Rohingyas as ‘FDMNs’ in Bangladesh: Implications for their Right to Education

[Sakhawat Sajjat Sejan is Assistant Professor at the Department of Law, UITS and Founder of the Bangladesh Center for Refugee Law Studies.

Md. Omar Farque is a Lecturer in Law at Eastern University, Bangladesh and the Executive Director of the Bangladesh Center for Refugee Law Studies.]

Bangladesh is neither a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention nor its 1967 Protocol, yet it remains bound by core international human rights treaties guaranteeing the right to education for all within its jurisdiction. The Rohingya crisis highlights a critical legal and policy gap by designating Rohingyas as ‘Forcibly Displaced Myanmar Nationals’ (FDMNs), that allows Bangladesh to avoid formal refugee obligations. Since 2017, more than 1.1 million Rohingyas have been in Cox’s Bazar effectively rendered legally non-existent within Bangladesh.  The FDMN status denies them access to fundamental rights and public services, including education, restrict their movement within camps and bars access to courts or justice mechanisms. Consequently, higher education remains aspirational rather than attainable. Unlike recognized refugees, Rohingyas under FDMN status are trapped in a system of protracted displacement, with humanitarian assistance as the only available resource. Their exclusion underscores a disjunction between international normative standards and domestic practice, leaving them without legal recognition or pathways to meaningful protection. 

Right to Education as a Fundamental Human Right: Rationales and the Extent

Two principal rationales underpin the recognition of the right to education as a fundamental right: social-utilitarian considerations and individual welfare, alongside its centrality to human dignity, personal development, and the effective exercise of other rights. Accordingly, ‘education’ may be construed in both narrow and broad senses.  In its narrower sense as reflected in the international human rights instruments, the term refers to formal, institutional instruction, that is structured, systematic, and regulated by public authorities – an understanding particularly relevant for assessing state compliance.   However, a broader notion recognizes education as the process through which societies transmit cultural, moral, and social values to future generations. As the European Court of Human Rights observed in Campbell and Cosans v United Kingdom, [1982] para 33, education encompasses more than instruction, extending to holistic formation. This dual interpretation preserves normative coherence while allowing contextual responsiveness.  The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), in its General Comment on Article 13 of the ICESCR, articulated ‘4A’ framework: ‘Availability’’, ‘Accessibility’, ‘Acceptability’ and ‘Adaptability’. These elements require states to ensure inclusive, quality, and responsive educational systems, particularly for vulnerable and displaced populations. 

Rohingyas’ Right to Education and Legal Grey Zone: Tracing Bangladesh’s International Obligations and National Commitment

International Obligations to Ensure Right to Education

Bangladesh’s non-accession to the 1951 Refugee Convention does not diminish its duties under human rights treaties. However, a fine line should be drawn between status-based protection under refugee law and person-based protection under human rights law. While refugee status entails a specialized protection regime, human rights obligations arise from an individual’s presence within a state’s jurisdiction. Consequently, non-recognition of Rohingyas as refugees cannot extinguish their entitlement to fundamental rights, including education. Instruments constitutingthe International Bill of Human Rights, alongsidethe Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), 1989 —to which Bangladesh is a party — affirm education as a universal entitlement applicable to “everyone” without discrimination based on nationality or administrative classification. Although the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is not legally binding, its normative authority remains significant. Article 26 affirms the universality of free elementary education and equal access to higher education, employing inclusive language that precludes exclusion through administrative designations. 

Similarly, Article 2(1) of  the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966 obliges states to ensure Covenant rights to all individuals within their territory.. The Human Rights Committee in General Comment 15 confirms that non-citizen, including refugees, stateless persons, and asylum seekers are entitled to such protections subject only to limited political exceptions. The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), 1989  provides even more explicit protection. Article 22 requires appropriate protection and humanitarian assistance to children irrespective of legal status while srticles 28-29 recognize free and compulsory primary education and promote access to secondary and higher education guided towards the full development of the child. Notably, Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), 1976 recognizes the ‘right to education for everyone’ reinforced by the immediate obligation of  non-discrimination obligation under Article 2(2). The CESCR further clarified that, nationality must not impede access, particularly for vulnerable groups.. Accordingly the right to education is jurisdiction based rather than status-dependent. Administrative classification such as FDMN cannot lawfully justify exclusion. Soft law instruments including UNHCR Handbook on the Protection of Refugees 2011 and Global Compact on Refugee 2018 further reinforce inclusion within national education systems, providing persuasive normative support for expanding Rohingyas access to formal education in Bangladesh. 

