israelis and Palestines almost always fight for their ‘native’ homeland. Actually neither of them were there first to occupy that land. Just have a look at the history of Myanmar.

Assam and Manipure of India; Phi Mor, Gor Lan and Kan Fan of China (the names stated here are Myanmar names); Ayuthya of Thailand; Penang of Malaysia, were once under Myanmar’s influence, even if it was for a brief period of time.

And alternately, Arakan King Narameikhla founded the Mrohaung or Mrauk-Oo with the military help of Nadir Shah, the Muslim Sultan of Bengal. So his heirs, the successive Arakan kings were subject to Bengal from 1430 to 1531 AD.

The Buddhists of Arakan the other major ethnic community, known as Magh or Rakhine are a mix-blooded race descended from Aryans of Maghada, India, Mongolians and Tibeto-Burmans.

Hindus, Portuguese, Chinese, British and Japanese partly or completely colonise Myanmar in history for various lengths of periods.

And in ancient times, Polynesians of Pacific Islands first occupied the ancient Burma and were pushed down by ancient Indonesians and Malays. Actually all those Polynesians, Indonesians, Malays and most of the present Myanmar and Ethnic Minorities descended or migrated from China through Yunan.

Hindu colonists, of Andhra Dynasty, from middle India (180 BC) established Hanthawaddy (actually Mon town Han Sawadi – similar to Thailand citizen Mons) and Syriam (Tanyin or Than Lyin) in Burma.

Even before them, Orissa, Indian Buddhist colonists, arrived there earlier, settled and built pagodas since 500 BC.

There was a well-known belief and people even used to say that Myanmar started from Tagaung, built by Abi Raja, a Sakian (Tha Ki Win min), Indian Royal family member, migrated from Kapilavatthu (India) after defeated by the king of Panchala (India), Vitatupa. He left the Middle Country (India) and established the Tagaung country, known at that time as Sangassarattha or Sangassanagara. On the death of Abi Raja, younger son Kan Raja Nge (younger King Kan) got the throne. Thirty-three kings reigned there. Elder brother Kan Raja Gyi (elder King Kan) went down the Ayeyarwaddy River, ascended the Thallawadi River, arrived Kelataungnyo and ruled there as Rajagaha. He ruled the ancient Arakan. His son Muducitta became king of the Pyus (ancestors of modern Myanmar). He founded the city of Kyauppadaung. He conquered the Dhannavati (built by king Marayu).

So what is the great deal, dear Buddhist Burmese brothers?

The pure Indian or Kala brothers, Kan Rajas (Kan Yaza Gyi and Nge) were your ancestors. One started Myanmar kingdom and another the Rakhine Kingdom. Both of them were very fresh, recent and new immigrants. And your Myanmar (Burmese) and Rakhine Royal families descended from them.

Are all of you are not ashamed to call the Muslims Kalas and labelled as migrants, hybrids, non citizens, when all of you are actually totally same as us. And all of us know that all the major religions never started in Burma. All of the religions are foreign to all of us.

The Mainland Burmese are now able to colonize the Arakan State because, the British presented them, free of charge, as an extra gift during the granting of Independence to Burma. Actually the Burmese could colonize the Arakan State with their own strength for thirty-two years only from 1783 to 1815 AD.

The Arakans (Buddhists and Muslims) agreed to join the Burmese Union because they had trusted all the promises given by General Aung San, during the Pang Long Treaty. If not, the British would not allow including the Arakan and other States to join the mainland Burma. But General Ne Win and successive Burmese Generals betrayed the ethnic minorities and ignored the promises given by General Aung San. Although the minorities including Arakans had given up their rights to separate from the Union, the Burmese Chauvinist Military Generals still refused to recognize their other rights e.g. religious, cultural, political and civil rights etc. Muslims of the Arakan i.e. Rohingyas are suffering most. It is a little bit funny that in spite of long established history of Muslim Rohingyas, the Burmese colonist Generals, who could manage to colonized Arakan for a mere thirty-two years only, claims that they are the rightful owner of Arakan and the Rohingyas are alien migrants.

If we continue back to the glorious Burmese history:

The invading Chinese from the north destroyed Tagaung. The last king of Tagaung, Bhinnaka Raja run away and died later. His followers split in to three divisions. One division founded the nineteen Shan States at the eastern part. Another division moved down Ayeyarwady River and combined with Muducitta (second generation migrant, grand son of Indian Abi Raja) and other Sakiyan (Indian) princes, among the Pyus, Kanyans and Theks.

The third group stayed in Mali with the chief queen Naga Hsein, a Sakiyan.(Indian) She was the queen of the Sakyiyan king Dhaja Raja migrated from India. On the way he founded Thintwe’. Then they founded the upper Bagan(Pagan).

Dahnnavata captured Thambula, queen of Pyus. But Nanhkan (China) queen of Pyus had driven out the Kanyans, who lived in seven hill-tracks beginning Thantwe’.

King Dwattabaung, direct descendent of Abi Raja (Indian Migrant) founded Thare Khit Taya in 443 BC. It was said to be self-destroyed in 94 AD. The history is half -mystical at that time.

Mons or Talaings, an Ethnic Minority Group of Myanmar, migrated from the Talingana State, Madras coast of Southern India. They mixed with the new migrants of Mongol from China and driven out the above Andhra and Orissa colonists. Those Mon (Talaings) brought with them the culture, arts, literature, religion and all the skills of civilisation of present Myanmar. They founded the Thaton and Bago (Pegu) Kingdoms. That Mon mighty Kingdom extended from Lower Burma (Pathein or Bassein, Mawlamyine or Moulmein, Tanintharyi or Tenasserim, Tanyin or Syriam), Thailand and Cambodia. King Anawrahta of Bagan (Pagan) conquered that Mon Kingdom of King Manuha, named Suvannabumi (The Land of Golden Hues).

