_edited.png)
The Fabrication of the Htan Shauk Khan Massacre: How Nay San Lwin Misled the Public
- globalarakannetwork
- Aug 16
- 7 min read
Updated: Aug 17
News Analysis
Global Arakan Network August 15, 2025
In the age of social media and digital platforms, the spread of fake stories that reinforce existing false narratives is not uncommon. However, what stands out is the rapid creation of successive fabricated stories disseminated through both social media and more formal media platforms that already enjoy a degree of trust among the general public.
A notable example of this phenomenon is the disinformation campaign led by Nay San Lwin, a prominent Bangagya activist. He spread a fabricated story through his social media accounts on platforms like Facebook and X, and subsequently sought to amplify it through various media outlets.
As global attention and resources shift toward urgent humanitarian crises, such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the ongoing refugee crisis along the Bangladesh-Arakan border has faded from focus, further overshadowed by Myanmar’s current national turmoil.
Consequently, many Bangagya activists, including Nay San Lwin, feel compelled to invent more vivid and horrific humanitarian disasters to draw attention to their cause, possibly in anticipation of the upcoming "Rohingya conference" in New York in September 2025. Among these activists, Nay San Lwin stands out as particularly active and dedicated. His fabricated narrative falsely alleges that the Arakan Army killed 600 Bangagya villagers in Htan Shauk Khan.
Theory of Fake Stories and Disinformation
Observers have often overlooked a recurring pattern in the spread of disinformation and fake stories surrounding the Rohingya crisis. This pattern typically involves four key steps:
Intentional Creation of False or Misleading Information: Deliberately crafting inaccurate narratives to mislead audiences.
Strategic Objectives: Advancing specific agendas, such as shaping public narratives or sowing division.
Amplification Through Channels: Disseminating falsehoods via social media and formal digital platforms to reach a wider audience.
Exploitation of Cognitive and Social Biases: Leveraging psychological tendencies, such as confirmation bias and emotional resonance, to make the disinformation more persuasive.
How Nay San Lwin Fabricated the ‘Htan Shauk Khan Massacre’ Story
On August 3, 2025, Nay San Lwin first shared a fabricated story on his Facebook and X accounts, alleging that the Arakan Army (AA) carried out a massacre of at least 600 civilians in Htan Shauk Khan, Buthidaung, on May 2, 2025. He supported his claims with alleged photographic evidence, detailed below.
On the same day, he shared the story on another platform, the Assistance Association for Myanmar-based Independent Journalists (AAMIJ), mentioning the same story but with a different figure, claiming "over 600 victims" and stating that "the entire village was killed." On the same day, another group, the Rohingya Student Network (RSN) and Rohingya Khobor, released the same story.
The next day, on August 4, his newly founded organization, the Arakan Rohingya National Council (ARNC), released a statement in which it mentioned that eyewitness testimonies and newly surfaced photos supported their accusations. Starting from this, other media platforms copied and pasted the same story from the statement, including the following media platforms:
As shown in the table above, the spread of a fake story accompanied by distorted images began with a single individual amplifying it through various media platforms within his network, gradually culminating in coverage by a global media outlet like Al Jazeera English, which is widely perceived as a pro-Islamic group in the media sphere.
As revealed in the picture above, it is astonishing that the entire story was fabricated by one influential individual through his social media accounts and connected platforms. Within a week, it transformed into internationally shocking news, distortedly presented by global media outlets such as Al Jazeera English.
Decoding Nay San Lwin’s Narrative
According to the NSL and his ARNC’s account: “The ARNC strongly condemns the massacre of over 600 Rohingya civilians perpetrated by the Arakan Army (AA) on May 2, 2025, in Htan Shauk Khan village (also known as Hoinya Seeree) in Buthidaung Township, Arakan State, Myanmar. Eyewitness testimonies and newly surfaced photographs provide horrifying evidence of the mass killing of entire families, including children, pregnant women, the elderly, and persons with disabilities.”
The ARNC’s statement on May 2, 2025, and all related news and interviews regarding this incident provided no further details beyond this. According to Nay San Lwin and his followers, the key evidence supporting their narrative consists of “eyewitness testimonies and photographs.”
Let us examine which photographs they are relying on. According to the GAN’s observations, four photographs were used when Nay San Lwin began his accusations on May 2, 2025, as detailed below.
As noted above, there are actually only two distinct scenes, as photo-1 and photo-2 depict the same scene, and photo-3 and photo-4 are likewise identical.
