Panel details

Panel organiser(s) will be presenting	In-Person / Online
Number of paper presentations	1

Abstract

This panel will explore key risks and safety issues related to the humanitarian response to the Rohingya refugee crisis in Bangladesh, with an aim of informing improved humanitarian response. The first risk / safety issue to be explored is the worsening social cohesion between different members of the host community surrounding the camps, and the growing tensions not just between refugees and host communities, but notably, between different groups within the host community, which could lead to open conflict and violence. The second risk / safety issue to be explored is human trafficking, which affects both refugee and host communities, and whether the current anti-trafficking training and programmes actually address the key vulnerabilities. Please note: The panel organisers are 6 researchers who have come together across international and disciplinary backgrounds, in various configurations, and propose 3 interrelated papers on this theme for the panel. The organisers welcome any additional papers addressing the theme, with a focus on informing improved humanitarian response. Other risks / safety issues that could be explored in the panel, include growing crime levels within and between refugee-host communities (kidnappings, killings, drugs, GBV), child marriage and refugee-host marriage practices, livelihood and income competition between refugees and hosts, etc.


Paper 1: Impact of the 2017 Rohingya Refugee Influx on Social Cohesion Between Members of the Diverse Host Community in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh
• AProf Anthony Ware, Deakin University, Melbourne Australia, anthony.ware@deakin.edu.au
• Fatema Begum Popy, Department of Education, Noakhali Science and Technology University, Chittagong fatema.popy@nsty.edu.bd
• Dr Vicki-Ann Ware, Deakin University, Melbourne Australia, v.ware@deakin.edu.au
• Nitol Charma, University of Liberal Arts Bangladesh, nitolchakmareng@gmail.com
• Shorifun Nahar Sheuly, Technical Officer Teknaf, Friends in Village Development Bangladesh, orinsheuly@gmail.com

How has the 2017 Rohingya influx impacted social cohesion and everyday peace between different host community members around the Teknaf camps, noting their diversity and pre-existing social tensions, how are these tensions changing, and what response should the humanitarian sector policy and programming responses? A large amount of research, policy and aid programming is directed towards achieving peaceful relations and social cohesion between refugee and host communities. While this is a very significant and ongoing issue, very little academic study, or aid policy and programming response, has been directed towards stabilising or strengthening relations and social cohesion between different host community groups. The host community in Cox’s Bazar may be overwhelmingly Muslim and Bengali, but it would be a mistake to consider them a homogenous group with a singular set of issues and grievances. Minority Hindu, Buddhist, Christian and other groups exist. However, even the 95-odd per cent Muslim majority ‘host population’ is actually quite diverse, comprised of a significant number of Rohingya remaining in the region from previous refugee crises, living amongst Bengali Muslims made up of a Hanafi (madh'hab) majority, largely Deobandi (Hefazat-e-Islam), and a Shafi'I (Madhhab al-Shāfiʿ) minority with strong Sufi influence. Approximately a quarter openly identify as Sufi (mostly Chishti), while small Salafi / Wahhabi and Shia communities also exist. Usually living alongside one another peacefully, these diverse Islamic communities do not always agree. The refugee influx, with its significant environmental, economic and political stressors, creates the possibility of deteriorating social cohesion between religious, ethnic or other social groups. The non-Muslim minorities were already very vulnerable and often marginalised within this host community before the refugee influx. But so were the large number if Rohingya remaining from previous refugee crises. Certainly, there are two remaining refugee camps of ’91 Rohingya still in operation in Teknaf, but many others are integrated into village life and often possess Bangladeshi citizenship ID cards, although with no formal process for Rohingya to gain these, their situation remains precarious. The recent refugee influx puts the identities and improved lives of these earlier waves of refugees more at risk, adding to their vulnerability and potentially undermining the degree of social cohesion previously achieved with Bengali neighbours. This paper explores the impact of the 2017 Rohingya refugee influx on the social cohesion between these diverse host community members. The paper presents and analyses new field data from 55 focus group discussions (FGDs) in 21 host community villages, segregated by gender and youth/adult wherever possible, plus 20 key informant interviews, all conducted in mid-2023, exploring the social cohesion between these various host community groups, arriving at key recommendations for the humanitarian sector about improved programmatic responses to minimise conflict risk growing.

