Genocide Denial and Recognition: A Contested Perspective of the Rohingya Crisis

Genocide, a concept that spans beyond-legal definition, has been a topic of debate among various actors, including the state or authority responsible for committing it, the victims and surviving communities, policymakers, human rights defenders, academics, journalists, bystanders, and the international community. Such contestation lies at the heart of discussions on genocide denial and recognition. While participants or perpetrators often refuse to acknowledge an event as ‘genocide’ to avoid accountability and diminish victims’ claims, the survivor community advocates for broader recognition of genocide and frequently acts as the primary voice in recognising and challenging denial, standing against perpetrators who commit and deny genocidal atrocities through strategic falsification, deception, and fallacious arguments. Apart from victims’ recognition, political recognition—often achieved through vigorous diaspora lobbying and diplomatic manoeuvring with powerful states—and legal recognition, which usually comes through special tribunals or international courts, can provide a profound sense of satisfaction to the victim and survivor communities. However, this does not necessarily signify an end to the denial of genocide by the state or authority responsible, who have different pursuits within the national or local political landscape. Regarding the Rohingya case, a contrasting perspective has persisted between Gambia and Myanmar, as both parties have presented their arguments and evidence to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), concerning the breach of the Genocide Convention and the commission of genocide against the Rohingya community. The former lodged a case under the rubric of the Genocide Convention against the latter, which has consistently refused to admit its responsibility for genocide, framing its narrative through the conventional security discourse to justify its recent military operations against a Rohingya outfit, responsible for generating instability. Nevertheless, the ICJ, based on the parties’ evidence and arguments, has yet to declare the final judgement—whether the Rohingya case constitutes a genocide or not, signifying the prolonged, complex legal process in delivering a verdict in such cases.