Two princes named Thamala and Wimala (Myanmar version of Indian names-Thalma and Vimala.) established the town Bago in 573AD. Tabinshwehti (Taungoo Dynasty) conquered it in 1539 AD. The Arabs and European travellers of the ninth century saw many Myanmar-Muslim sailors and traders, in Pegu (Bago), also known as Ussa.

Now there are only a few real Mons (much less than few hundred thousands) in Myanmar. But they were rewarded with the separate Mon State by the General Ne Win’s government because of his strong second man, General Tin Oo (actually he was even well known as ‘one and a half ’ i.e. higher than number two position, as he controlled the Military Intelligence). He was a Mon. Later he was accused of corruption and removed from the number two post. This was allegedly after the Thailand’s official twenty-one gun salute and red carpet reception for his (General Tin Oo) son and daughter-in-law’s honeymoon trip there. Please allow me to interrupt with another interesting short story, which is not directly related with the main issue but because of a lot of coincidences. Another General Tin Oo (now NLD opposition leader) was the Chief Commander or Middle Division Military Command. He was very popular among the grass root people, Military rank and file and among the ruling elite. He had just rooted out the prolonged strong hold of Burma Communist Party’s head-quarters on the Bago Yoma (Pegu Mountain Ranges). When we met, I was surprised because he recognised me although I was almost an ordinary person and we had only met briefly once before that. He greeted me and suddenly joked with me. He told me the story of Kyansittha, during the war with the Mon (Talaings) went to pray the famous Shwe Maw Daw pagoda in Bago. When he came down the ‘Talaings’ had surrounded the pagoda, but Kyansittha manage to come down without any harm. He asked me the reason and answer to this ‘miracle’. The answer is very easy, just a Homophone only. Ta, means one in Burmese. Ta-Line means one line on the shoulder i.e. a rank and file in his own army. So, Kyansittha was not surrounded by the enemy Mons (Talaings) but was just surrounded by his own military men, ‘Ta-Lines’. That General Tin Oo was later promoted to the Chief Commander of Burma Armed Forces and became ‘the number two man’ in Burma. But that position was dangerous under the dictator Ne Win. Once the second man became popular and if there were signs of a threat, he used to removed and replaced with a weaker person so that his number one position would be safe. General Tin Oo was accused of corruption. He had alleged to accept five bottles of liquor, accepted the government controlled foreign currency to buy medicine for his child suffering from leukaemia. The Burmese Military Attaché in London allegedly gave that medicine to him. Another reason for his removal was, his wife, a Medical Doctor was proud and rude among the military families!

Portuguese, Philip Debrito (Nga Zin Ga) established a colony in Syriam from 1581 to 1613.

Chinese Kublai Khan’s Muslim Turkish soldiers, commanded by Nasrudin, the son of Yunan Governor attacked and took over Burma in 1277 AD. Tartars at first took strong hold in Bhamo (Burma) for a few years and later destroyed Bagan (Pagan) in 1287 AD.

Shans of Myanmar and Siams, now known as Thais are from one same Ethnic Group. Their language is different in slang only. They are descended from Sino-Shan and Mon Khamars, who came down from Yunan, China.

U Nu, the last democratically elected Prime Minister of Burma, overthrown by the General Ne Wins’ Military coup, later formed the government-in-exile in Thailand. After he returned (surrendered) to Burma, there were praises in the Government controlled Media, regarding his patriotism in refusal to sign an alleged agreement to allow Shan State to be annexed with Thailand in exchange for the Military and financial aids.

Myanmar language.

Myanmar Muslims are using Myanmar language as their mother tongue. They are well assimilated in this aspect. A lot of Ethnic Minority Groups through out the world are facing problems because of the language differences. Myanmar spoken language is under Tibeto-Burman family. The source of the Myanmar script (written language) was adopted from the Brahmi script from India (500 BC. to 300 AD.), in the reign of King Asoka. This Brahmi Indian scrip spread to Tibet, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia and even some parts of Indonesia. In Myanmar, this Brami script was developed and modified by the civilisations of Pyu (now disappeared and totally assimilated in Myanmar), Mon, Rakhine, and Myanmar. Myanmar language script was fine tune again after introducing Sanskrit, Pali, Pyu and Mon scripts. Earliest Myanmar written language starts in Bagan (Pagan) period of eleven century. When compare to many of the prided, recognised ethnic minorities, who could not speak Myanmar language, most of the Muslims in Myanmar could speak the mother tongue. Myanmar traditional dress. Myanmar-Muslims have adopted and taken the Myanmar dress as their own. It is widely accepted that Taik pone (Myanmar man’s jacket) was taken from China and the Longyi (Sarong) was taken from India. Curiously Muslim religious customary Purdah, a veil for the women, is spread to even Burmese-Buddhists and other Ethnic Minorities. They called that with the adopted name Pawah.

So the present Ethnic Groups all over the world, including the races of Myanmar (Burma) are not the original owners of the land. And are not neatly arranged into Nations. There is a lot of spill over into neighbouring states.

And their religion, language, culture and traditional dresses are usually found to be shared or modified from others.

The author of this book wish to make clear that the above paragraph does not mean to insult or belittle the spirit and pride of Nationality and the state of been a member of a particular Ethnic Group. I wished to reduce the fanatic extremist, Nationalistic Spirits only. After all, we all are just fellow, brothers and sisters staying temporary on earth. Why should we fight the deadly wars and hate each other for the non- permanent properties and lands. Peace, kindness, loving kindness, forgiveness, charity, helping the needy and various good virtues are the teachings of all our Religions.

