164 E. L. RHOADS AND R. DAS British crown dominion (Section 11.4).77 However, in practice, the process was complicated, time consuming, and had a limited application period, with a deadline of just three years following independence.78 The application process required a hearing before a district magistrate and anyone could object to any application.79 The Union Citizenship Act of 1948 added an additional category of people who could claim citizenship by birth: anyone who had been born in Burma to parents who were also born in Burma, provided their family had been permanently resident in Burma for at least two generations. By 1955, following legal challenges, citizenship by election was expanded to include naturalized British subjects, allowing ethnic Chinese and others not born in the British Empire to apply.80 Without a citizenship law in place on the Indian side, deciding whether to apply for citizenship under the time-limited 1948 Citizenship [Election] Act or to apply for documentation under the 1948 Union Citizenship Act as a citizen by birth, was difficult for many Indian families.81 Importantly, neither the Indian nor the Burmese governments recognized dual citizenship. This left many South Asians living in Burma in limbo, having to guess which citizenship would be faster to process and most beneficial for them. India did not have a Citizenship Act until 1955, which made it difficult for Indians in Burma after independence to make decisions about citizenship. They did not know if becoming a Burmese citizen would bar them from claiming Indian citizenship in the future. In addition, as a result of partition and evacuee property arrangements between India and Pakistan, they had concerns about whether applying for citizenship in Burma might lead to a loss of property in India.82 Some people wondered if taking Burmese citizenship would prevent them from remitting money or traveling to India.83 What further complicated the situation was that although hundreds of thousands of people were entitled to citizenship by birth due to their family’s length of residence in Burma, in practice, only taingyintha were definitively considered citizens without documentary proof or a favorable court decision. Under the Foreigners Act of 1864, which remained in place in both countries following independence, individuals had to document their residency claims, placing the burden of proof squarely on non-taingyintha to substantiate their citizenship claims.84 After the Ministry of Immigration was established in 1957, the divide between citizens, foreigners, and those perceived as potential foreigners grew wider. The new ministry 77 The 1948 Citizenship (Election) Act provided the legislation and procedures for the provision in Sec. 11.4 of the Constitution allowing for people to choose Burmese citizenship based on a specific period of residency prior to independence. 78 Rhoads 2023a. 79 Amrith 2018. 80 The decision in Saw Chain Poon v. The Union of Burma extended eligibility to apply for citizenship by election to those previously naturalized under the 1926 Burma Naturalization Act (the Indian Naturalization Act of 1926 prior to the partition of British Burma from British India in 1937), thereby including those born outside of the British Empire who had previously been recognized as imperial subjects. This was reflected in a 1954 amendment to the Union Citizenship (Election) Act. While the initial application deadline was 1951, those who fell under this category of expanded eligibility were able to apply after the amendment came into effect. 81 NAI 1955; Rhoads 2023a. 82 NAI 1955.That the governance of property in India owned by Burmese citizens would be administered differently was not widely understood either. 83 NAI 1955. 84 The Foreigners Act (Act. No. III of 1864) applied to both India and Burma, but was replaced by the Indian Foreigners Act in 1946. Section 9 of the Indian Foreigners Act states that if the nationality of a person is not evident, then the onus of establishing whether the person is a foreigner or not lies upon the person and not the state.