In search of a Rohingya digital diaspora: virtual togetherness, collective identities and political mobilisation

The paper situates the Rohingya’s protracted displacement and statelessness within global debates on identity and exile, invoking Arendt’s reflections on refugees. Following the 2017 mass exodus, the study asks how Rohingya diaspora communities use social media to build a transnational identity and how their digital activism has evolved politically. The purpose is to examine digital platforms as spaces of togetherness and identity work amid severe mobility constraints and marginalization. The study argues that: (1) Rohingya identities online are hybrid, multi-layered and fluid; (2) social media provides constrained minorities opportunities for transnational lobbying, advocacy and agenda-setting; and (3) “digital optimism” must be tempered by offline inequalities (age, gender, access, economic status, spatiality).

The paper reviews contested narratives of Rohingya identity formation within Myanmar’s postcolonial politics, including the 1982 citizenship law and the exclusionary Taing-Yin-tha (“national races”) framework that renders Rohingya stateless. Three scholarly strands are outlined: historical continuity of Rohingya presence; arguments that Rohingya is a postcolonial political identity; and a critical, process-oriented view of identity formation and minority status. The review then turns to digital diaspora scholarship, noting ICT’s role in transforming diasporic connections (from websites to social media), identity negotiation, and the emergence of “digital diasporas.” It also highlights critical perspectives on surveillance, digital nationalism, echo chambers, and state/corporate power over platforms. A Global North bias in digital migration studies is noted, with calls for Global South perspectives. Limited existing work on Rohingya digital engagement addresses gendered civic participation, digitally mediated care, and identity reaffirmation, which the present study extends.

The study adopts digital ethnography with a discourse-centred, screen-based approach to observe public online interactions longitudinally. Data sources: public Facebook pages/groups and Twitter accounts relevant to Rohingyas. Identification: eight English search terms (“Rohingya refugee,” “Rohingya genocide,” “Rohingya women,” “exiled Rohingya,” “Rohingya activist,” “Arakan Rohingya,” “United Nations and Rohingya,” “Rohingya in Bangladesh”). Sampling: top ten Facebook pages and top ten Twitter accounts selected by number of followers, posting frequency, and comment volume. Timeframe: August 2019–August 2021. Although one author has near-native Rohingya, absence of a widely used script and limited returns led to using English-language searches. Private platforms like WhatsApp were excluded to focus on publicly accessible data. Data handling: transcripts of posts and tweets were manually compiled, then coded and thematically analyzed with MAXQDA to identify word frequencies, hashtags, themes, and patterns, which were clustered into key domains. Ethics: institutional ethical approval obtained; informed consent sought contextually for showcased content; identities anonymized and images blurred; only public content analyzed; acknowledgment of platform non-neutrality and researcher positionality.

- Scale and growth: Most prominent Rohingya social media presences emerged post-2017. Only 3 of the top 10 Facebook pages predate 2017; only 4 of the top 10 Twitter accounts were active before 2017. Membership on leading Facebook pages reaches up to 223,000 (as of August 2021). Seven of the top ten Twitter account holders are based in North America and Europe, indicating a Global North concentration among highly followed accounts. - Platform differentiation: Twitter content is more policy-oriented, advocacy-driven, and aimed at international audiences; Facebook discussions are more intra-community, emotional, and focused on nostalgia, shared grievances, escape experiences, and everyday survival. Users in the US, Canada, Europe, UK, and Australia are more active on Twitter; Rohingyas in Bangladesh and Malaysia primarily use Facebook. - Domains of engagement: Three overarching components: (1) Construction and assertion of Rohingya identity—countering official Myanmar narratives, invoking spatial nostalgia (Arakan/Akyab), sharing history, culture, folklore, and symbols; promoting hashtags (#Rohingya, #RohingyaRefugees, #RohingyaRemembranceDay) to build networked publics; expressions of multiple belongings (Burmeseness plus Rohingyaness) and religious solidarity. (2) Political and social mobilisation—coordinated campaigns (e.g., around Gambia v. Myanmar at the ICJ using #StopRohingyaGenocide, #CallItAGenocide, #JusticeForRohingya), livestreamed webinars/podcasts, dissemination of evidence of abuses, and broadened alliances with Myanmar’s post-coup civil resistance. Women and youth are increasingly visible, advancing gender-sensitive issues and leadership. (3) Information and services—emergency alerts (e.g., stranded boats, flood responses), fundraising, public health messaging (e.g., COVID-19 vaccination), petitions (e.g., against barbed-wire fences), guidance on immigration and rights, and distance education opportunities (English classes, scholarships), fostering a “community of comfort.”

Findings show that social media enables Rohingyas to reassert and negotiate a hybrid, multilayered identity—what the authors frame as the pursuit of “Rohingyaness”—through shared memories, cultural symbols, and counter-narratives to state exclusion. Digital spaces function as virtual public squares that foster togetherness, solidarity, and political voice, linking dispersed members and external allies. The identity work online parallels imagined community formation and positions Rohingyas as bridge-builders who can transcend ethnic boundaries and engage in international human rights advocacy. Coordinated web activism provides connective opportunity structures for agenda-setting, leverage politics, and transnational lobbying, especially evident during the ICJ case and post-2021 coup alignments. However, participation is uneven due to macro/meso/micro-level digital divides (infrastructure, host-country constraints, language, class, age, gender), with prominence skewed toward Global North actors and English-language content. Despite these asymmetries, digital engagement reterritorializes online political spaces around Rohingya concerns and strengthens collective agency and recognition efforts.

The study demonstrates the emergence of a nascent Rohingya digital diaspora that uses social media to construct collective identities, mobilize politically, and provide mutual support amid profound immobility and exclusion. Digital platforms offer transformative spaces for self-expression and civic engagement, helping to internationalize the Rohingya cause and contest Myanmar’s official narratives. While celebrating this digital togetherness, the authors underscore persistent inequalities in access and participation and recommend hybrid methodologies and geographically targeted future research to capture both online and offline dynamics. Broader inclusion of diverse languages, contexts, and settlement geographies is essential to fully understand and represent Rohingya transnational identities and activism.

- Methodological and ethical: Online platforms are not neutral field sites; researcher selection and interpretation may be shaped by agendas and norms. The study focuses on publicly accessible Facebook and Twitter content, excluding private channels (e.g., WhatsApp). Ethical constraints required anonymization and contextual consent. - Sampling and language: Reliance on English search terms and the limited digital representation of the Rohingya language may bias results toward English-speaking contexts and accounts, possibly overlooking influential non-English or region-specific platforms. - Digital divide: Participation is conditioned by macro (infrastructure, economics), meso (host-country policies, freedoms), and micro (skills, motivation, age, gender) factors. Prominent accounts and webinars are largely based in the Global North, while Rohingyas in Bangladesh and Malaysia face constraints in digital access and expression. Settlement patterns (urban Global North vs. camps/informal settlements in Global South) and uneven civil liberties further shape online engagement capabilities.