Burma is a multi-cultural society with
multi-ethnicities. During its independence a feeling of awareness for an
ethnic togetherness and comprehensive identity to form joint feelings
for tranquillity and safety developed. On the basis of the agreed upon
principle of ‘unity in diversity’, articulated by the father of the
nation General Aung San, the ‘Union of Burma’ came to existence on
January 4, 1948.
Burma is a country where various
streamlets of culture and civilization join together. In a pluralistic
society like Burma there must be a joint life on the diversity of
cultures. But due to racism and racial discrimination, the culture of
Burman majority is assumed as the national culture and on its margins,
there are small cultures of the numerous ethnic groups and are assumed
as non-national or inferior cultures. Regrettably, today Rohingyas are
considered practising foreign way of life having no origin in Burma,
despite the fact that the heyday of independent Arakan began with the
Muslim civilization, which reached its zenith during the most glorious
period of Mrauk-U, “the creation of a remarkably hybrid Buddhist-Islamic
court, fusing tradition from Persia and India as well as the Buddhist
Worlds to the east.” 1 On top of that “Arakan
was virtually ruled by Muslims from 1430 to 1531.” 2
‘Rohingya problem’ started in Burma from British colonial
period onwards. There were violent anti-Indian (including anti-Muslim)
riots in 1930-31 and again in 1938 in which several hundreds Indians and
Muslims were killed in Burma. Muslim properties: shops, houses and
mosques were looted, destroyed and burned under the campaign of ‘Burma
for Burmese only’. Similar anti-Muslim sentiment blew up in Arakan too.
In April 1942, armed Rakhine in connivance with Burmese nationalists
carried out a pogrom in Akyab district and massacred about 100,000
unarmed Muslims. Bulk of the Muslims was internally displaced, and
nearly 50,000 of them took refuge in the British held territories of
Chittagong and Rangpur. The resultant damages were enormous causing
serious demographic changes in North Arakan. The Muslim population in
the alluvial Kaladan and Lemro deltas were depopulated to be populated
by Buddhists. The hard-nosed hate mongers in Arakan have continued the
hostility signing the mantra of Rohingya extermination. Martin Smith
observes:
“In Arakan itself, there is little evidence of such
communal flare-ups but as a result of these experiences, many Burmese
nationalists and politicians have never really bothered to distinguish
between Indians or Muslims in general and the indigenous Muslims of
Arakan. The word commonly used to describe Muslims in Arakan is the
pejorative word “Kala” or foreigner, which is exactly the same word
commonly used to describe Muslims or Indians anywhere else they live in
Burma (anti-Muslim prejudice is not just confined to Arakan today).”3
The successive Burmese governments have had pursued policies of
exclusion and persecution against Rohingyas while some hardhearted
Rakhine academic and politicians are engaged in racist and xenophobic
plans to marginalize and exterminate them. With preoccupation of ‘Muslim
phobia’ the former dictator Ne Win promulgated an oppressive Burma
Citizenship law in 1982 in order to deprive the Rohingyas of their
time-honoured citizenship and ethnic rights in Burma.
Despite
some recent reforms towards democratization, civilianized military
government of U Thein Sein has so far no change of attitude towards
Rohingya and has created hostile climate in North Arakan. The government
continues to treat them as aliens using this oppressive nationality law
in a random manner. While the authorities and xenophobes reject or
exclude Rohingyas, nevertheless their distinct South Asian physical
feature, language and frontier civilization are a true manifestation of
the ancient people of Indian Bengali Chandra dynasty in Arakan.
Conversely, the Rakhines and no-one else are treated as natives of
Arakan for being Buddhists in shared characteristics with the majority
Burman, speaking an archaic form of Burmese. This favourable reception
of ‘Rakhine only policy’ is a threat of Buddhistization through
assimilation.
In the situation of Rohingya, the 1982 citizenship
law promotes Burmanization or Rakhinization aims at exterminating the
Rohingya population from Arakan. Let us examine this unjust nationality
law.
