Brinham 157 be repressive and destructive could compliment such approaches and contribute to the principle of ‘do no harm’ that governs donor interventions. The second section of this paper provides a background to Rohingya statelessness in Myanmar, as well as related research. I explain the relevance of an improved understanding of the lived experiences of registration and documentation practices. The third section sets out my methodological approach. It describes how qualitative social science research approaches state-issued documents as a series of encounters between individuals and the state. Thereafter, the research methods employed for the purposes of this paper are explained. The fourth section retells the story of Mohammed’s encounters with the state through three identity documents. Referring back to Mohammed’s account and the relevant academic literature, it identifies three powers attributed to identity documents—emancipatory, repressive, and destructive. The fifth section focuses on resistance to state power through identity documents. Finally, the paper concludes by suggesting that understanding statelessness as being more complex than invisibility to the state and the law may lead to a more critical and effective appraisal of the use of registration and the issuance of identity documents to redress the rights deficits associated with statelessness. 2 Bureaucratic Cleansing: Myanmar’s Citizenship Law and Documentation Practices In this section, a brief overview of the research on Rohingya statelessness in Myanmar is provided. I explain how an improved understanding of the lived experiences of historical registration and documentation practices can enhance study in this field. Rohingyas’ have generally been described as having been stripped of their citizenship through the enactment of the 1982 Citizenship Law. However, the broader processes of discrimination and persecution that are both a symptom and cause of their statelessness may better be understood through the study of Rohingya encounters with their state-issued identity documents.3 Multiple studies, generally using a human rights approach, have provided a legal analysis of the citizenship law in Myanmar. They largely focus on the areas in which the law fails to comply with international standards.4 Some studies have also identified areas within the law which could be used to advocate for an increased number of individual Rohingya to gain access to different types of citizenship by relaxing the administrative restrictions and expanding the scope of provisions within the existing law.5 At the time of writing, the impact of such approaches on access to citizenship since the transition from a military government in 2010 has been negligible.6 The 1982 Citizenship Law created a hierarchy of citizenship with ‘full citizenship’ at the top.7 In order to qualify for full citizenship, one is required to either be a member of one of the national ethnic groups, or to have both parents who are citizens. The list of official national ethnic groups is decided at the complete discretion of the Council of the State (1982 Citizenship Law section 4). The acquisition of nationality through other means became excessively burdensome under the 1982 Citizenship Law and almost impossible for Rohingya populations to access.8 The list of ethnic groups changed from an opened ended and loosely defined notion used in previous citizenship laws9 to a list of fixed ethnicities that was produced without 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Lindsey Kingston, ‘Worthy of Rights: Statelessness as a Cause and Symptom of Marginalization’ in Tendayi Bloom and Katherine Tonkiss and Phillip Cole (eds), Understanding Statelessness (Routledge 2018). Human Rights Watch, ‘All You Can Do is Pray: Crimes Against Humanity and Ethnic Cleansing of Rohingya Muslims in Burma’s Arakan State’ (22 April 2013) <https://www.hrw.org/report/2013/04/22/all-you-can-do-pray/crimes-against-humanity-and-ethnic-cleansing-rohingya-muslims> accessed on 24 January 2019; Advisory Commission on Rakhine State, ‘Towards a Peaceful, Fair and Prosperous Future for the People of Rakhine: Final Report’ (August 2017) <http://www.rakhinecommission.org/app/uploads/2017/08/FinalReport_Eng.pdf> accessed on 04 January 2019; Republic of the Union of Myanmar, ‘Final Report of Inquiry Commission on Sectarian Violence in Rakhine State’ (8 July 2013) <http://www.burmalibrary.org/docs15/Rakhine_Commission_Report-en-red.pdf> accessed on 04 January 2019; Jose M Arraiza and Olivier Vonk, ‘Report on Citizenship Law: Myanmar’ (European University Institute 2017). The following report showed that very limited numbers of Muslims in Rakhine had been assessed for citizenship. See: Global Light of Myanmar, ‘The Report to the People on the Progress of the Implementation of the Recommendations of the Rakhine Report’ (13 February 2018) <http://www.globalnewlightofmyanmar.com/report-people-progress-implementation-recommendationsrakhine-state/> accessed on 30 March 2019. Burma Citizenship Law (15 October 1982) <https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b4f71b.html> accessed on 17 December 2018. Chris Lewa, ‘North Arakan: an open prison for Rohingya in Burma’ (2008) 32 Forced Migration Review 11. Under the 1948 Citizenship Act, section 3 defines the national ethnic groups as ‘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.)’. No further guidance is provided on sub-groups. Under this definition Rohingya could either fall into Arakanese (also known as Rakhine) or ‘such racial group’. See: Burma Citizenship Law (n 7).