Bhattacharjee 10.3389/fpos.2024.1144493 Thailand in 2012. The report of CNN revealed that Thai police found hundreds of Rohingya males, females, and offspring in a trafficking camp in January 2014 (Hutcherson and Olarn, 2015). According to Human Rights Watch Report, in the Sadao district of Songkhla region near the Thai-Malaysian boundary, a united armypolice team found about 30 bodies in an uninhibited human trafficking camp on 1st May, 2015. A lot of them were buried in narrow graves, whereas other bodies were covered with mantles and clothes. These dead bodies were identified as ethnic Rohingyas by the police report (Human Rights Watch, 2015). The ASEAN parliaments for Human Rights report shows that approximately 100,000 Rohingya refugees now exist in Malaysia, and numerous are living in Bangladesh, Thailand, and other ASEAN (The Association of Southeast Asian Nations) countries jointly [APHR (ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights), 2015]. According to UNHCR, Rohingyas are treated as one of the world’s biggest defenseless refugee bunches (Albert and Maizland, 2020). In 2017 when the ARSA (Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army) militia attacked the police stations in the Rakhine region, the security forces of Myanmar retaliated, and consequently, the chaos started. Thousands of people became shelterless and displaced from their settlements due to the burning of the Rohingya villages by the security forces of Myanmar (Amnesty International, 2017). As a consequence of these violent terrorist attacks by the Myanmar army in August 2017 (Human Rights Watch, 2017), a huge number of Rohingya refugees started to cross the border. Approximately 650,000 Rohingyas escaped from Myanmar and surpassed the boundary to Bangladesh in order to take shelter as refugees in the Cox’s Bazar area of eastern Bangladesh (Milton et al., 2017; United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), 2017; Choudury and Fazlulkader, 2019; Lewis, 2019). The majority of Rohingyas currently reside in Cox’s Bazar’s Ukhiya and Teknaf Upazilas near the Naf River, which serves as a porous border between Bangladesh and Myanmar (Khuda, 2020). Based on the perspectives of the human rights scholars writings address the multidimensional aspects of Rohingya refugees living in South Asian (India and Bangladesh), and Southeast Asian countries (Faisal, 2020; Sabbir et al., 2022; Uddin, 2022; Zaman, 2022). The transforming public discourse regarding the Rohingya community and the blame-game of environmental costs of Rohingya presence in neighboring countries is declining the relationship between the host countries and the Rohingya refugees (Chemali et al., 2017; Chaudhury and Samaddar, 2018; Uddin, 2020; Shohel, 2023). Recent studies on this issue examine and analyze the reasons for increasing intra-group conflicts, declining international concerns, the failure of repatriation, diplomatic roles of the global community, voice of the universal civil society and diaspora engagement (Storai, 2018; Hossain and Hosain, 2019; Ali, 2022; Sabbir et al., 2022). The host countries including Bangladesh is considering Rohingya refugees as an additional burden on their land, social structure, job opportunities, social security, tourism industry, and economy (Dey, 2018; Bhattacharjee and Hoque, 2019). Under the criterion of sharing global justice the host countries are waiting for a stable solution and are concerned about the future direction of the Rohingya crisis. Levitas (2005) to identify and explain the reasons for statelessness and leading dynamics of social exclusion among the Rohingya Muslim minority community of Myanmar. Hillary Silver, a noticeable French academic, offered three central paradigms about social exclusion, formed on the considerations of the underprivileged and deprived individuals in French culture and society. Hilary displayed several meanings of exclusion and marginalization through the threefold typology of exclusion, explicitly solidarity paradigm, specialization paradigm, and monopoly paradigm. Silver varied these three paradigms from political ideologies and state dissertations. Thus, she concentrated her ideas on distinct understandings of social integration and political philosophies for explaining exclusion (Rawal, 2008). Silver suggested that the solidarity paradigm compacts with the view that segregation and exclusion are a principal agency to collapse the societal connection between individuals and society. This social tie is not financially manufactured; rather, it is generated in cultural and ethical terms, forming a hectic condition in society that impends community order and eventually creates marginalization and social exclusion. Similarly, from this study, it can be shown that the Government of Myanmar (GOM), political leaders, and other ethnic groups did not recognize the Rohingya Muslim minority community as citizens of the country. The reason is Rohingyas were treated like residents of other countries. Besides, this model contains diverse agreement, consistency, and solidarity notions. Hilary argued whereas solidarity decays, exclusion arises (Mathieson et al., 2008: 17). The specialization paradigm is the subsequent model of Hilary Silver. This model represents that exclusion is a product of the market fiasco or monetary discernment (Silver, 1994: 543). The monopoly paradigm is the third and concluding model of Silver. Centered on Weber and Marx, this model designates that exclusion begins when a segment of the residents is purposefully forced out from the ingress or entry to typical or shared belongings. Furthermore, this model claims that hierarchical or classified power interactions are vital for social banishment and exclusion. “Exclusion arises from the interplay of class, status, and political power and serves the political interests of the included…exclusion is combated through citizenship, and the extension of equal membership and full participation in the community to outsiders” (Silver, 1994: 543). In the case of the Rohingya Muslim minority people, political leaders of Myanmar thought of them (Rohingya) as a risk to their interests. Thus, the government of Myanmar excluded Rohingyas through various tactics to secure the interests of political leaders. A different theoretical perspective about social exclusion came from the intellectual writings of Pierre Clavel. For simplifying social exclusion, (Clavel, 1998:184-186; DIMÉ, Mamadou dit ndongo, 2005) applied four approaches. The leading one is identified as the population groups approach, where persons of society are separated into paramount social classes considering the definite quantity of individuals as beneficiaries and other individuals as underprivileged. The subsequent one is recognized as the economic approach. This approach describes social exclusion in terms of some signs, i.e., revenue, social disparity, financial disproportion, and poverty levels. Consistently, the population of Myanmar and political leaders boycotted Rohingyas from businesses and also boycotted their goods. The denial of rights approach is the next approach that denotes the refusal of or scarcity of entrance to resources, belongings, or investments. The concluding approach is the extreme situations approach, and it represents the situation where persons are considered outsiders, unwelcomed, and aliens (Mathieson et al., 2008:18). Rohingyas are Contextualizing statelessness from theoretical viewpoints This study used three relevant theories of social exclusion and downgrading offered by Silver (1994), Pierre Clavel (1998), and Frontiers in Political Science 04 frontiersin.org