National Law and Policy Commitments in Bangladesh

Bangladesh’s domestic legal framework further reinforces these international obligations concerning the right to education. Article 25 of the Constitution of Bangladesh commits the state to respect international law and the principles of the United Nations Charter. In Hussein Mohammad Ershad v Bangladesh and Others (2001) 21 BLD (AD) 69, para 3, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh underscoredthat courts should not disregard international obligations when interpreting national policy. Read together, Articles 31 and 32—guaranteeing equality before the law and the right to life with dignity—support an interpretation of education as intrinsic to a dignified existence.  At the policy level, Goal 8 of Bangladesh’s National Education Policy (NEP) 2010 promotes inclusive, non-discriminatory ‘education for all’ across all stages, without limiting access to its citizens. Accordingly, the exclusion of Rohingyas from formal post-primary education stems not from legislative mandate but from executive practice. This disjunction between normative commitments and implementation raises a critical question as to whether current educational arrangements in the camps satisfy constitutional and international standards.  

CESCR’s 4A Framework and Rohingya’s Right to Education: Requirements versus Realities

Until January 2020, Rohingya children were provided education through “Learning Competency Framework and Approach” (LCFA) an informal education structure  implemented by UNICEF and BRAC. The LCFA covered four subjects -English, Mathematics, Burmese, and Life Skills across levels 1 to 5. In practice, however, over 90 per cent of children remained confined to Levels 1 and 2, roughly equivalent to pre-primary through Grade 2 in a formal system, while only a small number of Rohingya students progressed to Levels 3 and 4. Progression beyond these levels was limited, reflecting both structural constraints within the camps and prior educational disruption experienced in Rakhine (Myanmar). In January 2020, the Government of Bangladesh approved the introduction of the Myanmar Curriculum Pilot Project allowing Rohingyas children up to age 14 to follow the Myanmar curriculum.This initiative introduced subjects such Burmese, English, Mathmatics, Science, and Social Studies signalling a shift towards educational continuity. Nevertheless, its implementation remains narrowly circumscribed, confined to camp-based learning and limited in scope and duration. limited to camp-based learning. Consequently, secondary and tertiary education remains virtually inaccessible or non-existent curtailing long-term educational trajectories.  Field research conducted by the Bangladesh Center for Refugee Law Studies (BCRLS) recently conducted  in Bhasan Char, interviewing approximately 75 adolescents, corroborated by  Human Rights Watch reports indicates that existing provisions fall short of the CESCR’s 4A framework and national policy benchmarks. These findings are best evaluated through the 4A lens to identify structural and implementation gaps. 

1. Availability: 

The availability of education requires adequate institutions, trained teachers, and recognized learning pathways. Many adolescents in Bhasan Char arrived in Bangladesh with interrupted or minimal primary education in Myanmar and demonstrate a strong motivation to continue learning. They currently attend non-formal learning centeres operated by organizations such as BRAC and UNICEF. However, these centeres lack standardized alignment with either the Bangladeshi national curriculum or an accredited Myanmar curriculum. Students often rely on fragmented materials from multiple grade levels and attend informal community-run coaching centres. Even those reaching levels comparable to Grade 12-equivalent to Bangladesh’s HSC- face a structural dead-end. The absence of formal documentation and recognized accreditation prevents progression to secondary schools, universities, and technical institutes. Under ICESCR’s article 13 and CESCR General Comment No.13 these systematic gaps indicate that, the obligation to ensure sufficient educational availability at all levels is only partially met.   