So, based on the above, undeniable, concrete facts and truths – no one should deny the rights of Muslims in Burma (Myanmar). Myanmar Muslims have a right to be recognized as one of the races in Myanmar (Burma). We are one of the legal Ethnic Minority Groups of Myanmar (Burma). Myanmar Muslims (Burmese Muslims) are no more foreigners nor migrants but full-blown citizens of Myanmar (Burma). Muslims in Myanmar (Burma) have the same and equal rights with all other Myanmar citizens, including Burmese Buddhists and all the ethnic minorities of Burma (Myanmar).

I hereby wish to refer an article written by me in the Burma Digest. (you can confirm with the Burma Digest Chief Editor and Publisher, Dr Tayza that I am the author and copy right owner and is allowed by Burma Digest to republish anywhere including Wikipedia) [2]
Open Letter to the Editor: We are all Burmese in our heart

Dear Editor,

I hope that you and some of the Burmese Digest readers could recalled my name in association with my best friend Ko Tin New (Bo Aung Din). He had mentioned a few times about me in his a dozen Compassionate letters to Nan. As he had mentioned, my grandfather was a Burmese Muslim and married to a pure Burmese girl, Ko Tin Nwe’s grand Aunt that is the sister of Ko Tin Nwe’s grandfather. As he had mentioned, she was disowned by her father because she married a so called a ‘Kala’.

Actually the ‘Kala’ she married was the Burmese Muslim, the son of the royal body guard of Nyaung Yan Prince. Yes! I am not bluffing. His family was famous for the loyalty and braveness and was descendents of Afghanistan warriors at first came to Burma as mercenaries. And they were already regarded as loyal subjects of the Burmese kings or in other words Burmese Citizens. They are completely burmanized except for their religion. They loved to be called Burmese Muslims and successive Burmese Kings had already recognized them as Burmese Muslims and as their loyal subjects/citizens and even given them the relevant lands designated with their jobs.

In old royal capital Mandalay, we could still see the two ‘A Myauk Tans’ meaning Cannon or large artillery men’s quarters. ‘Myin Win’ horse-men’s quarters, ‘Sin Kywone’ meaning Elephant keepers, ‘Ko Yan Daw Win’ meaning Royal Body Guards’ quarters etc still fully occupied by their descendents Burmese Muslims with respectively named Mosques. As Ko Tin Nwe wrote, Oh Bo Mosque was donated by King Mindon, all the teak pillars were meant for the Royal Palace but those that could not go into their respected holes in time according to the astrologers were discarded and donated to build the Mosque. Chinese Muslim Mosque’s land was also donated by King Mindon and he also donated the hostel in Mecca for his Burmese Muslim subjects.

Mandalay was founded on Monday, the 23rd May 1859. But King Mindôn passed away on the 1st of October 1878 at the age of sixty-four. King Thibaw (1878-1885) took the throne illegally or by a palace coup. It was near the end of King Mindôn's illness, which lasted about two months that, the Alaè-nandaw Queen plotted the maneuverings to make Thibaw Prince to get the throne. She was the daughter of King Bagyidaw (1819-1837), by his Chief Queen. She became very powerful after the death of the Chief Queen Nanmadawpaya in November 1876. The rightful Heir-Apparent, the Kanaung Prince was murdered in the rebellion of 1866.

King Mindôn was undecided and hesitated to choose a new successor but put three of the best trusted and elderly Princes as Regents viz: Mekkhara, the Thônzè and the Nyaung Yan Princes.

Alè-nandaw Queen tried successfully to block them from becoming Eing shae min or Crown Prince. She plotted with palace officials to place Prince Thibaw on the throne, her second daughter Supayalat’s lover.

She practically isolated King Mindôn and give orders, as if it were by the King's orders. The

Princes were summoned to the Palace and arrested. The princes Nyaung Ok and the Nyaung Yan managed to escape. They run into the French ‘Embassy’, now No 10th. State High School or formerly known as Than Dae’ School. His bodyguards including my great grandfather escaped into lower Burma and some of them settled in Taungoo.

King Mindon learned about the plot and ordered the Princes to be released. Kin Wun Mingyi and the Supreme Court (Hlut-daw) were persuaded to believe that King Mindôn's wished to appoint Prince Thibaw as an Eing shae min and to marry Supayalat. Other Princes were re-arrested. When King Mindôn passed away, just after the funeral, young inexperience and naive Prince Thibaw was proclaimed King. He was the son of the almost unknown or least powerful Laungshe Queen. The Salin Princess, eldest daughter of Mindôn Min, who was the Princess reserved according to an old custom, to be the Queen of the next King, became a nun. Thibaw married the two sisters Supayagyi and Supayalat. The elder, Supayagyi, should be the chief queen, but Supayalat forced her to live a life of retirement in the Palace.

On February 1879, the interned Princes, together with some Princesses, a Queen and some notables, altogether over 70 persons, were murdered. Another greater massacre took place in 1884. About 300 remaining members of the Royal Family, who had escaped in 1879, were cruelly butchered.

So my great grand father luckily escaped the massacres. His daughter-in-law, pure Burmese lady who converted to Islam and was disowned by her family for the crime of marrying a ‘Kala’ was widowed soon and was very poor but she managed to give all of her children good education. Eldest son became a famous Head Master and he is my father. And she was very proud to see, before she departed, that more than two dozens of her grandchildren got the university degrees including many doctors and engineers. The rest is history.

But now only Myanmar Military rulers are labeling us as guest citizens, ‘Kala’ or mixed blooded persons or not pure citizens. That, however, could not make us, or people like us, to become non Burmese Citizens. We are Burmese citizens no matter how some might disagree, or wish otherwise or decreed by force. Whether mixed blooded or not is not important in the eyes of the whole world but SPDC could not deny our right of 100% pure Burmese citizenship!

