Abstract
The chapter examines the unmaking of citizens of Rohingyas in Myanmar as a result of nation building. The concept of citizenship is contested, and based on particularity of marking identities—language, religion and sex, and on the other hand, the universal notion of citizenship provides equality to all. But the prevalence of ascribed identity constitutes the basis of exclusion that includes and excludes (Chowdhory in Refugees, citizenship and belonging in South Asia contested terrains. Springer Nature Singapore, Singapore, pp. 43–69, 2018). The central idea is to unravel the religious identity vis-à-vis citizenship discourse, wherein the state marginalizes citizens on the basis of religion, by committing violence against minority communities. The minorities are carved as marginal citizens living on the periphery between the citizens and the non-citizens. In Myanmar, the process was enacted by the changing laws of Citizenship Act of 1982. The chapter interrogates the citizenship discourse of Rohingyas and what constitutes the narrative of marginalisation in Burmese society.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In 1971, the state of Bangladesh was created after East Pakistan seceded from West Pakistan.
- 2.
Chowdhory (2018).
- 3.
The 1948 Constitution of Sri Lanka provided adequate provisions to counterbalance any attempt of the dominant group (Sinhalese) to seize power. However, the protective mechanisms were gradually diluted in the subsequent Constitutions of 1972 and 1978, which consolidated the dominance of the majority group, as well concentrating executive power in the hands of the President.
- 4.
In Sri Lanka, the unitary state attempted to create a unified Sinhala identity by imposing the Sinhala language as the national language and Buddhism as the national religion. Thus, overt majoritarianism became apparent when the government in Sri Lanka institutionalized the “Sinhala Only” policy, which predates constitutional change.
- 5.
The Ceylon Tamils enjoyed certain traditional rights under the communal method of representation provided for in pre-1931 colonial legislature. Moreover, universal adult suffrage granted under Britain in 1931 provided a partial self-governing system of constitutional reforms. However, under the Donoughmore Constitution of 1931, the communal means of representation was changed to territorial. This change did not affect the Ceylon Tamils because they were safeguarded by constitutional protection that prevented any discriminatory legislation, and also the governor had a reserve of powers, including the right of disallowance. Later, the Soulbury Constitution of 1947 completed the process of vesting complete autonomy to conservative leadership. The Reform Commission provided a compromise on the distribution of seats among the Sinhala majority and the ethnic minority; the Ceylon Tamils demanded a 50–50 representative split of seats between the Sinhala and the combined ethnic minorities. In 1957, the Bandaranaike–Chelvanayakam Pact (B-C) was an agreement between Sri Lankan Prime Minister S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike (SLFP) and the leader of the Tamil Federal Party (FP), S. Chelvanayakam, who made several important proposals on devolution and the Tamil language question. Provisions were put forward for the formation of directly elected Regional Councils, which would have jurisdiction over such areas as colonization, agriculture, land and education. Also, Tamils were promised that due recognition would be given to the Tamil language. Bandaranaike tried to offset the rigour of the “Sinhala Only” policy with concessions such as the Tamil Language (Special Provisions) Act, which was enacted in 1958. The B-C pact fell short of any demand for a federal constitution or regional autonomy, or to abrogate the “Sinhala Only” option. Moreover, the B-C pact was largely unimplemented. The Pact of March 1965 between Senanayake and Chelvanayakam essentially reproduced the earlier 1957 pact, with some modifications. This Pact promised to take action under the Tamil Language Special Provisions Act to make Tamil the language of administration and of record in the northern and eastern provinces. Another landmark was the provision on amending the Land Development Ordinance in order to allot land to the Ceylon Tamils. Also, provisions were made to make land in the north and eastern provinces available to landless persons in the district.
- 6.
See Chowdhory (2018) for details.
- 7.
See Footnote 6.
- 8.
Marshall states, “I propose to divide citizenship into three parts. I shall call these three parts, or elements, civil, political and social” and it is these composed of various rights (Marshall, 1950, p. 10). However, there are critiques of the social rights but the foundations of citizenship lies embedded on the articulation of rights.
- 9.
The literature on the two Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis is applied by the states variously across the globe to mark a citizen and an outsider on the basis of their history of nation building or how the states have come to exist. Jus Soli gives a person the right to be a citizen of a state on the basis of being born on its land, and Jus Sanguinis comes into existence on the basis of “blood ties”. And there are some states have followed the mixture of these two concepts. See Safran (1997).