Nationality:
Citizenship is same as
nationality but the Burmese law uses the expression of citizenship and
not nationality. Nationality is often described as the connecting link
between the individual and international law. Nationality indicates the
status of belonging to a particular state. Nationality or citizenship is
the social and legal link between individuals and their democratic
political community. By virtue of this, an individual may be entitled to
certain benefits and obligations under municipal and international
law. There is no accepted definition of nationality. As a general rule
each state is free to define who its nationals are though this
description can be circumscribed by specific treaties (eg Treaties
concerning the elimination of statelessness). Thus article 1 of the 1930
Hague Convention on the Conflict of Nationality Laws stated that:
“….it
is for each state to determine under its own law who are the nationals.
This law shall be recognized by other states in so far as it is
consistent with international conventions, international custom and
principles of law generally recognized with regard to nationality. “
Thus
the nationality law of a state is required to conform to international
law, international human rights law, international conventions, customs
and practices. The most important of these principles concerning
acquisition of nationality are first, descent from parents who are
nationals (jus sanguinis) and secondly, the territorial location of
birth (jus soli). Nationality may also be acquired by marriage,
adoption, legalization, naturalization (the proceeding whereby a
foreigner is granted citizenship) or as a result of transfer of
territory from one state to another. It should be noted that since
international law recognizes the primacy of the state in this regard,
the practice of acquiring nationality varies considerably.
The
1982 Citizenship Law:
Burma Citizenship Law of 1982 was
the most restrictive citizenship law in the world promulgated by late
dictator Ne Win’s BSPP (Burma Socialist Programme Party) regime on
October 15, 1982. Unlike 1948 Citizenship Act, the 1982 law is
essentially the principle of jus sanguinis and has repealed the Union
Citizenship (Election) Act, 1948, and the Union Citizenship Act, 1948.
Based on how one’s forebears obtained citizenship, Ne Win stratified
citizenship into three status groups: full, associate and naturalized.
Full
citizens are those belonging to one of the so-called 135 ‘national
races’, who lived in Burma prior to 1823 -- just prior to the conquest
of parts of lower Burma (Arakan and Tenassarim) by the British, or were
born to parents who were citizens at the time of birth. Associate
citizenship was only granted to those whose application for citizenship
under the 1948 Act was pending on the date the Act came into force. Thus
the associate citizens are those who acquired citizenship through the
1948 Union Citizenship Law. Naturalized citizenship could only be
granted to those who could furnish “conclusive evidence” of entry and
residence before Burma’s independence on 4 January 1948, who could speak
one of the national languages well and whose children were born in
Burma. Thus naturalized citizens refer to persons who lived in Burma
before independence and applied for citizenship after 1982. Foreigners
cannot become naturalized citizens unless they can prove a close
familial connection to the country.
It is worthy of mention that
the previous parliamentary government listed 144 ethnic groups in Burma.
But Ne Win put only 135 groups on a short list, and then was approved
by his BSPP regime’s constitution of 1974. The three Muslim groups of
Rohingya (Muslim Arakanese), Panthay (Chinese Muslims), Bashu (Malay
Muslims) and six other ethnic groups were deleted. It was an injustice
founded on religious rancour and racial prejudice towards Muslims and
smaller non-Burman groups, particularly against the Rohingya, who are
not a manageable minority. Even the so called 135 ethnic groups are
highly divisive splitting some of the national races into so many
groupings. However, this creation of the military is unjustified.
Generally
the 1982 citizenship law deprives most people of Indian and Chinese
descent of citizenship. “However, the timing of its promulgation shortly
after the refugee repatriation (from Bangladesh) of 1979, strongly
suggests that it was specifically designed to exclude the Rohingya”4
who had previously been recognized as citizens as well
as a national race of Burma. According to Ne Win, “racially, only
pure-blooded nationals will be called citizens.”5
Shockingly, the Rakhine academic late Dr. Aye Kyaw was instrumental to
the making of this discriminatory racist law under infamous Ne Win. He
proudly claimed to have devised a mechanism to denationalize the
Rohingya people.
The Rohingya are in a situation of permanent
limbo. Burmese government recognizes them as neither citizens nor
foreigners. But it has deliberately declared them non-nationals
describing them as ‘illegal immigrants’ from Bangladesh’ while accepting
them all at once as ‘Burmese residents’, which is not a legal status.
Thus “the law made the Rohingya ethnic group a stateless one in the
country, where they have been living for generation.”6
“In 1998, in a letter to UNHCR, Burma’s then Prime Minister
General Khin Nyunt wrote: These people are not originally from Myanmar
but have illegally migrated to Myanmar because of population pressures
in their own country”7 In February 1996, U.N.
