Myanmar’s recent pledge to repatriate 180,000 Rohingya refugees from Bangladesh has sparked cautious hope but widespread doubt among international observers and the displaced community itself. Announced amid a deepening political and humanitarian crisis in Myanmar, the plan raises critical questions about its feasibility and sincerity. With the military junta losing ground to ethnic armed groups and the core issues of citizenship and safety for the Rohingya unresolved, many fear this initiative may be little more than a diplomatic maneuver to deflect global criticism.
Promises Amid Chaos
The announcement comes at a time when Myanmar is grappling with unprecedented instability. Since the military coup in February 2021, the country has descended into widespread conflict, with the junta facing resistance from various ethnic armed organizations and civilian militias. In Rakhine State, the historic homeland of the Rohingya, large swathes of territory are now under the control of the Arakan Army, an ethnic Rakhine insurgent group. The military’s grip on power—and its ability to govern effectively—has significantly weakened, casting doubt on its capacity to oversee a safe and voluntary repatriation process. 
This is not the first time Myanmar has made such a pledge. Historical attempts in 1978 and 1992 to repatriate Rohingya refugees after mass displacements to Bangladesh were marred by inadequate planning and a failure to address systemic discrimination. Returnees faced severe restrictions, were denied citizenship under the 1982 Citizenship Law, and remained vulnerable to further violence. Those repatriations, often conducted under international pressure, did little to resolve the root causes of displacement and instead perpetuated cycles of exclusion and exodus.
Today’s context is arguably more challenging. The ongoing civil conflict has crippled infrastructure and humanitarian access across Myanmar. Over 100,000 Rohingya remain in internal displacement camps within the country, enduring dire conditions with limited access to healthcare, education, or freedom of movement. Since the coup, international aid organizations have struggled to operate in these areas due to security risks and bureaucratic obstacles imposed by the junta. Against this backdrop, the promise of a “safe and dignified” return for 180,000 refugees appears increasingly hollow.
Structural Barriers to Return
At the heart of the Rohingya crisis lies Myanmar’s 1982 Citizenship Law, which effectively rendered the Muslim minority stateless by excluding them from the list of recognized ethnic groups. Despite decades of international condemnation, this law remains unchanged, and there has been no formal acknowledgment of the Rohingya as a legitimate ethnic community within Myanmar. Without legal recognition or guarantees of equal rights, any repatriation risks replicating the conditions of marginalization that forced nearly a million Rohingya to flee to Bangladesh, particularly during the violent military crackdown in 2017.
Moreover, the current repatriation framework has significant flaws. The plan reportedly applies only to individuals listed between 2018 and 2020, excluding children born in Bangladeshi camps since then. This raises the alarming prospect of family separations, as parents may be permitted to return while their younger children are not. Such a policy contradicts fundamental humanitarian principles, including the right to family unity, and could deter many refugees from participating in the process altogether.
The lack of input from the Rohingya themselves further undermines the plan’s credibility. Surveys and interviews conducted in the sprawling refugee camps of Cox’s Bazar in Bangladesh reveal a consistent demand for specific conditions to be met before any return. These include full citizenship, robust safety assurances, freedom of movement, and access to education and employment opportunities. Many refugees have expressed a preference to remain in Bangladesh—despite the hardships of camp life—rather than return to a country that continues to deny them basic rights.
Bangladesh’s Burden and International Responsibility
For Bangladesh, hosting nearly a million Rohingya refugees since the 2017 exodus has been an immense humanitarian and economic challenge. The sprawling camps along its southeastern border, including Kutupalong, the largest refugee camp in the world, have strained resources and tested local patience. International funding for the crisis has dwindled in recent years, exacerbating tensions between host communities and refugees. Dhaka’s eagerness for a resolution is understandable, but endorsing a repatriation plan without ironclad guarantees of safety and dignity risks further harm to an already traumatized population.
International organizations, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Organization for Migration (IOM), have emphasized the need for any repatriation to be voluntary, safe, and sustainable. This requires not only the involvement of independent monitors to oversee the process but also a commitment from Myanmar to address the systemic issues driving displacement. Legal reforms, including the repeal or amendment of the 1982 Citizenship Law, must be prioritized. Additionally, accountability for past atrocities—through prosecutions, reparations, and public acknowledgment—remains a critical component of rebuilding trust with the Rohingya community.
A Path Forward?
For a repatriation process to succeed, several non-negotiable steps must be taken. First, Myanmar must enact legal changes to grant the Rohingya full citizenship and recognize them as an official ethnic group. Without this foundation, any return will merely perpetuate existing injustices. Second, the process must be family-centric, ensuring that no household is split due to bureaucratic oversights or outdated lists. Third, international oversight is essential to verify conditions on the ground, facilitate safe transport, and monitor reintegration efforts over the long term.
Beyond immediate logistics, repatriation should be embedded in a broader framework of justice and reconciliation. This includes holding perpetrators of violence against the Rohingya accountable and providing reparations to survivors. Returnees must also be supported with access to housing, healthcare, education, and livelihoods—ensuring they are not simply relocated to new forms of confinement but integrated as equal citizens with rights and opportunities.
The international community has a pivotal role to play in holding Myanmar accountable. Empty promises and symbolic gestures must not be accepted as substitutes for meaningful reform. Pressure must be maintained to ensure that any repatriation plan adheres to a rights-based approach, with clear benchmarks for progress. Without such measures, the initiative risks becoming yet another chapter in the long history of failed returns, further entrenching the Rohingya’s plight.
Voices Unheard
Perhaps the most glaring omission in Myanmar’s latest proposal is the absence of the Rohingya’s own voices in shaping their future. Their demands for dignity, safety, and recognition are not mere requests but prerequisites for any lasting solution. Ignoring these calls risks not only undermining the repatriation process but also perpetuating a cycle of displacement and despair.
As Myanmar’s political crisis deepens and the junta’s authority wanes, the feasibility of implementing even a well-intentioned plan remains in question. For the Rohingya, scattered across Bangladeshi camps and internal displacement sites, the promise of return remains distant. Until structural reforms are enacted and their fundamental rights are secured, skepticism will continue to overshadow hope. The international community, alongside Bangladesh and Myanmar, faces a critical test: to ensure that repatriation does not become a synonym for re-victimization but a genuine step toward justice and healing.
As the situation unfolds, the world watches to see whether this latest pledge will break from the past or repeat its failures. For the Rohingya, who have endured generations of statelessness and suffering, the stakes could not be higher.
