Third-Country Resettlement Fuels New Dreams-and New Fears of Repatriation in Rohingya Camps

। Sourav Dev।

“O Arakan handedde dillan, hatodin toyar na dekhir mukkan”– roughly, “O Arakan, my heart aches; how long has it been since I last saw your face?”

In the Rohingya refugee camps in Cox’s Bazar, the song has become another expression of the longing to return home.

From children and teenagers to young adults and the elderly, the song can be heard across the camps. Sung by Rohingya musician Ruhel Khan, the song about Arakan, the homeland Rohingyas have been separated from—has spread widely on social media. Its YouTube video has been viewed nearly four million times.

Yet Ruhel Khan, whose song expresses a longing to return home, is no longer in Arakan, or even in Bangladesh.

According to his family, he recently moved to Canada through the formal third-country resettlement process.

Ruhel could not be reached for comment. But his case points to a new reality emerging in the refugee camps: alongside the dream of returning to Arakan, the prospect of starting a new life in a third country is increasingly finding a place in the aspirations of some educated and skilled Rohingya youths.

‘My heart will never accept it’

On January 19, 2026, a young man from Rohingya Camp 8 in Cox’s Bazar left for Australia.

He had worked as a photographer in the camp and was also involved as a volunteer with several organisations. He spoke to Bay Insight from Australia over an extended conversation but did not want his real name published. He will be referred to in this report as Ayasul.

He was 14 when he came to Bangladesh from Myanmar in 2017. Nearly nine years of his life have since passed in the refugee camps of Cox’s Bazar.

Asked why he went to Australia, Ayasul said, “It’s been almost nine years. I’ve lost so, so much. Mainly, that is what is forcing me to think about returning to my country.”

When he arrived in Bangladesh, he said, he did not expect a better life. But after spending years in the camps, his circumstances pushed him to look for a new beginning elsewhere.

Even so, Ayasul does not see Australia as his permanent home.

“I will still go back to Arakan if they take us back,” he said.

Why?

“I don’t want to stay in Australia and build a home here. My heart will never accept it.”

His family home was in Buthidaung, Myanmar. His grandfather and brother are still there. His brother is a head teacher at a government school in Myanmar.

His father died in 2023. His mother is now with him in Australia, while some of his brothers and sisters remain in Bangladesh.

One family is therefore now scattered across three places: Myanmar, the Rohingya refugee camps in Bangladesh and Australia.

In Australia, Ayasul works for a translation company while studying information technology.

He says his life has not stopped after moving to Australia. He points to Rohingya people living in different parts of the world who have become doctors, engineers, pilots and professionals in various fields.

But Arakan remains at the centre of his own dream.

A ‘third-country’ dream is taking shape in the camps

Like Ayasul, many young Rohingyas are now beginning to see the possibility of moving to a third country as one potential path for their future.

According to Refugee Relief and Repatriation Commissioner Mohammed Mizanur Rahman, third-country resettlement is not an informal process. Different organisations carry out the process with permission from the Bangladesh government.

He said the UNHCR initially shares information according to criteria set by the countries concerned. The relevant agencies of those countries then conduct their own screening and verification.

After passing through various stages involving the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Home Affairs, the cases eventually reach the Office of the Refugee Relief and Repatriation Commissioner, which grants permission for the individuals to leave the camps.

In other words, it is a government-approved process.

Mizanur Rahman said around 1,000 Rohingyas were resettled in different countries between 2001 and 2016. Between 2021 and 2026, the number exceeded 7,000.

The United States received the largest number. However, the process has been halted following a decision by the Trump administration.

At present, comparatively smaller numbers of Rohingyas are being resettled in Canada, New Zealand and Australia.

Although the numbers are small, officials involved in refugee management are concerned about the wider impact of the process.

‘The idea of resettlement is frustrating repatriation efforts—it is a false dream’

Mizanur Rahman told Bay Insight that some educated young people in the camps now believe that they too will eventually be resettled in developed countries.

“They think-male or female-that they will somehow be resettled in a developed country. That actually frustrates our repatriation initiatives,” he said.