Special Rapporteur on Burma Professor Yozu Yokota quoted Lt. Gen. Mya
Thinn, the then Home Minister (of SPDC) as saying “Muslim population of
Rakhine (Arakan) State was not recognized as citizens of Myanmar under
the existing naturalization regulations and they were not even
registered as so-called foreign residents …Their status situation did
not permit them to travel in the country…They are also not allowed to
serve in the state positions and are barred from attending higher
educational institution.” The government authorities and xenophobes time
and again stated that “there is no race by the name of Rohingya”.
Now
the term ‘Rohingya’ was stamped out from the list of Burma’s national
races; and Rohingya language features to be non-national. On the other
hand, a few Rohingya could speak the languages that the military regime
recognized, and very few Rohingyas could fulfil these requirements.
Whether one is citizen or not is to be decided by the single
authoritarian body, Council of State not the court. “Moreover, the wide
powers assigned to a government-controlled ‘Central Body’ to decide on
matters pertaining to citizenship mean that, in practice, the Rohingyas’
entitlement to citizenship will not be recognized.” 8
Rohingyas
were not issued identity cards since 1970s. In 1989, colour-coded
Citizens Scrutiny Cards (CRCs) were introduced: pink cards for the full
citizens, blue for associate citizens and green for naturalized
citizens. Rohingya were not issued with any identity cards which are
very essentials in all their activities. “In 1995, in response to
UNHCR’s intensive advocacy efforts to document the Rohingyas, the
Burmese authorities started issuing them with Temporary Registration
Card (TRC), a white card, pursuant to the 1949 Residents of Burma
Registration Act. The TRC does not mention the bearer’s place of birth
and cannot be used to claim citizenship. The family list, which every
family residing in Burma possesses, only records family members and
their date of birth. It does not indicate the place of birth and
therefore provides no official evidence of birth in Burma - and so
perpetuate their statelessness.” 9 By just
sanguinis rule and any accepted citizenship concepts, the Rohingya have
to be issued no documents other than full citizenship cards. As a matter
of fact, such issuance of white cards, many believe, has an adverse
affect on their status.
1982 Citizenship Law violates
the terms of international law
1982 citizenship law
violates several fundamental principles of international customary law
standards, offends the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and leaves
Rohingyas exposed to no legal protection of their rights. The law has
perpetuated the Rohingya citizenship crisis making them object of
persecution and of discrimination which render them a very difficult
life as stateless people in their native country, where they have
absolute rights to be on an equal footing with all other citizens. Such
persecution and discrimination constitute them a total disregard of the
most elementary humanitarian principles and was contrary to the purposes
of the United Nations. Burma, as an UN member state has obligation to
follow the UN resolutions. One of such resolution unanimously adopted at
48th plenary meeting of the General Assembly reads: “The General
Assembly declares that it is in the higher interests of humanity to put
an immediate end to religious and so-called racial persecution and
discrimination, and calls on the Governments and responsible authorities
to conform both to the letter and spirit of the Charter of the United
Nations, and to take the most prompt and energetic steps to the end.” 10
In
addition, the 1982 Citizenship Law offends, inter alia, the following
laws of humanity:
Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (UDHR) which states that “everyone has the right to a
nationality” and that “no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his
nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality”. But the
“citizenship law declared the Rohingyas as ‘non-nationals’ or ‘foreign
residents’” 11 rendering them ‘stateless’ in
their own homeland, where they have been living for generations with a
long history.
It is conflicting government’s
obligation to fulfil the rights of the child as stipulated by Article
7(1) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 which states
that the Child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall
have the right to a name, and to acquire a nationality. The Burmese
government ratified this convention in 1991 and is obliged to grant
citizenship to Rohingyas.