- 10.
The literature on hierarchy of rights brings the notion of giving more weightage to civil on which the rest of the rights lie. This notion will be later discussed in the chapter and forms the basis of central argument in the unmaking of citizens. However, theory of multiculturalism in the liberal democracies provides substantive arguments on giving equal treatment to all the citizens irrespective of cultural, ethnic, racial and religious connotations. See Castles (2005), Janoski and Gran (2002: 13–52) and Gutmann (1994).
- 11.
See Brubaker (1996).
- 12.
See Chowdhory (2018, p. 44).
- 13.
In a perspective analysed form the orientalist understanding about various religions. Morrison argued “While orientalist narratives of citizenship construct subjects and practices associated with Islam as anti-political, those associated with Buddhism appear as apolitical—as turning away from the political or a rejection of politics rather than a potential agent of religious contamination of the political” (2014, p. 326). It has often been considered about the Buddhist religion that it was apolitical and was very peaceful, but in a recent works by Morrison (2014), the argument has been constructed as to how the Buddhist monks have played a significant role in the politics of states like Burma, etc.
- 14.
See Gungwu (2005) for State building in the Southeast Asian countries.
- 15.
See Barbalet (2010) carves out an understanding of citizenship from the writings of Weber and specifically brings the notion of cities.
- 16.
To note the central argument of Marshall (1950) that citizenship is a process, always evolving and changing in order to include all the members of the society. It also comes with the critiques from the social rights perspective elaborated by Fraser and Gordon (1994, pp. 90–107), and specifically argued form the perspective of post-colonial citizenship.
- 17.
- 18.
See Arendt (2017) on the idea of nation states.
- 19.
In context of Burma, the differences created on the mainland Burma and ethnic communities geographically located on the borderlands as elaborated by Myint-U (2004).
- 20.
Taylor (2007) argues that the British had ethnic yardstick to carve the territories of Burma and within the contemporary political issues.
- 21.
- 22.
- 23.
See Samaddar (2012).
- 24.
Chowdhory (2018) developing on various categories of how citizenship is conceptualized and one of them is through rights.
- 25.
This hierarchy of right is formed on the basis of ascriptive identities of a citizen that delimits them to access certain rights.
- 26.
Here Chatterji (2012) argues from the perspective of partition of India and Pakistan, but the context that is manifested lies within the post-colonial states.
- 27.
See Ibrahim (2018, pp. 1–17).
- 28.
Here when Tarling (2004, p. 12) uses the term regime, he specifically means form of government.
- 29.
In here, Chowdhory (2018, pp. 44–46) makes a distinction between nation formation and state formation by bringing the argument from the state formation perspective of the South Asian states by highlighting the weak state and strong societal tendencies.
- 30.
Gellner (2006).
- 31.
Anderson (1991).
- 32.
Smith (1986).
- 33.
Smith (1986, p. 116).
- 34.
Anderson’s (1991) idea of formation of nations comes from a sociologist perspective, which is imagined territorially and collectively irrespective of the ethnic, vernacular and religious differences; not all the people will know each other but are connected through horizontal comradeship.
- 35.
See Cheah (2003).
- 36.
- 37.
See Smith (1986).
- 38.
See Jalal (1995).
- 39.
- 40.
The pre-given notion of the account that heterogeneities could not exist in the nation has been presumed by the scholars to have existed, and this should be taken as an account for nationhood and nationality. See Brubaker (1996) and Young (1976) as and when they use the data given by Walker Connor in 1972, only twelve of the world’s (then) 132 states were essentially homogenous from an ethnic viewpoint.
- 41.
Brubaker (1996).
- 42.
Taylor (1979).
- 43.
Smith (2002).
- 44.
Smith (2002).
- 45.
The centre of Kyaw (2017) argument as to how Muslim Rohingyas are made stateless through the legal policies and active stance of delays in implementation of citizenship laws.
- 46.
- 47.
This lineage can be followed on the basis of the demands made by women of Western countries for equal rights along with men; rather in post-colonial countries, they were given at once to all the subjects but by creation of minority citizens. It has been critically analysed in the section on post-colonial citizenship of this chapter.
- 48.
- 49.
Janoksi and Gran (2002, p. 15).
