19 October 2026
A new investigation published by The Guardian on 1 October 2026 has documented allegations of the systematic destruction and confiscation of Rohingya villages in northern Arakan following the Arakan Army's territorial advances in 2024. Combining satellite imagery, Rohingya eyewitness accounts, conflict-monitoring data and findings from an internal United Nations report, the investigation describes how former Rohingya residential areas and agricultural land have been cleared and repurposed for military facilities, settlements and camps housing displaced people.
According to the internal UN findings reported by The Guardian, at least 800 hectares of land across 23 Rohingya villages have been seized and repurposed since 2024. The findings describe a pattern in which displacement is followed by changes to the land that make the restoration of original homes and communities increasingly difficult. The reported developments have raised concerns about the future of Rohingya families who remain in Arakan and the possibility of return for those who have sought refuge in Bangladesh.
The investigation places particular attention on Buthidaung Township, where the Arakan Army established control over much of the area during 2024. Satellite comparisons show substantial changes to former Rohingya settlements, including the removal of residential structures and the construction of new facilities. The Guardian also examined conflict-monitoring information indicating that recorded battles in Buthidaung declined from 103 in 2024 to 12 in 2025. This distinction is important because some documented land changes occurred after major fighting had subsided, raising questions about whether the destruction resulted from combat or subsequent clearance operations.
Muhammad Ares, an eighteen-year-old Rohingya refugee interviewed in Bangladesh, described bulldozers removing residential buildings, trees and other features of his former village. He alleged that cleared areas were subsequently used for Arakan Army military camps and outposts. His testimony provides a personal account of the disappearance of a settlement that had previously contained homes and established community landmarks. The investigation also documented testimony from Mohammed Sadik, aged twenty-six, from Ywet Nyo Taung, who described the confiscation of agricultural land and the loss of farming equipment.
Sadik alleged that Rohingya residents were compelled to undertake heavy labour, including clearing roads, digging trenches and working inside military camps. According to his account, local authorities refused to return confiscated farmland even when residents explained that they depended upon cultivation for food. Other testimonies described Rohingya being forced to dismantle their own buildings and transport materials for new military construction. These allegations suggest that the destruction of residential property was accompanied, in some locations, by the appropriation of materials and labour from the displaced population.
The Guardian examined video recordings from Ywet Nyo Taung showing the remains of buildings along a route toward U Hla Hpay. Former residents identified schools, mosques, shops, ferry facilities and individual homes visible in the recordings. The investigation verified geographical features using landmarks near the Mayu River and compared the material with satellite imagery and NASA fire-detection data. This combination of local Rohingya knowledge and independent geographical analysis provided supporting evidence for the reported destruction, although identifying responsibility for every individual incident remains a separate investigative question.
Another important finding concerns the establishment of camps on land formerly used by Rohingya communities. At Hnget Thay, agricultural land was reportedly converted into a camp containing approximately 120 buildings. The Guardian reported that at least ten such camps had been established after the Arakan Army's territorial expansion. Residents described restrictions on movement and conditions that prevented them from returning freely to their original villages. These allegations raise concerns about whether displaced Rohingya are being accommodated temporarily or subjected to a more enduring system of confinement and territorial exclusion.
The investigation also recorded allegations of forced recruitment, detention and sexual violence. Rohingya witnesses described being compelled to undergo military training, perform unpaid labour and make payments to Arakan Army authorities. One account concerned a young woman allegedly subjected to physical and sexual abuse after being taken by armed personnel. Such testimony requires careful investigation and protection of survivors, particularly where disclosure could expose individuals or their families to retaliation.
The Arakan Army publicly presents itself as representing the interests of the different ethnic communities of Arakan. However, the reported confiscations, displacement and restrictions on Rohingya residents stand in tension with those stated commitments. The allegations concern actions attributed to particular armed authorities and personnel; they should not be extended into collective responsibility for the wider Rakhine population. The Guardian also quoted Nicholas Koumjian, head of the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar, who stated that his mechanism had not confirmed Arakan Army responsibility for the land destruction. That qualification is important when distinguishing documented changes to villages from conclusions about the perpetrators.
The consequences extend beyond the immediate loss of buildings. Rohingya villages contain inherited family property, agricultural fields, religious institutions, burial grounds and landmarks that establish the historical presence of communities. When these places are demolished or repurposed, displaced families may lose both the physical foundations of their livelihoods and the means of identifying their former properties. Aung Kyaw Moe, a Rohingya political figure interviewed for the investigation, warned that the transformation of village land could make displacement increasingly difficult to reverse.
The findings also carry particular significance in light of Myanmar's earlier military campaign against the Rohingya in 2017. International investigations previously documented the burning, bulldozing and redevelopment of Rohingya settlements after hundreds of thousands of residents fled to Bangladesh. The new evidence concerns a different period and armed authority, and responsibility for individual incidents must be established separately. Nevertheless, the reported changes to land reveal a continuing danger: Rohingya families may be displaced not only through violence but through subsequent actions that prevent the restoration of their homes and communities.
For Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh, the destruction of villages creates another obstacle to meaningful return. More than 155,000 Rohingya have reportedly arrived in Bangladesh since 2024, according to UNHCR figures cited in the investigation. Safe and voluntary return requires more than the cessation of fighting; it also depends upon security, freedom of movement, recognition of rights and the ability to reclaim homes and livelihoods. The continued alteration of Rohingya land threatens these conditions.
The investigation underscores the importance of preserving Rohingya eyewitness testimony, original village names, property records and satellite evidence before further changes make historical reconstruction more difficult. The documented land transformations and allegations of forced displacement warrant independent investigation and effective protection of affected communities. For Rohingya families, the central concern remains whether their ancestral villages will survive as places to which they can return, or whether the physical evidence of their presence will continue to disappear.