Article 24(3) of the UN International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 also states, “Every child
has the right to acquire a nationality.” But most Rohingya children were
denied registration and recently more than 40,000 Rohingya children
have been blacklisted reasoning that their parents had not married with
official permission. “Under Myanmar's 1982 citizenship law, Rohingya
children - both registered and unregistered - are stateless and hence,
face limited access to food and healthcare, leaving them susceptible to
preventable diseases and malnutrition. Many are prevented from attending
school and used for forced labour, contributing to a Rohingya
illiteracy rate of 80 percent. More than 60 percent of children aged
between five and 17 have never enrolled in school”.. 12
Article
9 of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women (CEADAW), 1979 states: (a) States Parties
shall grant women equal rights with men to acquire, change or retain
their nationality… (b) States Parties shall grant women equal rights
with men with respect to the nationality of their children. Burmese
government ratified this convention on 22 July 1997. But Rohingya women
and their children have been deprived of their Burmese nationality
forcing them to live in servitude as stateless within Burma and refugees
beyond its border -- wondering from place to place -- with ultimate
aim of destroying this minority community.
Article 5(d) (iii)
of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination 1965 which states that States Parties undertake to
prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to
guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour,
or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law…[and to] the
enjoyment of …the right to nationality. But the Rohingyas are
discriminated against and exterminated from their ancestral homeland on
ground of ethnicity and religion. They have been subjected to
‘systematic racism’.
The law promotes discrimination against
Rohingya and arbitrary deprivation of their Burmese citizenship. The
deprivation of one’s nationality is not only a serious violation of
human rights but also an international crime. The law does not oblige
the state to protect stateless persons (i.e. victims of a serious human
rights violation), thus largely ignoring state’s ‘obligation to respect
the right to nationality’.
The law continues to create outflows
of refugees, which overburden other countries posing threats to peace
and tranquillity within the region. An estimated 1.5 million Rohingya
disporas are in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, UAE, KSA, Thailand,
Malaysia, Indonesia, USA, UK, Republic of Ireland Europe, Australia, New
Zealand and Japan etc. The Rohingya refugee issue with their boat
people crisis has become a regional problem with international
dimension.
In his report to the United Nations Prof. Yokota
states: “The 1982 Citizenship Law should be revised or amended to
abolish its over burdensome requirements for citizens in a manner which
has discriminatory effects on racial or ethnic minorities particularly
the Rakhine (Arakan) Muslims. It should be brought in line with the
principles embodied in the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness
of 30 august 1961.”
Citizenship concepts in Burma and the
Rohingyas
The Nu-Attlee Agreement (Treaty between the
Government of the United Kingdom and the Provincial Government of Burma,
1947) was very important as to the determination of the nationality
status of the peoples and races in Burma. Article 3 of the Agreement
states:
“Any person who at the date of the coming into force of
the present Treaty is, by virtue of the Constitution of the Union of
Burma, a citizen thereof and who is, or by virtue of a subsequent
election is deemed to be, also a British subject, may make a declaration
of alienage in the manner prescribed by the law of the Union, and
thereupon shall cease to be a citizen of the Union.
The Section
10 of the 1947 Constitution of the Union of Burma states “there shall be
but only one citizenship though out the Union; that is to say, there
shall be no citizenship of the unit as distinct from the citizenship of
the Union.”
Citizens, as defined by the 1947 Constitution, are
persons who belong to an "indigenous race", have a grandparent from an
"indigenous race", are children of citizens, or lived in British Burma
prior to 1942. Under this law, citizens are required to obtain a
National Registration Card (NRC), while non-citizens are given a Foreign
Registration Certificate (FRC). Citizens whose parents hold FRCs are
not allowed to run for public office.
Who are indigenous races
was defined in Article 3 (1) of the Burma Citizenship Law 1948, which
states: “ For the purposes of section 11 of the Constitution the
expression any of the indigenous races of Burma shall mean the
Arakanese, Burmese, Chin, Kachin, Karen, Kayah, Mon or Shan race and
such racial group as has settled in any of the territories included
within the Union as their permanent home from a period anterior to 1823
A. D. (1185 B.E.). These two categories of people and those descended
from them are automatic citizens. They did not require applying to court
for naturalization. Rohingya are for all intent and purposes Arakanese
and they are also a racial group who had settled in Arakan/Union of
Burma as their permanent home from a period anterior to 1823 A. D. (1185
B.E.).
Therefore, the parliamentary government (1948-1962) had
officially declared Rohingya as one of the indigenous ethnic groups of
Burma. The declaration reads: “The people living in Maungdaw and
Buthidaung regions are our national brethren. They are called Rohingya.
