The Grimshaw Review of International Affairs Vol. 2, No. 1 Hence, for the Rohingya, “home” remains an inaccessible concept – a place that exists more in memory and longing than in any secure, physical form. A state of profound liminality defines the Rohingya plight – an affront to the fundamental principle of the right to belong and be recognised within a given polity (Ahsan Ullah, 2016). 2.​ Historical Background Understanding the unrecognition of the Rohingya requires situating their plight within Myanmar’s fraught historical and political experience, which has long been shaped by exclusionary nationalism and colonial legacies. While historical debates persist over whether Rohingya presence in Myanmar (also known as Burma)2 dates back to the ninth century or whether they are the progeny of Bengali labourers brought by British colonial authorities during the 19th century (Alam, 2019), these contested origins serve as a pretext, rather than a legitimate basis, for denying their existence and rights. The Rohingya’s claim to belonging is not contingent on historical consensus; the erasure of their rights reflects a broader history of exclusionary Burmese nationalism that prioritises ethnic homogeneity over pluralism.3 Regardless of their precise historical origins, the Rohingya’s claim to citizenship and belonging is undeniable, and something no historical ambiguity can challenge. Yet, it is this very disputed past which underpins their current exclusion from society. The alienation of the Rohingya is inextricably bound with the conflation of nationalism and religious identity in Myanmar. Colonial-era British policies labelled them as “Indian Muslims,” and these were later appropriated by Burmese nationalists to justify their characterisation as foreign interlopers – a narrative that gained traction following Myanmar’s independence in 1948 and has intensified under the military junta’s policies since 1962 (Bhattacharya & Biswas, 2021). 2 The US and others reject the name change to Myanmar as illegitimate due to lack of public consent, while the military argues “Burma” is not inclusive of the country’s other 134 ethnic groups. Both terms, however, have historically coexisted – “Burma” for speech and “Myanmar” for formal writing (Selth & Gallagher, 2018). See Selth, A., & Gallagher, M. (2018). What’s in a name: Burma or Myanmar? United States Institute of Peace, for further discussion. 3 For further contextual discussion on Myanmar’s ethnic homogeneity and administrative history that led to such systemic exclusion of ethnic minority groups, such as the Rohingya, from the national framework see: International IDEA. (n.d.). Deciphering Myanmar’s ethnic landscape, pg. 21-49. 4