In his view, resettling such a large Rohingya population in third countries is not realistic. There is no precedent anywhere in the world for resettling such a large population in third countries on that scale.

“It is a kind of false dream,” he said.

This raises the central question: Is third-country resettlement becoming an alternative to repatriation?

Syed Ullah, president of the United Council of Rohingya Representatives, says it is not.

“Whether they are vulnerable or educated, resettlement is not the solution for the Rohingyas. The only solution for the Rohingyas is repatriation,” he said.

He points out that nearly 30,000 children are born in the camps every year. If only 6,000 or 7,000 people are taken to third countries over nine years, he asks, how can that possibly resolve the crisis?

But for those who are resettled, the issue looks very different.

For young people like Ayasul, third-country resettlement can mean the possibility of education, employment, security and a normal life.

‘If the singer leaves, how will he connect with his people?’

Camp-in-Charge Mohammad Arafatul Alam highlights another dimension of third-country resettlement.

He says a mindset is emerging in the camps that views third-country resettlement as a gateway from Bangladesh to Canada, Australia or another developed country.

Referring to Ruhel Khan, he says the departure of a young man who once connected deeply with his people through songs about Arakan also raises questions about that connection.

“If he sang this song in front of 100,000 people and connected with his people, perhaps everyone would line up to return to Arakan. Now the boy has gone to Canada. How will he sing? How will he connect with his people?” he asked.

According to the camp official, the issue is not merely emotional.

Because “vulnerability” is among the criteria considered in third-country resettlement, the process is also affecting attitudes inside the camps.

He says some people are trying to present themselves as more vulnerable in order to qualify for resettlement. In some cases, however, those claims are not supported by verification.

As a result, those who are not selected may develop a sense of exclusion and deprivation.

“This feeling of being deprived among such a huge population is not something positive either,” he said.

In his view, repatriation remains the only sustainable solution for the Rohingyas.

But should resettlement be stopped?

Subrata Chakraborty, a former UN official and adviser to BRAC, sees the issue differently.

He believes there is no scope for local integration of Rohingyas in Bangladesh. That leaves only a limited number of options for a long-term solution.

Repatriation must remain the principal solution, he says. But as long as repatriation remains uncertain, third-country resettlement can provide a viable alternative for some people.

Resettling 6,000 or 7,000 people may not be significant in terms of the overall population, he says. But when an entire family is permanently settled in a new country, it creates new possibilities for the next generation as well.

Chakraborty believes efforts toward resettlement should continue even if the process is temporarily suspended.

“If we can bring even 5,000 to 100,000 people a year under resettlement, at least, that would have a positive impact. But our main goal remains repatriation,” he said.

At the same time, he has concerns about the past experience of repatriation.

Two repatriation initiatives—in 2018 and 2019—failed to materialise. According to him, the Bangladesh government attempted to move the process forward largely on its own, without sufficient involvement from international organisations.

As a result, even after vehicles and temporary shelters had been prepared, those expected to return could not be found.

In any future repatriation effort, he believes Bangladesh will need not only diplomatic initiatives but also effective involvement from the United Nations and other international actors.

‘Repatriation is necessary, but third-country resettlement is also an option’

Rahman Nasir Uddin, a refugee expert and professor of anthropology at the University of Chittagong, does not see third-country resettlement as the opposite of repatriation.

Repatriation is certainly necessary, he says. But the conditions required for safe and sustainable repatriation have not yet been met.

“Repatriation is definitely necessary. But the conditions for repatriation are not unique to us. So why shouldn’t I consider third-country settlement?” he said.

He believes the Rohingya crisis is not solely Bangladesh’s problem. It is a matter of global responsibility and burden-sharing.

Simply providing refugees with food and shelter, he argues, does not resolve the crisis; rather, it can prolong it.

Therefore, alongside safe repatriation, third-country resettlement and stronger international burden-sharing should also be pursued.

Rahman Nasir Uddin points to a US initiative in 2022 to accept 100,000 Rohingyas. Australia had also taken initiatives to prioritise people displaced by military persecution in Myanmar.

His question is: why should Bangladesh not explore and make more effective use of such opportunities?