Paper 2: Impact of the 2017 Rohingya Influx on Host Area Minority Indigenous Villages
• Nitol Charma, University of Liberal Arts Bangladesh, nitolchakmareng@gmail.com
• AProf Anthony Ware, Deakin University, Melbourne Australia, anthony.ware@deakin.edu.au
• Dr Vicki-Ann Ware, Deakin University, Melbourne Australia, v.ware@deakin.edu.au
Amongst the Bengali host population directly affected by the million-strong refugee impact, 14 indigenous minority villages are situated within 7km of the camps or closer, totalling approx 4,000 people. This tiny indigenous population, from Chakma, Tanchangya, Rakhien and Mro minorities, have been very largely overlooked in policy formulation, humanitarian response, and wider discussion of host community issues. Most are Buddhist, none are Muslim, and all are from communities which already suffer marginalisation by mainstream Bengali culture, politics and society. The fact that the perpetrators of the genocidal violence against the Rohingya were Buddhist, often from related ethnic groups, creates the possibility of danger to these groups from traumatised and aggrieved Rohingya refugees. The dramatic arrival of such a large refugee community, then aid plus government responses, creates a similar risk that inequitable relations with neighbouring Bengali communities may be exacerbated, further weakening their socio-political power and increasing their vulnerability within Bangladeshi society and polity. This paper presents and analyses new field data from 25 focus group discussions (FGDs) in 11 of those villages, segregated by gender and youth/adult wherever possible, to examine the impacts on them of the massive refugee influx. While there is a substantial and growing literature about refugee-host community relations in this and similar crises, there is virtually no academic literature about the impacts of refugee influx on indigenous minorities within host communities. The field data, collected in June 2023, explores their perceptions of their current safety, vulnerability, livelihood/financial situation, social relations, and socio-political power to resolve grievances almost six years after the influx. To avoid a sampling bias towards grievances, negative issues and adverse impacts in isolation, and to explore resilience factors, the research also specifically asked for and analyses positive stories of strong social cohesion and everyday peace formation helping to stabilise their situation. One of us is an indigenous researcher from one of these ethnic groups (but not one of these villages). All field data collection was done by indigenous peoples from these ethnic groups, with no Bengali or foreign researchers in the villages, to help establish rapport and facilitate open dialogue. All focus groups were conducted in indigenous languages, recorded, transcribed in full, and analysed for this paper. The aim of this paper is to inform humanitarian sector programming within host community areas, to strengthen protection of these minorities and minimise the risk of conflict violence and further marginalisation.

Paper 3: Human Trafficking Risks, Reality and Training
• Fatema Begum Popy, Department of Education, Noakhali Science and Technology University, Chittagong fatema.popy@nsty.edu.bd
• Md Ramjan Ali, Senior Project Manager, Plan International Bangladesh, Teknaf, Ramjan.Ali@plan-international.org
• AProf Anthony Ware, Deakin University, Melbourne Australia, anthony.ware@deakin.edu.au
• Dr Vicki-Ann Ware, Deakin University, Melbourne Australia, v.ware@deakin.edu.au
• Shorifun Nahar Sheuly, Technical Officer Teknaf, Friends in Village Development Bangladesh, orinsheuly@gmail.com
Many humanitarian agencies provide training to camp and host community youth, and public messaging campaigns in both communities about the dangers of human trafficking and ways the youth and community members can protect themselves against it. This includes training provided by Plan International Bangladesh and Friends in Village Development Bangladesh, with whom two of the co-authors work. Anecdotally, however, most trafficking in Teknaf is related to people smuggling in which Rohingya seek out and pay for services to smuggle them to other countries, or out of the camp situation. The actual rate of / danger from human trafficking in which young people are lured, captured and forced against their will, or coerced, for some form of exploitation, is much lower, but the actual rate, thus the danger, is less clear. This paper presents analysis of new data from 35 key informant interviews (camp and local civil authorities, humanitarian workers and case managers), analysis of training conducted by 5 humanitarian agencies, and analysis of 30 human trafficking case studies. It compares the data on the rate of human trafficking against people’s will, who is targeted and how, etc. against the training and messaging currently being provided, to examine how well this does or does not empower them to avoid the dangers or risky situations – or whether the training provided is not well targeted to current real dangers in the camps / host communities. The purpose of the paper is thus to identify ways training in protection against trafficking may be improved. This paper does not consider people smuggling (paid transport to other countries), which involves an act of agency by the person trafficked.

Paper presentations

Available soon.