They are on the same par in status of nationality with Kachin, Kayah,
Karen, Mon, Rakhine and Shan. They are one of the ethnic races of
Burma.” 13
But Article 3 of the 1982
Burma Citizenship Law defines indigenous ethnic groups (Taing-Yin-Tha)
stating “Nationals such as the Kachin, Karen, Chin, Burma, Mon, Rakhine
or Shan and ethnic groups as have settled in any of the territories
included within the States as their permanent home from a period
anterior to 1185 B.E., 1823 A.D” are Burma citizens. Here the word
‘Rakhine’ replaced the word ‘Arakanese’ and is designedly attributed to
the Buddhist Arakanese at the exclusion of the Muslim Rohingya
Arakanese.
Unlike 1947 Constitution and 1948 Citizenship Law,
1982 Citizenship Law established three-tired system of citizenship
(full, associate and naturalized), which is actually more a question of
categorisation and discrimination, and is an instrument of oppression
against Rohingyas and so-called non-indigenous racial groups. The
category of associate citizenship should be abolished as it tends to
create high class citizens and low class citizens within a nation. In
conformity with the generally accepted citizenship concept, associate
citizenship should be abolished. All citizens whether full citizens or
naturalized citizens should be constitutionally treated as equal in
dignity and rights. No special privileges should be granted to any
individuals or groups on grounds of ethnicity and religion.
Article
44( c) states an applicant for naturalized citizenship shall have “to
be able to speak well one of the national languages.” This clauses pose
very much oppressive tool towards anyone to denationalize the
marginalized groups like Rohingya and to generate a lot of IDPs and
refugees and it should be permanently deleted. Burma is an ethnically
diverse country. There are people particularly those living in remote
areas or isolated places of the country have no knowledge of Burmese nor
are unable to speak well one of the so-called indigenous languages. In
the case of Hasan Ali and Meher Ali 14 their
Lordships of the Supreme Court observed: “Today in various parts of
Burma there are people who, because of their origin and isolated way of
life, are totally unlike the Burmese in appearance or speak of events
which has occurred outside the limits of their habitation, They are
nevertheless statutory citizens under the Union Citizenship Act
(1948)….Thus mere race or appearance of a person or whether he has a
knowledge of language of the Union is not the test as to whether he is a
citizen of the Union.“
Article 71 of the 1982 law states
“Organisations conferred with authority under this law shall give no
reasons in matters carried out under this law”. It is not at all
compatible with democracy and human rights. It should be scrapped for
good. Every action should be answerable to law and constitution.
Rohingya
were never legally treated as aliens
Rohingyas were
not subjected to any laws related to Registration of Foreigners before
or after Burma’s independence such as the Foreigner Act (Indian Act III,
1846), the Registration of Foreigners Act (Burma Act VII, 1940) and the
Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1948. During colonial administration
Rohingya representatives were elected from North Arakan as Burmese
nationals from national quotas. In 1946, as an indigenous people,
General Aung San assured full rights and privileges to Muslim Rohingya
Arakanese saying “I give (offer) you a blank cheque. We will live
together and die together. Demand what you want. I will do my best to
fulfil them. If native people are divided, it will be difficult to
achieve independence for Burma.15
Rohingya
exercised the right of franchise (the right of citizenship and the
right to vote) in all elections held in Burma from British colonial rule
up to the present such as, 91 Department Administration election
(1936), Aung San’s Constituent Assembly election (1947), all elections
during parliamentary rule (1952, 1956, 1960), Ne Win’s BSPP (Burma
Socialist Programme Party) constitutional referendum and election (1974)
and SLORC military multiparty election (1990), military SPDC’s
constitutional referendum (2008) and its multi-party election (2010).
In
post independence, during parliamentary rule, the Burmese government
issued two kinds of Identity Cards: -- National Registration Cards
(NRCs) to all Burmese residents and Foreigner’s Registration
Certificates (FRCs) to all registered foreigners. As a matter of fact,
as there was no citizenship certificate/card then, the NRC was the only
ID generally used as a proof of one’s citizenship in Burma. NRC was
first issued in 1952 starting from Maungdaw Township, where 96%
population, at that time, was Rohingya. These NRCs are the same IDs
issued to Rakhine and all other ethnic groups and citizens in the
country. Under state programme, the immigration and national
registration teams went round the villages, checked the family lists and
took photographs of the inmates for the purpose of issuing NRCs. It was
a bona fide document that allowed one to carry on all his national
activities, without let or hindrance: -- to possess moveable and
immovable or landed properties, pursue education, including higher
studies and professional courses in the country’s seats of learning,
right to work and public services, including armed forces, and to obtain
Burmese passport for travelling abroad, including pilgrimage to Holy
Makkah. Like all other NRC holders the Rohingya enjoyed all basic rights
and privileges although serious discrimination existed since 1962
military takeover.