- 50.
See Ariely (2011).
- 51.
See Ariely (2011).
- 52.
See Pugh (2013), their disputed identity whether they should be called as Rohingyas or people of Rakhine state or citizens of Myanmar. However, for the claims made in the chapter they are understood as citizens of Myanmar. And as Kyaw (2017) argues that staking claims on their ethnicity would further complicate the matter.
- 53.
The focus has been on the geographical location of Rohingyas living in the upper Arakan region and to notify the hill region of Burma. Now, the difference is analysed form the perspective of diverse ethnicities, living in the lowland areas and uphill areas during the British conquest of Burma in 1844.
- 54.
See Kyaw (2017) states that the problem of statelessness of the Rohingyas is analysed through the legal policy texts and is supported by analyses of events.
- 55.
See Kyaw (2017).
- 56.
See Footnote 55.
- 57.
A long duree and relationship initiated by Aung San for arguing that once the ethnic minorities come together they can later be given autonomy.
- 58.
See http://www.ibiblio.org/obl/docs/UNION_CITIZENSHIP_ACT-1948.htm. Accessed July 10, 2019. See Arriaza and Vonk (2017). Report on Citizenship law: Myanmar http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/48284/RSCAS_GLOBALCIT_CR_2017_14.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed July 11, 2019.
- 59.
- 60.
As elaborated in Myint-U (2004).
- 61.
- 62.
Indigenous status refers to the local population that has a homeland within the territories of the country concerned. See Suryadinata (2015, p. 55). And legal conception found in the first citizenship act of 1948, see http://www.ibiblio.org/obl/docs/UNION_CITIZENSHIP_ACT-1948.htm. Accessed July 10, 2019.
- 63.
See Suryadinata (2015, p. 55).
- 64.
The Union Citizenship Act 1948 http://www.ibiblio.org/obl/docs/UNION_CITIZENSHIP_ACT-1948.htm. Accessed July 10, 2019.
- 65.
Burma Citizenship Law https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b4f71b.html. Accessed July 11, 2019.
- 66.
Citizenship would be granted on the basis of having lived in the territory of Burma for at least eight out of previous 10 years. As a result, Article II (iv) of the constitution awarded the Rohingyas national registration certificates with full legal and voting rights. They were asked not to apply for citizenship, as you are not one of the indigenous races of the Union of Burma.
- 67.
See Kyaw (2017) for detailed study.
References
Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities reflections on the origins and spread of nationalism. New York: Verso.
Arendt, H. (2017). The decline of the nation-state and the end of the rights of man. The origins of totalitarianism (pp. 349–396). St Ives: Penguin Classics.
Ariely, G. (2011). Exploring citizenship spheres of inclusion/exclusion: Right as potential for power. Patterns of Prejudice, 45(3), 241–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/0031322x.2011.585020. Accessed July, 2018.
Arriaza, J. M., & Vonk, O. (2017). Report on citizenship law: Myanmar. http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/48284/RSCAS_GLOBALCIT_CR_2017_14.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed July 11, 2019.
Baehr, P. (2002). The public and the private realm. In The portable Hannah Arendt (pp. 182–230). Ontario: Penguin Books Ltd.
Barbalet, J. (2010). Citizenship in Max Weber. Journal of Classical Sociology, 10(3), 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795x10371717. Accessed May 10, 2019.
Beehner, L. (2018). State-building, military modernization and cross-ethnic violence in Myanmar. Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, 5(3), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/2347797017748464.
Benhabib, S. (2004). The rights of others: Aliens, residents, and citizens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blackburn, K. (2010). War memory and nation-building in South East Asia. South East Asia Research, 18(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.5367/000000010790959857.
Brubaker, R. (1996). Nationhood and the national question in the Soviet Union and its successor states: an institutionalist account. Nationalism reframed: Nationhood and the national question in the new Europe (pp. 23–54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burma Citizenship Law. https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b4f71b.html. Accessed July 11, 2019.
Castles, S. (2005). Hierarchical citizenship in a world of unequal nation-states. American Political Science Association, 38(4), 689–692. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096505050353.
Chatterjee, P. (1986). Nationalist thought and the colonial world: A derivative discourse. Tokyo: Zed Books.
Chatterji, J. (2012). South Asian histories of citizenship 1946–1970. The Historical Journal, 55(4), 1049–1071. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0018246x12000428. Published online November 15, 2012. Accessed February, 2019.