We, and all the other persons like us, not just those Indians, Chinese, Bengalis or Pakistanis although we are undeniably mixed blooded immigrants’ children or descendants of immigrants, but we are now full Burmese Citizens. No matter what some like SPDC racists or their cohorts might say contrary.

Our great grand parents and all the ancestors were loyal citizens of Burma and all of them were and are holding the Burmese National Registration Cards or ‘Ah Myo Thar Mhat Pone Tin Cards’. My brothers and sisters’ family members are holding those Burmese National Registration Cards but now the SPDC Apartheid Régime had ordered to issue the differently formatted cards for their younger children. It is curious when the parents and elder brothers and sisters are the same citizens as our Burmese Buddhists at least on paper but now only their youngest children are blatantly or brazenly discriminated as different from others and their own elder siblings.

This racial discrimination is practiced on not only Muslims but on Chinese and Hindis. SPDC National Registration officers decreed that if any one is not pure Burmese Buddhist, could not claim to be pure blood and all the Burmese Muslims must be recorded as mixed blooded persons. Whether correct or not, know or not, must be enlisted as mixed blooded Indian, Pakistan or Bengali. So it is blatant Racial Discrimination or openly practicing Apartheid practice of SPDC Junta.

My nephews and nieces are forced to begin their journey of life differently from their elder siblings and face the reality of the unfair world. We believe that no one has that right to practice the issuing of Apartheid certificate or new type of Registration different from other citizens to us. By doing so, SPDC is clearly starting to commit a Genocide offence.

Our children are entitled to their dreams and should not encounter any disappointments even before they started their tender lives. We wonder how that single document would change their dreams or what would be their vision of their world or Myanmar excluding them or shutting out all of them from all the opportunities. It is our children’s turning points of their lives. SPDC ruthlessly had shown them who they are, why and how they are not welcomed in Burma/Myanmar. Most importantly, SPDC have shown our children a real rejection. In waking to this realization, we suddenly understand that SPDC have already failed all our children’s future. As our children journey into an uncertain future, they will struggle and grapple with their sense of their rightful place in this Myanmar nation.

The constant emphasis on differences by the narrow minded SPDC apartheid racists who could not see value in these children prevent them from being seen, seeing themselves, as anything other than Burmese Citizens. And so SPDC Junta’s dancing with shadows continues, to their pied-piper song of unity and integration in single race and religion, to the beat of their war drums, changing Burma into a Myanmar world of so much bigotry and hatred. Our young children’s every early moments would be yet under another hammer blow, tempering or compromising their fantastic visions into listless and endless compromise under SPDC and cohorts.

Our country’s diversity makes us who we are and what we are today, that cannot be emphasized enough. And though we Burmese Muslims may each resonate differently, harmonizing only at some points in time and never universally, that is we are completely burmanized culturally but differ in religion only but I am sure when we dream we dream as Burmese only because we know Burmese, we love Burmese, and Burmese only is in our heart and mind.

Successive Burmese Kings had accepted us as their loyal subjects or citizens, after Independence U Nu’s government had accepted us. And General Aung San had even promised us: “I want to address the Indians and Chinese residing in this country. We have no bitterness, no ill will for them, or for that matter for any race and nationality in the world. If they choose to join us, we will welcome them as our own brethren. The welfare of all people of this country irrespective of race or religion has always been the one purpose that I have set out to fulfill. In fact it is my life's mission.”

But sadly those illegitimate illegal SPDC Régime is practicing Apartheid committing the Genocide on all of us.

I could guarantee to all of our Burmese friends that we are all Burmese in our heart and we have no intention or imagination to even support the foreign countries believed to be the homeland of our ancient ancestors even if Burma is at war with them!

Please give back our children at least a chance to dream. Please do not shut off their future.

Ko Tin Maung

You could read the above article in Burmese/Myanmar. (I got the copy right to reprint here.) [3][4]

If you are all Burmese at heart, why was there the need for self imposed segregations based upon religion? If you truly believe that you are a Burmese at heart, why dont you call yourself "Burmese"? Your posting contradict your belief and i dont think anyone was fooled by that little heart warming statement at the bottom of the post. Okkar 12:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Rohingya

Hello, I noticed that you removed the Rohingya from the List of ethnic groups in Myanmar. If they are an ethnic group in Myanmar (even if not recognized by the government there), I'm curious why you would do that? We do include unrecognized ethnic groups for China and other countries as well, in the articles about the ethnic groups in those nations. Badagnani 23:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Rohingya ethnicity in Myanmar is currently disputed and therefore we cannot include in Wikipedia in order to stop refering as "Wikipedia recognised Rohingya as ethnic group in Myanmar". Okkar 06:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Your answer is so vague as to be suspicious to me. Disputed by whom? How can an ethnic group be disputed? Either they live in Myanmar or they don't. You'll need to be more specific about this. There is a Wikipedia article about this ethnic group. A Web search shows this page: http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA160052004 where the group Amnesty International discusses the situation of this ethnic group. Did this major international human rights group develop a campaign to provide assistance an ethnic group that doesn't exist? You'll have to explain yourself in a more thorough fashion. Badagnani 08:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I will not be drawn into any political debate here. I am simply following Wikipedia NPOV policy guidelines. I have already made it clear to you that it is not acceptable to use wikipedia to push particular POV, in this case legitimisation of rohingya as ethnic group in Myanmar. The ethnic grouping of Rohingya has been disputed by successive governments in Burma since the day of it's independance. Both democractic and military governments of Burma does not recognise Rohingya as genuine ethnic group of Burma. There has been claims and counter claims from both sides, for example: burmese government claimed that they are illegal immigrants from Bangladesh arrived by crossing the pourous border in Arakhan region, Rohingyas claimed that they are the true natives of Arakan and descendant of arab sailors who visited that region in ancient times. However, there have been no historical evidence to support their claims, as a result the authenticity of Rohingya as minority ethnic group in Burma is seriously contested by successive government of Burma, be it Democractic or Military, as well as the native Rakhine people (recognised ethnic group) of Arakhan state. So you see it is a highly volitile issue and as long as this dispute exists, it would be factually wrong to include Rohnigya as List of ethnic groups in Myanmar because it could be seen as Wikipedia's endorsement to Rohingyas claims, which ofcourse is entirely againt unbias policy of Wikipedia. Such inclusion would lead to quoting by many reference articles and reports as "Wikipedia recognised Rohingya as ethnic group in Burma" or "Wikipedia's list of ethnic groups in Myanmar listed Rohingya as legitimate ethnic group". This could potray Wikipedia as though Wikipedia is supporting particular POV claims and being bias. You have been with Wikipedia to know what Wikipedia stands for and that POV pushing is against it's policy.

