town would have facilities. I can educate my children well. And we can work there and live a beautiful life’. Such findings illustrate both the importance of the systematic provision of clear information regarding any relocation, and the potential support among some refugees for localised relocation. While such steps are opposed by the government, analysis by Human Rights Watch has identified six relocation sites in Ukhiya sub-district that could accommodate 263,000 people (Human Rights Watch: 2018: 3). Over half of women interviewed, and some men, were interested in moving to another country (Saudi Arabia was cited most frequently as a country where they could practice their religion and where their children could receive an education). Several men mentioned wanting to work in another country – a 21-year-old in Unchiprang said ‘If I could not go back to Myanmar I would go to Saudi or Malaysia to support my family, and there I would do some job and by getting money I could support my family in this camp’. However, only a handful of interviewees had heard of resettlement or had a comprehensive understanding of what it was. Some had heard about people being moved to another country by the UN, and had some understanding of the outcome of resettlement, but not the process. When we explained resettlement, some refugees expressed interest in living in countries including Australia, Canada, the US or the UK, which were seen as places where they could create a better life for their children. A 50-year-old woman in Kutupalong said ‘we want to go to another country, wherever you would like to take us we will go, we don’t have relatives in any other country but we will go to another peaceful country like Malaysia, Australia, we just want to go to any peaceful country. We don’t want to stay in the camp’. Other refugees were reluctant to be resettled because they perceived it as relinquishing any chance of returning to Myanmar or having their Rohingya identity recognised. During a focus group in Shamlapur one man said ‘Actually I do not want to migrate to another country. I expect to go back to Myanmar. If we go to Australia, Canada or America we will not get our real identity, we will not get the freedom of human rights – that is why we want to go back to Myanmar to get our real identity as Rohingya’. There was a sense that, if they move further away, the government of Myanmar would never allow them back, and some refugees found simply being close to Myanmar comforting; as one said: ‘Myanmar is very close to 16 [the] Bangladesh border when we see Myanmar we feel good. We are living now in Bangladesh but can feel we are still in Myanmar’. 3.4  Self-determination and the importance of engagement Refugees were cautious in discussing their lives in the camp, their aspirations and where they want to live in the medium to long term. Similar findings have been reported in other protracted camp-based refugee settings, including among refugee youth in Malawi, some of whom had ambitious hopes for life outside the camps but were unable to see their futures in them (Healy, 2012). This was similar for the Rohingya refugees we interviewed, whose answers were underpinned by a strong sense that they lacked control over their future. This emerged most clearly from discussions around where they wanted to live; one 35-year-old man reflected the views of many when he said: ‘You understand our suffering and know best where we should go [to live]’. Several refugees surrendered their hopes about the future to Allah. One 48-year-old widow in Unchiprang said, ‘Allah has taken us here and we will live here. I am afraid to live [in] other places in Bangladesh. If Allah wishes then we can return to our country. Allah has brought us here from Myanmar and I want to live here peacefully.’ It is not surprising that some Rohingya conveyed their views of the future as though it was entirely out of their control. In Myanmar the Rohingya had limited control over their lives due to restrictions on movement, education, marriage, the number of children they could have, access to healthcare and other key aspects of their lives (Milton et al., 2017). While they may have escaped persecution, their identity as refugees is characterised as dependent on assistance and as enjoying little autonomy; as Oh (2018) writes: ‘For the Bangladeshi authorities, the Rohingya refugees have been constructed as simple, acquiescent subjects who require a strong guiding hand in managing their challenging circumstances. Given this view, the likelihood that the refugees will not be trusted to know what is best for them during their stay and eventual repatriation is a worrying prospect’. This highlights the need for far greater effort to ensure that refugees are able to make decisions about their lives, and makes meaningfully engaging with the Rohingya on what they want in the medium term all the more important. Uncertain futures: Rohingya refugees’ perspectives on their displacement in Bangladesh