Rohingya Repatriation: Progress or political optics?

In what appears to be a diplomatic milestone after years of stagnation, Myanmar has confirmed that 180,000 Rohingya refugees currently residing in Bangladesh are eligible for repatriation.

The announcement, which emerged from recent bilateral talks in Bangkok on the sidelines of the 6th BIMSTEC Summit, has rekindled cautious hope in the world’s largest refugee settlement in Cox’s Bazar. However, this development calls for deeper legal and humanitarian scrutiny within the frameworks of international conventions and Bangladesh’s statutory obligations.
Past repatriation attempts in 2018 and 2019 failed as refugees refused to return without guaranteed safety, citizenship, and dignity.

The recent confirmation of 180,000 verified names—part of a larger list of 800,000 submitted between 2018 and 2020—might seem like progress. However, refugees remain skeptical. As one refugee, Shafiqur Rahman, noted: “Myanmar must take all of us back, not just a selected few, and they must ensure our return with full rights, dignity, and citizenship.”

Although Bangladesh is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, these documents remain the global standard for refugee rights and repatriation. The Convention emphasizes non-refoulement, the principle that refugees must not be returned to a place where they risk persecution.

It also supports voluntary repatriation as a durable solution—provided that return is safe, dignified, and sustainable.

Despite not ratifying the Convention, Bangladesh has, since 2017, provided sanctuary to the Rohingya in a commendable display of humanitarianism. The country has urged the global community to share responsibility while advocating for voluntary, rights-based repatriation.

Thus, the Bangkok announcement must be viewed against these standards. Mere name verification is insufficient unless Myanmar commits to systemic reforms—restoring citizenship and legal protections for returnees.

Bangladesh lacks a comprehensive refugee law, leaving the Rohingya in a legal grey zone. Their presence is regulated under the Foreigners Act, 1946, and ad-hoc administrative measures. While this has allowed temporary protection, it offers no clarity on legal rights or durable solutions.

Still, the Government of Bangladesh has taken pragmatic steps in collaboration with UNHCR and international partners to document and manage the refugee population. The verification of 180,000 names illustrates the due diligence exercised by Dhaka in building a viable repatriation framework.

However, without a national refugee policy, Bangladesh remains vulnerable to external and internal pressure. Enacting a legal instrument could strengthen Dhaka’s position in negotiations and align it more closely with international human rights norms.

The core barriers to meaningful repatriation lie not in bureaucracy, but in Myanmar’s structural denial of rights. The Rohingya remain excluded from the list of 135 officially recognized ethnic groups and continue to face persecution—particularly in Rakhine State.

Myanmar’s military junta, discredited since the 2021 coup, has restricted humanitarian access and obstructed aid in opposition-held areas. In this context, repatriation risks becoming superficial. ASEAN and the United Nations must apply coordinated pressure to ensure that any repatriation includes legal guarantees and structural reforms.

The caretaker government under Nobel Laureate Muhammad Yunus has demonstrated political will to revisit the issue. But true progress requires more than bilateral dialogue.

A trilateral mechanism involving Bangladesh, Myanmar, and UNHCR must be operationalized, with clear benchmarks for citizenship restoration and reintegration. Simultaneously, Bangladesh should explore international legal channels such as the ICJ and ICC to hold Myanmar accountable.

Most importantly, the repatriation must remain voluntary, in accordance with international law. Coercive or incentive-based returns—without real reforms—risk perpetuating a cycle of displacement.

The voices of the Rohingya must be central to any repatriation plan. Ensuring a safe, dignified return means restoring citizenship, legal protection, freedom of movement, education, healthcare, and economic opportunity. Until such conditions are guaranteed, Bangladesh must continue its humanitarian role while demanding a sustainable and just resolution to the crisis.

(Faijul Islam is a Lecturer of Prime University and Saaif Rasul is an Apprentice Lawyer, District and Sessions Judge Court, Dhaka)