Thank you for citing Amnesty International web page, however, I would like to counter cite What Wikipedia is NOT page so that you can understand unbias and neutral policy of Wikipedia. As I have stated before, regardless of whatever human rights dispute that rohingyas have with burmese government, we cannot allow the use of Wikipedia as a spring borad to support their claims, use it as a reference for raising awareness or any other politically motivated activities. I hope you understand. You should not be suspicious about everyone who is acting out in good faith unless you can prove otherwise. Any further such suggestion can and will be interpreted as personal attacks. Okkar 11:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the political debate you are referring to? If there is any political attack going on here, it is your implication that I am trying to draw you into one. We operate by facts here, so there is no need for any kind of defensive reply. As with the Undistinguished ethnic groups in China article, we make clear that the People's Republic of China government has a list of 56 ethnic groups, but that other ethnic groups exist (differentiated by language and self-definition); some are subsumed into one of the other 56 and others are ignored altogether. Yet we do mention them. It seems that the same may be the case in Myanmar. My further research shows that the Rohingya are claimed by the government of Myanmar to be essentially Muslim Bengalis from India who have been squatting in northern Myanmar for a period of 100+ years. If that is the case (as seems verifiable from the Myanmar government's publicly stated position on the matter, then we must mention that. It's either an ethnic group in Myanmar or it isn't (keep in mind that the article is "List of ethnic groups in Myanmar, which includes "illegal" or "foreign" groups--as for example we do for other countries--the ethnic groups in Thailand includes several minority groups that came as refugees, sometimes decades ago, yet are long-time residents, and thus considered ethnic groups in Thailand), and if a major international organization such as Amnesty International states that it is a distinct ethnic group then I would doubt they would make a mistake in providing assistance to an ethnic group that does not exist. Let's not purge articles of verifiable content, for whatever reason. If there's a controversy, then let's state there's a controversy rather than wiping the article clean of all mention of this ethnic group. Badagnani 18:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe you seems to be confusing the policy of Amensty International and Wikipedia here. Amnesty International is a human right organisation, as such it is their mandate to represent those who feel that their human rights have been violated. Wikipedia on the other hand is an online encyclopedia, people refer to the information present in Wikipedia as fact. Therefore it is important for us, contributors to ensure that Wikipedia maintain it's unbias and neutral policy. Thus said, it cannot be seen supporting one side of the arguement over the others. Just because Amnesty International is representing Rohingya cause (I am not saying Amnesty made a mistake), that doesn't mean Wikipedia have to support the claims and include them in articles that are inappropiate. Amnesty International's decisions should not have any influences on Wikipedia's unbias policy just as no other country's government has any influences on what wikipedia publishes in it's article. Thats what makes Wikipedia what it is today and that is main focus here. We must not forget what wikipedia stands for. If we have to write every articles according to Amnesty International's representation then 80% of country articles currently on Wikipedia will have to include bias and POV facts, starting from United States. This would negate the whole existance of Wikipedia as unbias encyclopedia. We must not confuse between "online encyclopedia" and "human rights" organisation. There is a clear distinction between the two.

As for your second argument regard rohingya being in burma for over +100 years, therefore they can be consider as distinctive ethic group, then the same could be said about african who were settled in UK as distinctive ethnic group, however, we dont have "AngloAfrican" ethnic grouping in United Kingdom now do we nor are we likely to be endorsing one here just because Amnesty International suddenly decided to take up the issue?

I am not sure about what is included in Undistinguished ethnic groups in China or ethnic groups in Thailand, that is the issue the relevant project and it's members needs to deal with and also, I am not expert in Thailand or China's history so I will not be commenting or editing them since I could end up making mistakes. However, as far as List of ethnic groups in Myanmar concern, it is part of WikiProject Myanmar/Burma, which I am a member of and I am also a member of WikiProject Neutral, therefore i am going to ensure that articles within the project are strictly in accordance with Wikipedia's unbias policy. I know it's not a very easy job, but someone has to do it and I am not the type of person who quake when bombarded with political correctness, threatened with ICC for genocide or being branded racist. I did what I have to do to ensure that articles within the project adhere to Wikipedia policy and I made no exception on that front. If we dont, theres a danger that information regarding my country in Wikipedia will be tainted with politically bias information to support claims and counter claims from both side.

