Rakhine Investigation Commission Submits Report to President Thein Sein's Government

On This day in Arakan History ၊ April 22, 2013

April 22, 2013, marks the day when the 27-member Rakhine Investigation Commission, established by President Thein Sein in August 2012, submitted its final report—over 100 pages in length—to the president following eight months of investigation into the communal violence that had torn through Rakhine State in June and October 2012.

The commission, comprising retired public servants, religious figures, politicians, academics, and civil society members, was tasked with uncovering the root causes of the violence and proposing solutions.

Commission spokesperson Dr. Kyaw Yin Hlaing explained that members "mainly concentrated in the report on why the conflict arose, on how to solve the problems that led to the conflicts, and on what the government has to do".

The submission date held particular significance as it came just one day after Human Rights Watch published its own independent investigation accusing the government of complicity in ‘ethnic cleansing’ against Muslims.

The report's completion represented the Myanmar government's first formal attempt to address the crisis through an official, structured investigative mechanism.

The report's submission was historically significant for several reasons. First, it represented a rare moment of official acknowledgment that the violence required systematic investigation, though the commission's composition was immediately questioned—it notably excluded representatives from the local Muslim community in Arakan, with two prominent Muslim members reportedly purged during the process.

Second, the report contained contradictory elements: while it offered important recommendations on addressing humanitarian needs in Muslim IDP camps, including overcrowding, access to clean water, sanitation, and child malnutrition , it simultaneously recommended doubling security forces in Rakhine State, including the notorious Nasaka border force, without addressing accountability for documented human rights violations.

Third, the report revealed deep institutional biases, framing the conflict through a "national security mindset" concerned with "identification and removal of foreigners" rather than human rights protection.

The Asian Legal Resource Centre characterized the 119-page document as "gravely flawed," noting it placed blame on victims and international organizations while failing to address half a century of military dictatorship as a causal factor.

The cover of the Rakhine State Investigation Commission Report (source @ burmalibrary)

The April 22, 2013 report submission shaped subsequent developments in profound and lasting ways. President Thein Sein formally responded on May 6, accepting the report's recommendations as the basis for government action and establishing a Central Committee for Implementation of Stability and Development in Rakhine State with seven subcommittees.

However, the report's flaws had enduring consequences. UN Special Rapporteur Tomás Ojea Quintana welcomed some recommendations but expressed serious concern about the lack of provisions to address impunity for "credible allegations that widespread and systematic human rights violations by state officials targeted against the local community members have occurred and are continuing".

The report's recommendation that communities "should continue to be separated while emotions remain high"  effectively endorsed a policy of permanent segregation that persists to this day, with Muslim communities confined to camps and ghettos under harsh movement restrictions.

The report's framing of self-identified "Rohingya" as "Bengalis" and its focus on "illegal immigration"  legitimized dominant narratives that the self-identified ‘Rohingya’ Muslims in Arakan are not indigenous to the land.

The April 22 submission thus stands as a moment when Myanmar's government had an opportunity to address root causes of communal conflict but instead produced a document that, in key respects, reinforced the discriminatory structures underlying the violence.