The changing dynamics of the political economy in South and Southeast Asia and their impact on the security of ethno-religious minorities: a case study of Bangladesh and Myanmar

Abstract

At the geographical confluence of South and mainland Southeast Asia, connecting three economically vibrant regions of South Asia, Southeast Asia and East Asia, are located two asymmetric neighbours, the predominantly Buddhist Myanmar and the predominantly Muslim Bangladesh. Although at the exterior both neighbours seem to be distinct in topography, racial composition, and socio-cultural practices, they share similar post-colonial histories and nation forming trajectories, marked by decades of military dictatorship and struggles towards democracy, culminating in similar communal and ethno-religious politics. Initially these policies stemmed from a promise to secure the interests of the majority of the population but have over the decades evolved into regulating minorities’ access to the benefits of citizenship and human rights, thereby rendering the ethno-religious minorities helpless. This paper seeks to comprehensively study the aftermath of the struggle for liberation, post-colonial history and the process of nation-building, to understand how and why ethno-religious identity gained fundamental stature in state politics, and its impact on the security of ethno-religious minorities. Abstract At the geographical confluence of South and mainland Southeast Asia, connecting three economically vibrant regions of South Asia, Southeast Asia and East Asia, are located two asymmetric neighbours, the predominantly Buddhist Myanmar and the predominantly Muslim Bangladesh. Although at the exterior both neighbours seem to be distinct in topography, racial composition, and socio-cultural practices, they share similar post-colonial histories and nation forming trajectories, marked by decades of military dictatorship and struggles towards democracy, culminating in similar communal and ethno-religious politics. Initially these policies stemmed from a promise to secure the interests of the majority of the population but have over the decades evolved into regulating minorities’ access to the benefits of citizenship and human rights, thereby rendering the ethno-religious minorities helpless. This paper seeks to comprehensively study the aftermath of the struggle for liberation, post-colonial history and the process of nation-building, to understand how and why ethno-religious identity gained fundamental stature in state politics, and its impact on the security of ethno-religious minorities. This is an interesting comparative study of Bangladesh and Myanmar that has focused on many similarities in the post-colonial evolution of their political systems. From the descriptive historical point of view, the article is of special interest to students of History and IR too. The style of presentation is also literally pleasant. I would suggest thought for greater clarity and appeal of the paper to readers of comparative politics and history more seriously speaking. confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. The article is well written and informative. The authors move beyond the conventional area studies divisions that typically groups Bangladesh with other South Asian states and consider developments in Myanmar in the context of Southeast Asian only. The authors do a good job weaving the analysis through the two case studies in a comparative way and reveal a surprising similarity in the modern political experiences and trajectories of both Bangladesh and Myanmar, the colonial inheritance, the weaknesses of civil government, the rise and fall of military rule, and the shift to what they call a fundamentalist economy in which the majoritarian communalist religious emphasis is increasingly putting pressure on minorities, forced expulsions and flight leading to increasingly religious homogeneous polities. They are not exceptional in this regard--we know this is a global phenomenon and India is or seeks to be under Modi in the vanguard of this. Nevertheless, it is the combination of the postcolonial similarities, the comparable reasons for pursuing religious normativity (either Muslim or Buddhist) and exclusion of the religious Other(s), the shift in motives for doing so, and the consequences for ethnic minorities in both cases that makes this article significant. Both countries moved away from their original commitments to inclusion and protected freedoms and both saw the emergence of structural exclusions that entrenched the power of their respective religious majorities. Myanmar appears to be present however as the most extreme case. The authors interestingly also point to the greater tolerance of Awami League chief Sheikh Hasina towards ethnic minorities, although they do not go far in explaining why. Of course the biggest influx in recent times was that of the Muslim Rohingya from 2017. The article leaves one wondering, if absent the Rohingya, the Myanmar military (the tatmadaw) would have expelled