Cheah, P. (2003). Grounds of comparison. In J. Culler & P. Cheah (Eds.), Grounds of comparison around the work of Benedict Anderson (pp. 1–20). New York: Routledge.
Chowdhory, N. (2018). State formation, marginality and belonging: Contextualising rights of refugees in India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Refugees, citizenship and belonging in South Asia contested terrains (pp. 43–69). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.
Chowdhory, N. (2019). Citizenship and membership: Placing refugees. In N. Uddin & N. Chowdhory (Eds.), Deterritorialised identity and transborder movement in South Asia (pp. 37–54). Singapore: Springer.
Egin, I. F. (2002). Being political: Genealogies of citizenship. London: University of Minnesota Press.
Egin, I. F., & Bryan, T. (2002). Citizenship studies: An introduction. In I. F. Egin & B. S. Turner (Eds.), Handbook on citizenship studies (pp. 1–10). London: Sage Publication.
Fraser, N., & Gordon, L. (1994). Civil citizenship against social citizenship? On the ideology of contract-versus-charity. In B. V. Steenbergen (Ed.), The condition of citizenship (pp. 90–107). London: Sage Publications.
Frazana, K. F. (2017). Memories of Burmese Rohingya Refugees: The Contested Identity and Belonging. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gellner, E. (2006). Nations and nationalism. Oxford: Blackwell.
Gungwu, W. (2005). Contemporary and national history: A double challenge. In W. Gungwu (Ed.), Nation-building: Five Southeast Asian histories (pp. 1–20). Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Gutmann, A. (1994). Introduction. In A. Gutmann (Ed.), Multiculturalism: Examining the politics of recognition (pp. 3–24). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Huang, R. L. (2017). Myanmar’s way to democracy and the limits of the 2015 elections. Asian Journal of Political Science, 25(1), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/02185377.2016.1245154.
Ibrahim, A. (2018). The Rohingyas: Inside Myanmar’s hidden genocide. New Delhi: Speaking Tiger Publishing Ltd.
Jalal, A. (1995). Democracy and authoritarianism in South Asia: A comparative and historical perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Janoksi, T., & Gran, B. (2002). Political citizenship: Foundations of rights. In I. F. Egin & B. S. Turner (Eds.), Handbook on citizenship studies (pp. 13–52). London: Sage Publications.
Kabeer, N. (2005). Introduction. In N. Kabeer (Ed.), Inclusive citizenship: Meanings of expressions (pp. 1–27). New Delhi: Zubaan.
Kajla, M. (2019). Nation-state and its production of statelessness: A study of Chin refugees. In N. Uddin & N. Chowdhory (Eds.), Deterritorialised identity and transborder movement in South Asia (pp. 91–109). Singapore: Springer.
Kapur, R. (2007). The citizens and the migrant: Postcolonial anxieties, law, and the politics of exclusion/inclusion. Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 8(2), 537–569. Retrieved July 12, 2019 from https://www7.tau.ac.il/ojs/index.php/til/article/view/645/606.
Kyaw, N. N. (2015). Alienation, discrimination, and securitisation: Legal personhood and cultural personhood of Muslims in Myanmar. The Review of Faith & International Affairs, 13(4), 50–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/15570274.2015.1104971.
Kyaw, N. N. (2017). Unpacking the presumed statelessness of Rohingyas. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 15(3), 269–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/15562948.2017.1330981.
Lewa, C. (2004). The Rohingyas forced migration and statelessness. In O. Mishra (Ed.), Forced migration in the South Asian region: Displacement, human rights and conflict resolution (pp. 325–339). Delhi: Manak Publication.
Mamdani, M. (2001). When victims become killers: Colonialism, nativism, and the genocide in Rwanda. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Marshall, T. H. (1950). The development of citizenship to the end of the nineteenth century. Citizenship and social class and other essays (pp. 10–26). London: Cambridge University Press.
Maung, M. (1961). Burma’s constitution. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Morrison, I. A. (2014). Orientalism and the construction of the apolitical Buddhist subject. In I. F. Engin & P. Nyers (Eds.), Routledge handbook of global citizenship studies (pp. 325–334). New York: Routledge.