What citizenship status do the
Rohingya have in Burma?
The Rohingya are sons of the
soil of Arakan/Burma cannot be overruled. Yet the government with
xenophobes are denying Rohingya’s existence in Burma. They used to say
that “there were no people existed in Burma by the name of Rohingya; the
word Rohingya was not in the history, the word Rohingya was never hard
of… etc.etc”. It is a blatant lie and is a shame because the critics
know that they are lying perfidiously. With hatred against this people,
they may instead say that “there was Rohingya, recognized by the Burmese
parliamentary government as an ethnic group on par with other ethnic
nationalities of the country; but now we reject them to be a part of us
simply because we don’t like them for their physical feature, language,
culture and religion.” They are blind to see and are ostriches to face
reality and recognise the truth. Following are some of the realities:
The
word ‘Rohingya’ was not coined but a historical name for the Muslim
Arakanese. There is still Muslim village in Akayab (Sittwe) city by the
name of Rohingya para. The word was conspicuous in various annals and is
in the pages of history. “It can be asserted, however, that one claim
of the Buddhist school in Rakhaing historiography, that Rohingya was an
invention of the colonial period, is contradicted by the evidence.” 16
Rohingyas
were an integral part of the Mrauk U Empire before Burman occupation of
it in 1784. They were kingmakers who virtually ruled Arakan with
sublime civilization.
During British colonial period part of
their traditional homeland was recognized as ‘Muslim Area of North
Arakan’.
In 1946, Genreal Aung San assured them rights and
freedom on par with other people of the country as natives of Arakan as
well as one of the indigenous nationalities of Burma.
Under
Article 3 of the Aung San-Attlee Treaty (1947) and the First Schedule to
the Burma Independence Act 1947, the Rohingya are citizens of the Union
of Burma. They are also one of the indigenous races of the country
under Section 11 (1) (II) and (III) of the 1947 Constitution.
The
parliamentary government (1948-1962) had recognized ‘Rohingya’ as one
of the indigenous ethnic nationalities of Burma.
Giving special
significance on the indigenous status of Rohingya, the former first
Pesident of Burma Sao Shwe Theik stated, “Muslims of Arakan
certainly belong to one of the indigenous races of Burma. If they do not
belong to the indigenous races, we also cannot be taken as indigenous
races.” 17
Rohingya were never
legally treated as foreigners by the British colonial administration and
all governments that ruled Burma from independence in 1948, in various
shape and manifestation. They duly exercised the right of franchise in
all elections held in Burma and voted their representatives to
legislative bodies or parliaments and various levels of administrative
councils.
There were Rohingya MPs. Minister, parliamentary
secretaries, professionals, doctors, engineers, lawyers, academics,
civil and military officers, and others who run for public office. It is
noteworthy that citizens whose parents hold FRCs are not allowed to run
for public office.
The above are some of the many facts which
bear witness that Rohingyas are an integral part of Burma’s society, and
are bona fide citizens like any other recognized ethnic groups or
national races of the country. Rohingya issue is not a question of
‘illegal immigration’ that the government with the vested interests is
pretending and trying to hoodwink the international opinion to justify
Rohingya persecution. It is a case of intolerance deeply entrenched in
‘systematic racism’ and preoccupation of the ‘Muslim phobia’. The only
solution for their due accommodation in the family of the Union of Burma
solely rests on the will of the ruling government.
Last not
least, arbitrary deprivation of Rohingya’s citizenship is an
international crime. Nonetheless, the Rohingya problem is first and
foremost to be resolved within Burma that requires effective
international pressure. Again in the face of the exhaustion of all
domestic remedies the international community is the only hope for the
restoration of their citizenship with collective rights. It will be
sagacity on the part of the ruling government to response to the outcry
of Rohingya and international reaction without delay.
Reference:
8. Ibid.
