Chapter 2. Nationalist Pressure and the Government’s Reversal
A Campaign to Prevent the Recording of Rohingya Identity
In March 2014, opposition to recording the name “Rohingya” developed into an organized campaign against the census in Arakan. Its central demand was that the authorities prevent Rohingya respondents from identifying themselves by their own ethnic name.
Democratic Voice of Burma reported that thousands of Rakhine Buddhist demonstrators gathered in several townships on 16 March, with Ashin Wirathu joining the protests. Organizers sent a joint letter to the Central Census Committee demanding that enumerators exclude “Rohingya” and use “Bengali” instead. They requested an official response before 21 March.
By 24 March, campaign organizer Than Htun was threatening to obstruct census collection, claiming participation across all seventeen townships of Rakhine State. That statement establishes the campaign’s declared ambition; it does not demonstrate that every resident supported it. The demand nevertheless placed direct pressure on the authorities to make Rohingya participation conditional on accepting another identity.
Religious Mobilization Around an Administrative Decision
Human Rights Watch documented demonstrations in Sittwe against allowing respondents to enter “Rohingya” on census forms. It also reported that extremist monks led by Wirathu helped spread the boycott campaign through a tour, and that demonstrations opposing the inclusion of Rohingya occurred in Rangoon.
This intervention connected nationalist mobilization to a specific administrative outcome: controlling the ethnic identity that census officials could record. Religious authority helped carry a demand that would ultimately be implemented through government instructions.
On 28 March, Human Rights Watch called for postponement of the census until the authorities could guarantee security and a fair process. Its warning identified Rohingya communities and humanitarian workers as particularly vulnerable. The danger was therefore publicly documented before the government announced its reversal.
Buddhist Flags Became Symbols of the Boycott
The campaign also became visible outside homes and aid premises in Sittwe. Contemporary reporting described Buddhist flags displayed as expressions of solidarity with efforts to exclude the Rohingya name from the census.
Reuters reported that Rakhine National Party official Aung Mra Kyaw described a flag near an aid organization’s premises as a gesture of opposition to the government-sponsored census. This political context matters: the flag at the centre of the subsequent controversy was associated locally with a campaign concerning Rohingya identity.
On the evening of 26 March, crowds attacked premises used by Malteser International after allegations circulated that a female staff member had handled a Buddhist flag disrespectfully. DVB reported attacks on both the organization’s offices and accommodation. The violence began only days before census enumeration was due to start.
Malteser Challenged the Allegations Used to Explain the Attacks
Malteser International disputed the account that its employee had mistreated the flag. In an interview with DVB published on 30 March, spokesperson Johannes Kaltenbach explained that the flag had been removed in accordance with the organization’s policy against displaying religious or political symbols and returned to the owner.
He also rejected rumours that the employee had used the flag as clothing. These denials are essential to the historical record: allegations circulated by those blaming the aid worker should not be presented as established facts.
Kaltenbach further described the attacks as appearing organized. He pointed to the rapid gathering of a large crowd and the subsequent targeting of addresses across the town. His account supports serious concern about coordination, although the interview alone does not establish who planned or directed the violence.
The Attacks Threatened the Assistance Rohingya Needed
The violence spread beyond a dispute at one building. Humanitarian premises were damaged, workers sought protection, and organizations withdrew staff or suspended activities.
Radio Free Asia reported on 28 March that Malteser had temporarily suspended relief work in Sittwe and relocated international staff and some national staff to Yangon. The organization warned that failure to restore assistance quickly would have severe humanitarian consequences.
The same report included the response of Rohingya political leader Abu Taher, who stressed the importance of aid organizations continuing their work and described their assistance as benefiting different communities. His intervention placed the consequences for people needing help at the centre of the discussion.
For Rohingya dependent on humanitarian support, the attacks created an immediate threat extending beyond the census: the organizations providing essential assistance were themselves becoming targets.
ARNO Connected the Violence to the Campaign Against Rohingya Identity
In a statement dated 29 March 2014, the Arakan Rohingya National Organisation condemned the attacks of 26–27 March on humanitarian workers, offices, residences, vehicles and other property. Kaladan Press Network published the statement the following day.
ARNO understood the violence and the census campaign as connected forms of pressure against Rohingya. It argued that driving away humanitarian organizations would worsen conditions for displaced communities, while excluding their ethnic name would further undermine their rights.
The organization also alleged government support behind the attacks and characterized the events as part of a wider campaign of destruction against Rohingya. Those allegations should remain attributed to ARNO. The contemporaneous statement is nevertheless important evidence of how a Rohingya organization interpreted the crisis as it unfolded: attacks on assistance and official rejection of identity were experienced as mutually reinforcing threats.
The Government Announced the Reversal on 29 March
On 29 March, one day before enumeration began, presidential spokesperson Ye Htut publicly announced that households identifying themselves as Rohingya would not be registered. AFP reported his statement:
“If a household wants to identify themselves as ‘Rohingya’, we will not register it.”
He said respondents could instead identify as “Bengali.” The announcement therefore went beyond refusing official recognition of an ethnic name: it attached that refusal to whether a household would be included in the census.
DVB subsequently reported that the All Rakhine Committee for the Census had met Immigration Minister Khin Yi on Saturday, 29 March. The boycott was then called off, with census collection in Sittwe scheduled to proceed on 31 March. According to that report, enumerators had been instructed not to enter “Rohingya,” regardless of the respondent’s answer.
This sequence provides concrete evidence that the government accommodated the campaign’s central demand. It does not, by itself, resolve responsibility for organizing the preceding attacks.
Intimidation Was Followed by an Official Restriction
On 28 March, while the violence was still an immediate concern, UNFPA had explicitly warned that the government’s commitment to count everyone and permit ethnic self-identification could not be applied selectively in response to intimidation or threats. It also stated that measures addressing security must preserve fair and inclusive participation.
The government’s announcement the following day moved in the opposite direction: the restriction fell on the identity Rohingya could declare.
In its 1 April statement, UNFPA confirmed that senior officials had announced the restriction just before the census began. It described the decision as a departure from international census standards, human rights principles and agreed procedures, and warned that it could undermine the credibility of the data.
For Rohingya, the decisive development was the conversion of an exclusionary political demand into an instruction governing the count. Demonstrators had demanded that their name be removed; the state then made rejection of that name a condition of participation. The next stage would bring that decision to individual households, where the right to identify as Rohingya confronted the threat of remaining uncounted.