Author: Syed Md Alamgir Hussain
The word “genocide” carries enormous moral and legal weight. But as history demonstrates not all genocides are remembered equally. The gap between recognition and oblivion is determined less by the scale of violence than by politics, power, and the strategic mobilisation of memory. This uncomfortable reality was underlined in a recent academic discussion with Professor Kjell Anderson of the University of Manitoba Law School (Canada), comparing the 1971 Bangladesh genocide with the ongoing persecution of the Rohingya people of Myanmar. Both the 1971 genocide and the persecution of the Rohingya people constitute serious breaches of international humanitarian norms, but every case is a bit different.
The 1971 genocide, in some sense, was almost like a pogrom, as it was sort of quick. Started with initial targeting of university students, intellectuals, and leaders of the independence movement through Operation Searchlight, before escalating to widespread mass killings of the Bengali population. By contrast, persecution of the Rohingya can be characterised by everyday persecution for many years. Long before the escalation of 2017, the Rohingya were not recognised as an official ethnic group and had been denied citizenship since 1982, making them the world’s largest stateless population, endured decades of discrimination. Professor Kjell Anderson described this as a form of bullying. He further states that “it dates back to the Second World War, because the Rohingya were basically allied with the British. Of course, the Burmese wanted independence from Britain. So, the Burmese nationals were allied with the Japanese at that time. And the Rohingya weren’t. So that started to cause friction and conflict.” But despite the scale of the 1971 genocide, it is still noticeably absent from global discussions in academia and law, in contrast with the Rohingya.
Why Some Genocides Are Forgotten?
The relative invisibility of a genocide on the world stage cannot be traced to a single cause. If we take the 1971 genocide as an example, several factors come into play. First, much of the scholarly work on 1971 comes from Bangladeshi academics. While this does not reduce its quality, it has likely limited its reach in Western academic circles, which dominate the field of genocide studies. In contrast, if we think about the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust, they have benefited from politically active and influential diaspora communities.
Second, years after the country gained independence, governments did not actively seek international recognition or legal accountability for the 1971. A political group within Bangladesh still contests or downplays the 1971 genocide. This division of the political arena fractured the national narrative and weakened the state-backed advocacy that is needed for keeping other genocides in public awareness. Professor Anderson pointed out that internal divisions over historical memory inevitably weaken international focus.
Third, there is the accountability gap. The International Crimes Tribunal in Bangladesh has prosecuted domestic collaborators, but Pakistani military officers responsible for the atrocities have faced no meaningful international trial. The pardon extended to Pakistani officers in the aftermath of the war has been cited as having potentially signalled to the international community that Bangladesh may itself be willing to move on.
The Limits of Legal Frameworks
The 1948 Genocide Convention’s definition is narrow and has drawn criticism. The Convention limits genocide to national, ethnic, racial, and religious groups, excluding political, gender-based, and disability-based groups. In the case of Khmer Rouge’s systematic destruction of perceived political opponents in Cambodia, which was a political situation doesn’t easily fit into the Convention’s framework. Where perpetrators treated political identity as if it were inherited, they targeted children based on their parents’ class or political ties. The 2024 student movement killings in Bangladesh also highlight issues the Convention struggles to address. Systematic mass killings based on political identity are prosecuted as crimes against humanity, specifically persecution, rather than genocide. This distinction might be legally sound, but it is morally unsatisfying for survivors.
Furthermore, the jurisdictional situation between the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court adds more complexity. Because the ICJ’s actions under Article IX of the Genocide Convention allow states to file genocide claims against other states, as evidenced by Gambia’s case against Myanmar. On the other hand, the ICC’s ability to address the Rohingya situation is limited because Myanmar is not a part of the Rome Statute. This situation forces prosecutors to navigate the idea of a “continuing crime” of forced deportation that crosses into Bangladesh’s territory. While this method may produce significant findings on forced displacement, it cannot fully capture the extent of what has happened to the Rohingya people.
Finally, achieving justice for mass atrocities requires more than just legal tools. It needs political commitment, organised advocacy, and the bravery to keep truths in public conversation. The international acknowledgement of the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide didn’t happen on its own. It was the result of many years of effort by communities that wouldn’t let memory fade away. Bangladesh and its diaspora face a similar challenge regarding 1971. Also, the July 2024 uprising may face the same situation, as some political actors may seek to contest or downplay it.
About the Author:
Syed Md Alamgir Hussain is an LL.B. (Hons) student at Green University of Bangladesh, Associate Editor at The Network for International Law Students Bangladesh, and an active mooter and legal researcher. His research interests include international law, human rights, climate justice, and genocide studies. He is a Millennium Fellow (2025) under the Millennium Campus Network and United Nations Academic Impact and was the Champion (Best Paper) at the Undergraduate Law Symposium Summer 2025, organised by North South University. His writings focus on contemporary legal and human rights issues from both national and international perspectives.