I am not erasing any facts from the article, but simply removing inapproate contents that were included to support for POV pushing. The content in question would be more appropiate to include in the "dispute between Rohingya and Burmese government" section of Rohingya article instead. Including rohingya in List of ethnic groups in Myanmar and turning it into legitimate fact would not only potray Wikipedia as bias medium but also tarnish it's "Encyclopedia" status. I hope you understand. Okkar 19:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No, your "explanation" doesn't make sense or even address the issue at hand, and your needless defensiveness about my insistence that factual information not be blanked is quite perplexing. The only reason for citing Amnesty International is because they have an article giving the history of this ethnic group in Myanmar. I don't believe they would be doing this for an ethnic group that doesn't exist. You state that you are "not erasing facts" from the List of ethnic groups in Myanmar article but you did that. Comparable to ethnic groups in China and Thailand who have come to those countries years ago as refugees but who never left, we do include them, even if they are unrecognized by those governments (though we note this in the articles). My further research shows that the Rohingya language is a distinct Indic language further bolsters the fact that this is an ethnic group in Myanmar (though not recognized by the current Myanmar government as citizens of that nation). Regarding your idea of whether there are Africans in the UK, of course there are. The UK colonized Africa and consequently many Africans settled in England and other nations in the British Isles. They are certifiably "African British," a distinct and recognized ethnic group in the UK. But, then, the UK has large numbers of people living there who immigrated from most other parts of the world, unlike Myanmar, which has fewer. So your example was a bad one. Badagnani 21:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

My explanation makes perfect sense - Wikipedia is not a human rights news bulletin, it is an encyclopedia. You have been with Wikipedia long enough to know the difference. My point is plain and simple: dont include bias information as long as there is a dispute and controversy. If you do your research properly, you will find that not just current myanmar government, successive government since the day of independance has never recognise Rohingya as ethnic tribe of Burma and they have severly contested the rohingya claims citing lack of historical information to support that they are actually natives of Burma - that my friend is a fact! As for your example regarding China and Thailand, they are articles from seperate project entirely and it is down to relevant member of the project they belongs to take action, also these tribes have not been severly disputed by any of their government. I have tried to explained to you reasonably, however, you kept citing Amnesty International and insist to include the information in order to support the rohingya's claims. We do not have to support bias claims just because Amnesty does. Wikipedia is not owned by Amnesty International nor will it serve as propaganda platform to legitimise any claims from any groups. This clearly is against Wikipedia policy. Whether my example is good or bad is of little relevance here since it's your POV against mine, but it appears that you seems to be having conflict of interest. For your information, there is no such thing as "British African" in UK, nor any other african recognise as ethnic groups - they are simply recognised as "British". Dont just read Amnesty reports and blindly insist on including certain information to support bias views. If you would like to further dispute then you need to look for independant mediation, otherwise, I will no longer entertain this pointless discussion as you clear does not seem to have any appericiation regarding what Wikipedia stands for and insisting to include bias information to support rohingya cause simply because they are "muslims". I am sorry but we cannot include information that are "bias" in support for the people who share the same religious belief with some of us - Wikipedia is not a religious propaganda website. That would constitute pure POV pushing. Okkar 02:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Rohingya language is as much a distinct language as Burglish (English words written in Burmese). This is truly astonishing! some people are going through a distance to exploit Wikipedia's unbias policy in order to legitimise their claims. This has got to stop. Okkar 02:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

How do you know my religion? The fact that you would even impute such a thing seems to me to undermine everything that you say. We come back to the question of whether these people live in Myanmar or not. If they do (which you continue not to address), then proper encyclopedic practice states that they merit inclusion in the article (discussed as an "unrecognized ethnic group," as we do for the People's Republic of China and Thailand ethnic group articles), as there are sources which discuss them and their situation. The religion (or lack thereof) of the editors doesn't enter it at all. And I don't know what you're talking about when you state that I am trying to support someone's cause. I have no idea what cause you are talking about, or what cause you support, if any. I am simply stating that if this ethnic group can be shown via sources to live in Myanmar, it must be included in the List of ethnic groups in Myanmar article. Defensiveness, again, is not necessary, nor are the attacks you are now making. Badagnani 03:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I have already pointed out that it is against wikipedia policy. If you want include, get a mediaton. Okkar 07:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It's much easier if you cease to disrupt Wikipedia by removing, again and again for no apparent reason, properly sourced text (sources: Sources from BBC, Reuters, and the U.S. Department of State) stating that the Rohingya are an ethnic group in Myanmar. Thank you for your interest in this article but you will have to provide valid sources that contradict these three sources if you wish to remove the text from the article. Badagnani 02:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It is you who have been disruptive. I have again and again tried to tell you that it is inappropiate to include bias information which are against wikipedia policy and you stubbornly refused to accept. I have already told you that if you feel it is necessary to include, you should seek a mediation instead of uniliterally adding the information. you have been warned. If you carrying on adding the information without any proper consensus and mediation, you will be reported for including information that contradict wikipedia's policy. Please stop paddling bias information. Okkar 09:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The sources, from the BBC, Reuters, and the U.S. Department of State, are there showing that this (officially unrecognized) ethnic group exists in Myanmar. Where are your sources stating that this ethnic group does not live in Myanmar? Note that we have them listed under "Unrecognized ethnic groups," as we do for the List of ethnic groups in China. It is well known that several ethnic groups that live in China are not officially recognized, and we list them in a separate section in that article, so to provide the maximum accuracy and information for our readers, we do so here as well. It seems to me that you wish this ethnic group did not live in Myanmar, but nevertheless the evidence from the BBC, Reuters, and U.S. Department of State source states that they do, and thus the information remains in the article. Badagnani 19:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The sources are here: [5][6][7] Badagnani 19:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to weigh-in with my 2¢ here: after reviewing the discussion and the provided sources, it seems to me that there is no valid reason to exclude mention of Rohingya in this article. There are two main logical reasons for excluding an entry from this list:

• (1) They are not notably classified as a people or ethnic group, which would be evidenced by:
  • (a) Few or no reliable sources specifically identifing them as a people or ethnic group; alternatively or additionally-
  • (b) A preponderance of reliable sources specifically disputing or denying they form a people or ethnic group.
• (2) According to reliable source(s), the ethnic group has no distribution or presence within Myanmar, which would be evidenced by:
  • (a) Multiple sources specifically saying they are not present; and/or-
  • (b) A lack of sources saying that they are present.