These four photographs were all taken on the same date, March 28, 2025, at 6:29 PM, eleven months after the alleged incident. Therefore, it is highly unreliable to consider these photographs as tangible evidence for the claim of a "killing of over 600 people." Firstly, the photographs themselves do not indicate who committed the alleged crimes. Secondly, the number of bones visible does not correspond to 600 people. More importantly, the presence of hamlets and boots in the photographs (mentioned in yellow color) suggests that these individuals were combatants, not civilians.
As a second step, the NSL and ARNC’s statement proudly claims the existence of eyewitnesses to the incident. However, who are these eyewitnesses?
To date, Al Jazeera has released two video clips addressing the issue, but none of the speakers in these videos explicitly claimed to be eyewitnesses to this specific incident. The first video, released on August 10, 2025, is 9 minutes and 14 seconds long and features two self-proclaimed victims, 18-year-old Nur Saleema from Buthidaung and Ansar Ullah from Buthidaung, who stated they witnessed killings by the Arakan Army (AA) and lost family members. However, the presenter incorrectly specified as if they were from Htan Shauk Khan village. Additionally, this documentary included unrelated sensational videos to bolster their narrative.
A second video, produced by Al Jazeera on August 12, 2025, one day after the 10th ULA Press Briefing, aimed to counter the ULA spokesperson’s speech. In this video, Al Jazeera interviewed two more self-proclaimed victims, Shomsul Alam and Nur Kolima. The former presented photographs of unrelated incidents, not connected to Htan Shauk Khan, while the latter claimed to have witnessed an incident with her own eyes but did not specify it was the Htan Shauk Khan event.
Thus, Al Jazeera’s portrayal of eyewitnesses to the Htan Shauk Khan incident lacks clear evidence, as the accounts merely describe seeing people being killed and houses being burned, with no further specifics.
Fortunately, as the Arakan authorities have full control over Htan Shauk Khan village, they can verify the truth by consulting with local Muslim village leaders to confirm whether these individuals are indeed from that village.
The Truth of the Story
The most effective way to counter fake stories and disinformation is to rely on verified facts and logical arguments. Sometimes, a simple fact about an incident can become convoluted due to dishonest intentions, a tactic many Bangagya activists have employed professionally for years. Now is the time to dismantle their manipulation and reveal the true nature of the reality that observers are often misled about with sensational photos and videos.
What really happened in Htan Shauk Khan of Buthidaung?
For context, Buthidaung is the hub of the Myanmar junta’s Military Operation Command (MOC) 15, overseeing at least ten battalions. During intense armed clashes, local Bangagya Islamic extremist groups such as ARSA, RSO, ARA, and other individuals collaborated with Myanmar junta forces to counter the Arakan Army’s (AA) offensives.
Observers can refer to one of the AA’s press releases from May 4, 2024, to understand the context at the time. Key sections of the statement noted that, as of May 3, one day before the Htan Shauk Khan incident, the AA had successfully captured MOC-15 and LIB-551, along with several other targets. More importantly, a critical paragraph in the statement declared:
“Fighting continues to intensify as the LIB-551 and 15th Military Operation Commands pursue and engage enemies fleeing from their headquarters. Similarly, enemies who abandoned their camps and are escaping have mounted defensive resistance in Htan Shauk Khan village within Buthidaung Township. However, our forces were able to suppress and attack them, resulting in significant casualties and deaths on the enemy side.”
This paragraph clearly states that an intense battle occurred between the Arakan Army (AA) and junta forces from MOC-15 and LIB-551, who retreated to Htan Shauk Khan village to defend against the AA. After the battle, the junta forces suffered significant losses. Therefore, it is evident that the bones visible in the photographs belong to approximately 20 to 30 junta soldiers, not civilians.
As stated in the Arakan Army’s (AA) press release, detainees from the junta captured during this battle could provide tangible first-hand evidence to shed light on the truth.
Ground Figures Support the Statement
According to the United League of Arakan (ULA) authorities, there are currently 719 villagers in Htan Shauk Khan out of the original 993 residents. This means only 274 people are unaccounted for, not 600 as claimed by NSL and other sources. Village leaders report that these individuals may have fled to Bangladesh, Yangon, or Malaysia, making it difficult to confirm their exact locations at present.
Nevertheless, the claim of a massacre of 600 villagers or 'entire village' is hugely false and unfounded. This narrative is merely an attempt to attract attention through sensational stories, distorted photographs, and videos within an echo chamber of sympathetic networks and media platforms.
Such deceptive actions undermine social cohesion and stability in the region, sowing division and mistrust, which are clear barriers to finding sustainable solutions to the problem.