Murayama, M. (2006). Borders, migration and sub-regional cooperation in Eastern South Asia. Economic and Political Weekly, 41(14), 1351–1359. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4418058.
Myint-U, T. (2004). The making of modern Burma. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pugh, C. L. (2013). Is citizenship the answer? Constructions of belonging and exclusion for the stateless Rohingya of Burma. Working Paper No. 76. https://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/WP-2013-107-Pugh_Stateless_Rohingya_Burma.pdf.
Roy, A. (2016). Citizenship in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Sadiq, K. (2017). Postcolonial citizenship. In A. Shachar, R. Bauböck, I. Bloemraad, and M. Vink (Eds.), Oxford handbook of citizenship. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198805854.013.8. Accessed February, 2019.
Safman, R. M. (2007). Minorities and state-building in mainland Southeast Asia. In N. Ganesan & H. Y. Kyaw (Eds.), Myanmar state, society and ethnicity (pp. 30–69). Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Safran, W. (1997). Citizenship and nationality in democratic systems: Approaches to defining and acquiring membership in the political community. International Political Science Review, 18(3), 313–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251297018003006.
Samaddar, R. (2012). The heterogeneous world of the citizen. Citizenship Studies, 16(5–6), 839–849. https://doi.org/10.1080/13621025.2012.698514.
Silverstein, J. (1990). Civil war and rebellion in Burma. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 21(1), 114–134. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022463400001983.
Smith, A. D. (1986). The formation of nations. The ethnic origins of nations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
Smith, M. (1997). Burma’s ethnic minorities: A central or peripheral problem in the regional context? In P. Carey (Ed.), Burma: The challenge of change in a divided society (pp. 97–128). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Smith, R. M. (2002). Modern citizenship. In E. F. Isin & B. S. Turner (Eds.), Handbook on citizenship studies (pp. 105–116). London: Sage Publications.
Stevenson, N. (2001). Culture and citizenship: An introduction. In N. Stevenson (Ed.), Culture and citizenship (pp. 1–11). London: Sage Publications.
Suryadinata, L. (2015). The making of Southeast Asian Nations: State, ethnicity, indigenism and citizenship. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.
Tarling, N. (2004). Nationalism in Southeast Asia: If the people are with us. New York: Routledge.
Taylor, R. H. (1979). Burma’s national unity problem and the 1974 constitution. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 1(3), 232–248. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25797574.
Taylor, R. H. (1982). Perceptions of ethnicity in the politics of Burma. Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science, 10(1), 7–22. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/24490906.
Taylor, R. H. (2005). Do states make nations? The politics of identity in Myanmar revisited. South East Asia Research, 13(3), 261–286. https://doi.org/10.5367/000000005775179676.
Taylor, R. H. (2007). British policy towards Myanmar and the creation of the Burma problem. In N. Ganesan & K. Y. Hlaing (Eds.), Myanmar state, society and ethnicity (pp. 70–95). Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
The Union Citizenship Act 1948. http://www.ibiblio.org/obl/docs/UNION_CITIZENSHIP_ACT-1948.htm. Accessed July 10, 2019.
Thomson, C. (1995). Political stability and minority groups in Burma. Geographical Review, 85(3), 269–285. https://doi.org/10.2307/215273. Accessed May 9, 2014.
Turner, B. S. (2002). Religion and politics: The elementary forms of citizenship. In I. F. Egin & B. S. Turner (Eds.), Handbook on citizenship studies (pp. 259–276). London: Sage Publication.
Uddin, N. (2019). The state, vulnerability, and transborder movements: The Rohingya people in Myanmar and Bangladesh. In N. Uddin & N. Chowdhory (Eds.), Deterritorialised identity and transborder movement in South Asia (pp. 73–90). Singapore: Springer.
Wimmer, A. (2002). Who owns the state? Ethnic conflicts after the end of empires. Nationalist exclusion and ethnic conflict (pp. 85–113). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Young, C. (1976). The arena: State, nation and nationalism. The politics of cultural pluralism (pp. 66–97). Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kajla, M., Chowdhory, N. (2020). The Unmaking of Citizenship of Rohingyas in Myanmar. In: Chowdhory, N., Mohanty, B. (eds) Citizenship, Nationalism and Refugeehood of Rohingyas in Southern Asia. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2168-3_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2168-3_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-15-2167-6
Online ISBN: 978-981-15-2168-3
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)