It seems to me, that #2 above is not being disputed here (ie, it is not disputed that there are valid sources which apply the term Rohingya to a certain population currently within —and also outside of— Myanmar).

For point #1, I find that the sources provided by Badagnani, as well as others which may be found such as the UNHCR[8], MSF[9] , Asia Times[10], ILO, Red Cross, etc, are credible sources which do use the term Rohingya in the sense of applying it to a people or ethnic group. It may well be the case that many of these sources are organisations concerned with the humanitarian welfare of refugees, stateless peoples and minority groups; however this alone does not invalidate their reliability as sources, and given the situation it is entirely to be expected that much of the documentation on Rohingya comes from organisations like these.

The fact that the Myanmar govt disputes the validity of Rohingya identification is not a (sufficient) reason to exclude their mention here. While whatever the govt. may have to say on the matter is also a citeable source, what they have to say does not dictate what is or is not appropriate to mention here.

I think that the charge that including them on this list is tantamount to POV-pushing is not sustainable. In a situation like this where there exist divergent notable views over an identity, the proper and NPOV course of action is to mention the fact that there are divergent views, and describe these without giving undue weight to one account or another. Omission on the basis that the Myanmar govt and perhaps some others see them as a non-valid or 'fake' ethnic grouping would itself be POV, given that numerous other notable sources take a contrary view.

The differing accounts of Rohingya origins and identity can and should be documented in its own article. For the purposes of this listing (which is not specifically restricted to only those recognised by Myanmar authorities), it should be sufficient to briefly annotate as it does presently that the group is not recognised by Myanmar authorities, but nonetheless others do. This is no more than a factual statement, and I fail to see how it could be regarded as POV-pushing to do so.--cjllw ʘ TALK 04:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You seems to have been mislead by Badagnani's excessive POV pushing. The point I am making is the inclusion of bias information. We mustnt forget what Wíkipedia is. The inclusion of Rohingya in ethnic groups of Myanmar, while supported by many humanitarian organisations, it was highly disputed by both successive government of Myanmar, be it democractic or military, as well as opposition groups. There is a clear consensus to the authenticity of the rohingya claims. While you may find it perfectly valid to include in the article, giving the sources - although they are mainly human rights organisations - you have to think about the effect of such inclusion have on Wikipedia. For example, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the public view the information as "if it included in wikipedia, then it must be true". Inclusion of rohingya's claim while it was widely disputed and lack historical evidence, would not only make Wikipedia a bias medium, but also endorsing rohingya claims to be true. Wikipedia is already getting bad press over the inclusion of bias information and POV materials. There was an article titled "Wikicked-pedia" in today's edition of "Daily Mail" (national newspaper) in United Kingdom citing excessive bias information along with people abusing Wikipedia to promote particular version of history and events. We are all treading on dangerous ground here. While it maybe morally valid to support rohingya cause, it is not appropiate to use Wikipedia to legitimise their claims. This is my arguement and that is the reason why such bias information should not be included in article. Okkar 18:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I think that, because of their former origin in eastern India and/or Bangladesh and their linguistic affiliation with Bengali, they have been treated by the Myanmar government as unwanted squatters. But that's not particularly unusual; in Thailand, Laos, and Vietnam, for example, there are numerous ethnic groups living in mountainous areas who originally came from China (often due to wars with the Chinese, or other instability), some of them dozens of years ago and others hundreds of years ago. In some cases they are officially recognized and in some cases they are not. But, it seems instructive and an important point that, when the approx. 250,000 fled Myanmar for Bangladesh over the past few years, the general consensus is that (despite their Muslim religion and linguistic similarity) the Bangladeshis have treated them as unwanted "Burmese." Whatever the case, the figures show that there are ca. 750,000 to 800,000 Rohingya total, with ca. 250,000 in Bangladesh and most of the rest in Myanmar. I think the Rohingya organizations would claim a somewhat higher population. One further point: some of the sources I found state that earlier Burmese governments in the 20th century did grant some rights, including voting rights if not full citizenship, to the Rohingya, while the editor attempting to remove all mention of this ethnic group (because it's "a controversial issue") states that all current and former Burmese governments have granted no such rights to the Rohingya. While this is an interesting point and one which should probably be documented properly (they can't both be right), it's not central to the issue of whether this ethnic group lives in Myanmar or not. The ethnic groups articles are called "Ethnic groups in..." rather than "Ethnic groups of" for a reason; if I recall, there was quite a bit of discussion about this, to ensure that groups such as this, which are not fully accepted by a government, can also be treated in an article such as this. Badagnani 04:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the term "fake ethnic group," I'm not sure by what term the Myanmar government calls the Rohingya (I'd like to see sources about this), but it is possible that they are lumped as "illegal Bengali squatters" or some such. As such, they would be subsumed under the Burmese Indians category, I presume, the way the Panthay are an Islamic subgroup of the Burmese Chinese, or the way the PRC government classifies the Utsul as Hui. Badagnani 04:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You seems to be mixing the two entirely unrealed issues here. I have told you time and again that inclusion of information which are controversial and highly disputed is against Wikipedia policy. You are rather excessive with your insistant to include "bias" information to support the claims of rohingya. I have warned you again and again not to use wikipedia to promote politically motivated "bias" information. I have asked you to seek mediation and consensus instead of keep adding your bias information. You refused to listen and ignored the warnings. It has come to a stage that, we must now question your real motivation to include bias information. If you carry on including bias information, I will have no choice but report you as a vandal and have you blocked from Wikipedia. Okkar 10:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Okkar- just repeating here my response to your comments on my talk page, as they are relevant to the wider discussion:

You say there is 'clear consensus' that the Rohingya's identity/authenticity is disputed, however it is quite evident that this 'consensus' does not extend to a multitude of notable and respectable third-party sources, who all acknowledge a people called Rohingya with a presence in modern-day Myanmar (and elsewhere). Even if this group had never been recognised by any past or present Myanmar/Burmese govt authority, that does not obscure the fact that a great many other reputable and citeable sources do.

