By Mohammad Raashid (Islamabad):
In an exclusive interview conducted in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Dr. Muhammad Younas, a veteran Rohingya leader and figure associated with the Rohingya Solidarity Organization (RSO), shared his personal journey from physician to activist and offered a candid assessment of the protracted crisis facing the Rohingya people.
Speaking from decades of involvement, Dr. Younas emphasized the need for secure citizenship, dignity, and self-defense, while navigating complex regional geopolitics involving Myanmar’s military junta, the Arakan Army (AA), China, the United States, India, and Bangladesh.
Dr. Younas was born and raised in Arakan (Rakhine State, Myanmar). He graduated in medicine in 1969 and worked as a medical officer. He described how the 1962 military takeover in Myanmar worsened conditions for Arakan’s Muslims, turning daily life into one of oppression under military rule with no law and order.
Witnessing the suffering of ordinary Rohingya treated as slaves, with citizenship rights increasingly questioned, he made a fateful decision in 1975 to leave his comfortable professional life in Myanmar and join the Rohingya movements in Bangladesh.
“I was earning a good income as a doctor. My family didn’t even know I was planning to leave,” he recalled. “But seeing the situation of Arakan Muslims prosecution, no future, no rights I felt that people like us must struggle for the community’s economy, religion, and social life. It was do or die for our legitimate rights.”
Life in Exile and Bangladesh’s Shifting Policies
Dr. Younas detailed multiple waves of displacement. In 1978, under Myanmar’s socialist military regime, around 300,000 Rohingya fled during the “operation,” involving killings and village burnings. He was already in Bangladesh at the time. Early governments under Sheikh Mujibur Rahman showed limited awareness, while later administrations under Khaleda Zia facilitated some repatriations over 200,000 returned after bilateral agreements, but freedom of movement for Rohingya remained restricted.
Conditions deteriorated sharply under Sheikh Hasina’s long rule, which Dr. Younas said operated in close consultation with India. “Whatever India allowed, they did; otherwise, nothing,” he noted. Rohingya activities required informing intelligence agencies, and overall support waned.
Following the fall of Hasina’s government in August 2024 and the rise of the interim administration led by Chief Adviser Professor Muhammad Yunus, the situation in the camps has seen some stabilization. Dr. Younas acknowledged that the new Bangladeshi leadership has taken a stricter stance on internal issues like crime and radicalization, which he attributed partly to frustration among youth facing blocked paths to return. “People think armed struggle is the only way these power players will listen,” he said, while stressing that not all in the camps are involved and that the interim government has worked to control such trends.
No Safe Return Without Guarantees
On prospects for repatriation in 2026 or beyond, Dr. Younas expressed skepticism. He described the genuine desire of Bangladesh’s interim government to facilitate returns but highlighted ground realities: neither Myanmar’s military regime nor the Arakan Army (AA) is willing to accept Rohingya as equal citizens. The AA, now controlling around 14 of 17 townships in Rakhine (though contested and facing junta counteroffensives), is viewed by many Rohingya as even more dangerous than the military, with reports of oppression continuing.
“Rohingya have no faith in these two players,” he stated. “People will not go back unless citizenship is restored, and there is peaceful, dignified, secure repatriation with international protection. No one wants to return to the same suffering.”
He noted recent shifts: the Myanmar military has reportedly armed some Rohingya groups, including elements linked to RSO, to fight against the AA, while realizing its earlier mistakes in alienating the community. However, ongoing conflict, bombings, and restrictions make any return unrealistic without fundamental changes.
Geopolitical Chessboard: China, US, India, and Beyond
Dr. Younas analyzed how major powers influence the crisis. He described the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor (CMEC) and projects in Arakan, including ports and pipelines, as unrelated to repatriation itself but tied to security. Repatriation depends solely on safety and citizenship, not economic projects. China, he argued, is annoyed by AA attacks on its assets and has pressured both the junta and AA while supplying advanced weapons to the military. Beijing has mediated ceasefires with other groups under economic pressure and may quietly support Rohingya repatriation to stabilize the region.
“China is clever and reasonable. It doesn’t occupy others’ land,” he said, suggesting that if Rohingya secure northern Arakan (Muslim-majority areas from the Kaladan River eastward), they could safeguard Chinese interests better than the unreliable AA. He proposed potential mediation by China between the junta and Rohingya for an alliance against the AA in the south.
In contrast, Dr. Younas viewed US and Indian engagement warily as geopolitically motivated. He accused the US of seeking footholds in the Indo-Pacific, including Sin Martin Island or Chittagong Hill Tracts, to counter China, similar to strategies in Gwadar or the South China Sea. India, he said, fears separatism in its northeast “Seven Sisters” and opposes any Muslim-majority control in Arakan that could link to sea access. Reports of US-India outreach to the AA raise concerns of proxy dynamics rather than genuine support for Rohingya. “Rohingya are innocent people; we must be careful not to be used,” he warned.
On Muslim nations and the OIC, Dr. Younas was critical: statements are issued during crises, but concrete leverage is lacking. The UN, in his view, often aligns with Western interests. He called for stronger backing, financial, arms, or otherwise from any power, Muslim or non-Muslim.
Call for Self-Defense and Autonomy
When asked about rights within five years, Dr. Younas was blunt: “On their own, it is not possible. Rohingya must be seriously backed by a strong power. We are ready to fight back; we will not give up.” He affirmed that with arms and financial support, Rohingya have the capability, drawing on historical training experiences, though he distanced his current policy from unverified figures and emphasized organized, serious international support over isolated radicalism.
His vision for the future focuses on autonomy in northern Arakan, where Rohingya could become the majority upon return of refugees. This, he argued, could align with the Myanmar military against the AA, benefiting all parties and China’s projects. “We never betray agreements. As good Muslims, we keep our word,” he said, positioning Rohingya as a reliable partner for stability.
Dr. Younas concluded by highlighting alleged conspiracies, including US efforts to use humanitarian corridors for arms to the AA or insurgents in Bangladesh’s Chittagong Hill Tracts. China, he urged, must choose between the unreliable AA and the Rohingya to protect its BRI investments.
The interview underscores the Rohingya crisis as not only a humanitarian tragedy but a deeply entangled geopolitical struggle. As fighting continues in Rakhine, with the AA dominant in much of the state yet facing junta resistance backed by external actors, safe and dignified repatriation remains elusive. Dr. Younas’s call for armed self-reliance and pragmatic alliances reflects the desperation and determination of a community that has endured decades of statelessness and violence.
For the Rohingya, the path forward demands genuine security, citizenship restoration, and international guarantees conditions that regional powers must help create if lasting peace is to prevail in Arakan.