2. Accessibility: 

International human rights standards require education to be economically, physically, and socially accessible to all without discrimination. Rohingya adolescents in Bhasan Char face multiple obstacles in practice. Their administrative designation as FDMNs excludes them from Bangladesh’s mainstream education system under National Education Policy. The lack of recognized documentation prevents formal school enrolment and participation in national examinations. For example, the Rohingya children being FDMNs is not provided with Bangladeshi birth registration certificate, without which they cannot pursue school. Any school or educational institution asks for this particular document as a requirement. Additionally, economic hardship exacerbates these barriers as entrenched poverty limits access to supplementary learning resources. Physical access is constrained by mobility restrictions within the camps, while language barriers-limited proficiency in Bengali and English- further hinder integration into broader educational frameworks. The situation is particularly acute for adolescent girls, many of whom face family responsibilities and socio-cultural constraints. Under the ICESCR’s article 2, states must ensure rights without discrimination. When administrative classifications prevent access to accredited education, such exclusion constitutes indirect discrimination undermining the Covenant’s above-mentioned obligations to equality and non-discrimination. 

3. Acceptability: 

Acceptability requires education to be culturally appropriate, of adequate quality, and aligned with learners’ developmental needs and future aspirations. Findings indicate a clear disconnect between the curriculum offered in Bhasan Char and the long-term ambitions of Rohingya adolescents. While some exposure to the Myanmar’s curriculum exists, many students aspire to careers in fields such as engineering, medicine, information technology, or teaching- professions requiring recognized qualifications and access to higher education. The absence of accredited certification fundamentally blocks these pathways, and informal learning lacks institutional recognition. Without formal certification, years of study cannot translate into employment or further education, limiting education to temporary humanitarian support rather than a credible development tool. Consistent with CESCR General Comment No.13, programmes lacking recognized pathways and quality standards fall short of the acceptability treatment.

4. Adaptability:

Adaptability requires educational systems to respond to evolving community needs and changing social realities. The Rohingya situation has shifted from emergency displacement to protracted exile extending over eight years, yet educational policy has not evolved respectively. Children born in Bangladesh remain confined to non-formal systems without integration pathways, despite Section 3 of the Birth and Death Registration Act 2004 mandating birth resignation. Limited internet access, absence of structured career guidance and insufficient vocational or technical training isolate adolescents from contemporary knowledge systems. The reliance on temporary learning structures in a context of prolonged displacement demonstrates misalignment between policy design and the Covenant’s expectation that education adapts to learners’ changing needs.  

Overall, Bangladesh’s camp-based education model provides limited humanitarian learning that fails to meet the structural requirement of right to education under international and national laws. Without recognized certification, expanded secondary education and policies responsive to protracted displacement, Rohingya adolescents remain trapped in s system that offers learning without progression risking the emergence of a lost generation. 

Substantive Equality and the Need for Affirmative Educational Access

Assessing Rohingya education solely through the lens of formal equality obscures structural injustice. Legal equality does not ensure equitable outcomes for forcibly displaced populations whose status, mobility, and access to public institutions are constrained. While non-formal learning centres provide minimal availability, they fail to address systematic deficiencies in accessibility, acceptability, and adaptability for Rohingya adolescents. Substantive equality  offers a more appropriate framework. The Minority Schools in Albania (1935) case recognized that achieving practical equality may require differential treatment to address unequal circumstances. Rohingya adolescents experience  deep-seated economic, social and legal precarity and the imposition of uniform regulatory treatment—particularly the lack of access to accredited secondary and tertiary pathways that further entrenches marginalization. Through the 4A lens: availability is limited to non-formal centres lacking certification; accessibility is restricted by legal status and poverty; acceptability is misaligned with professional aspirations and labour market realities; adaptability is absent as education remains emergency-oriented. Substantive equality therefore necessitates affirmative measures. Bangladesh could strengthen birth registrationfor children bornpost-2017 and establish accredited secondary and tertiary pathways linked to recognized certification, vocational training and university access. Consistent with Global Compact on Refugee 2018, education must be understood not as humanitarian charity but as a rights-based instrument of empowerment, self-reliance, and durable solutions.  

Conclusion

Bangladesh’s response to the Rohingya crisis reflects both humanitarian commitment and structural limitations. While learning centres and partial implementation of Myanmar’s curriculum exist, significant gaps persist through the 4A framework: insufficient infrastructure, restricted access beyond lower education levels, misaligned curriculum, and lack of adaptability to protracted displacement. Addressing these gaps requires treating education as a rights obligation rather than temporary aid. Expanding higher-level learning, enhancing teacher training and materials, and ensuring continuity of education are essential to uphold international standards and prevent the emergence of a lost generation among Rohingya children and adolescents.

Photo attribution: Photo by Rohingya Creative Production on Unsplash