I am glad to see that you are concerned with wikipedia's reputation and accuracy; in which case I hope that you can appreciate that the most accurate and informative approach in this instance is to document the readily-apparent fact that there exist differing notable views on Rohingya, in such a way that avoids opining on whether the human rights organisations are right and the Myanmar authorities wrong, and vice versa. If the Rohingya were included in this list without any qualification you might have a point, but since there is an accompanying annotation to the effect that the group is unrecognised by Myanmar authorities, you should have no concerns that the reader is being misled with false information, or that their appearance on that list necessarily endorses their 'authenticity'.

If you review the NPOV policy, you will see that in respect of dealing with situations where "...there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." If we were to omit mention of the Rohingya altogether, that would be counter to this policy. Likewise, if we ignored the govt's position on the matter (which we do not), then that would fail under NPOV.

In summary, it is not being 'biased' for wikipedia to treat this conflict of views in this way. If you still disagree, you are welcome to raise the matter to some wider resolution process such as WP:RFC and see if you can obtain consensus here to do otherwise. Note that page blanking and persistent reverting of cited information is most unlikely to assist your cause. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

These arguments have aged poorly. At what point do we include them? Once they are all killed then I suppose this article's treatment of the Rohingya would be some perverted form of factually correct, but I believe we're past these outdated denials of the Rohingya as an ethnic group. It's 2018 and we are dealing with ethnic cleansing, a phrase that has been used by all actors of varying credibility, if a group is being "ethnically cleansed" then what does that make the group? Sounds like an ethnic group to me, boss. Call me crazy. 2601:87:4400:AF2:3535:4854:7A99:ED90 (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Unrecognized ethnic groups?

Just curious why this article recognizes the existence of Burmese Chinese, Panthay, Burmese Indians, Anglo-Burmese, and Rohingya as "unrecognized ethnic groups" but lists only the officially recognized "major ethnic races" in the list? Seems to me that the article should list all the ethnic groups, official or not, that are present in Burma and after state which ones are officially recognized and which ones are not. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The officially list of ethnic groups in Burma

Recently, an editor changes list of ethnic groups from alphabetical list to list by States and Regions. This edition [11] groups under Administrative divisions of Burma and titles as The officially list of ethnic groups in Burma but there is no such use and this edition is not official classification system. However, the government (official) classification system is also controversial because it groups ethnic groups under ethnic races by geography, rather than by linguistic or genetic similarity. The Burmese government classification identifies 'eight major national ethnic races (not States and Regions) which comprise 135 "distinct" ethnic groups' and no such use of Bamar divisions. This The officially list of ethnic groups in Burma may be confused with another official list of ethnic groups reserved seats for State and Region Hluttaws in every States and Regions. So Alphabetical list will be better.PhyoWP *click 11:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that the alphabetical list is a fake. Created by an official who had to use a list of ethnic groups in Burma. The whole page is a fake. The article calls for research that we can not make.Jesper7 (talk) 01:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

In regarding this edit [12], the article name is 'List of ethnic groups in Burma', so there should be a list either alphabetical list or officially list of ethnic groups. Replacing the list with list of its languages ( Myanmar languages ISO 639-3 codes) is not a good idea. Ethnic groups in Thailand and List of ethnic groups in China are some examples. Myanmar languages ISO 639-3 codes should be at Languages of Burma. PhyoWP *click 02:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The Officially recognized ethnic groups are from wikipedia! In a military dictatorship critical thinking is not appreciated. So wikipedia is a good and reliable source.Jesper7 (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of ethnic groups in Myanmar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071220174829/http://www.myanmar.gov.mm/ministry/hotel/fact/race.htm to http://www.myanmar.gov.mm/ministry/hotel/fact/race.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071220174829/http://www.myanmar.gov.mm/ministry/hotel/fact/race.htm to http://www.myanmar.gov.mm/ministry/hotel/fact/race.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090729173430/http://www.minorityrights.org/3546/briefing-papers/minorities-in-burma.html to http://www.minorityrights.org/3546/briefing-papers/minorities-in-burma.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of ethnic groups in Myanmar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100609072939/http://myanmartravelinformation.com/mti-myanmar-people/index.htm to http://myanmartravelinformation.com/mti-myanmar-people/index.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20140509103524/http://www.shanland.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4965:135-counting-races-in-burma&catid=115:opinions&Itemid=308 to http://www.shanland.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4965:135-counting-races-in-burma&catid=115:opinions&Itemid=308

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello respectful Wikipedians users, Just inform you that Mro ( Wakim ) does not represent to Mru or Mrucha. Mro ( Wakim ) မြို (ဝါကုန်း) is simile ethnic with Mrokhami. And There is no Mru or Mrucha people in Chin state now. Mro people who lives Chin state are called as Mro ( Wakim ). Please do not confuse Mru ( Mrucha ) and Mro or Mrokhami. Thank you --Yomeo (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Ethnolinguistic map of Burma 1972 en.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

"Thaungtha is similar with rabain"

Someone added this text to the article:

Thaungtha is similar with rabain

But what does it mean ??? 98.123.38.211 (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)