UK Home Office Report on Arakan: Another Example of Selective Narrative and Political Bias

Report Analysis January 17, 2026

The recent Country Policy and Information Note released by the United Kingdom Home Office on January 5, 2026, claims to provide updated guidance on the situation in Arakan, with heavy focus on the so-called “Rohingya” community.

In reality, the document offers nothing new. It is simply a compilation of old reports, one-sided testimonies, and recycled accusations already circulated by certain diaspora groups and international bodies. The real purpose appears clear: to quietly support and amplify the ongoing ICJ case brought by Gambia against Myanmar, while shaping asylum decisions in the UK.

What stands out most is the report’s complete lack of balance and fresh evidence. Instead of careful, independent research, it relies on cherry-picked sources that almost entirely ignore the Arakanese viewpoint. This is disappointing from a government agency that should aim for accuracy and fairness, especially on such a sensitive and complex issue.

One of the most striking flaws is the claim that “Rohingya” have lived in Arakan since the 15th century. The report states this without providing any solid historical proof. At the same time, it downplays the well-documented large-scale migration from Chittagong during British colonial rule, when authorities actively encouraged and facilitated movement of laborers into the region for their self-profits. Historians and official colonial records clearly show these demographic shifts. By brushing them aside, the report distorts the historical record and feeds a narrative that suits certain political goals.

Even more troubling are the direct accusations leveled against the Arakan Army (AA). The document lists serious allegations: killings, drone and mortar attacks on civilians, burning of villages, enforced disappearances, arbitrary arrests, torture, sexual violence, blocking humanitarian aid, and extortion. These are grave claims. Yet the report provides no concrete evidence—no verified footage, no independent forensic reports, no neutral eyewitness accounts from the ground. All the accusations rest on statements from diaspora Muslim activists, advocacy organizations, and some UN documents that remain unverified or contested.

The United League of Arakan (ULA) and the Arakan Army have repeatedly addressed these charges with detailed counter-evidence, logical explanations, and open invitations for genuine investigation. None of these responses are fairly reflected in the UK report. This one-sided approach raises serious questions about the objectivity of the entire document.

The irony is hard to miss. A government report meant to inform policy ends up repeating unproven allegations while ignoring the broader context of a decades-long struggle for self-determination in Arakan. The people of Arakan have faced military oppression, forced displacement, economic neglect, and cultural suppression for generations. In recent years, under AA administration, many areas have seen improved local governance, access to basic services, and efforts to protect all communities living there. These positive developments receive no mention.

This report does not help anyone understand the real situation on the ground. It does not contribute to fair policy-making. Instead, it strengthens a familiar pattern: the international spread of misinformation and one-sided stories about northern Arakan’s Muslim population. Such narratives serve short-term political interests but harm long-term trust and peace-building.

For the people of Arakan, the message is simple. We will continue to defend our rights, protect our land, and build a just society based on facts, not selective reports. External documents may try to shape opinions in faraway capitals, but the reality here is shaped by those who live, work, and fight for this region every day.

True understanding requires listening to all voices—not just the loudest or most politically convenient ones. Until that happens, reports like this one will remain what they are: tools of influence rather than tools of truth.