State power and identification schemes in Rakhine 75 have shaped and reified ethnic identities and aided the establishment of a citizenship hierarchy (Nyi Nyi Kyaw 2015; Cheesman 2017). This perspective provides contrast to the dominant notions within development and human rights discourse described in Chapter 3 that construe legal identities as simply representing pre-existing facts about individuals that will help individuals access their rights (also see Brinham 2019). Identification, enumeration, and categorisation A body of literature on British identification systems in India has focused on how both fingerprinting and photography employed eugenic scientific approaches in an attempt to correlate racial types with criminal characteristics (Sengoopta 2003; Cole 2009). This scholarship also points to the broader racial stereotypes that framed identification processes in the British Raj. Sections of the Indian population lobbied for the photograph to be used on their documents, since they were used on European passports and IDs. Fingerprinting, on the other hand, was associated with the British identification of ‘criminals’ and ‘criminal tribes’ (Singha 2000; Roy 2016). Similar notions of essentialist and fixed-racial and class typography informed the registration and census/enumeration processes in British India including Burma in 1911, 1921, and 1931 (Bennison 1933; Crosthwaite 1912; Smart 1917). Racial and ethnic classifications and categorisations in the British colonies are often described as forming the foundations for divide-and-rule policies (Mamdani 1996; Singha 2000; Mamdani 2012). Essentialist ethnic and racial stereotypes were also a feature of colonial capitalism and often pitted ‘lazy natives’ against ‘industrious’ migrants (Alatas 2013).21 Racial tropes associated Bamar (the dominant Burmese ethnicity) with criminality and ‘dacoity’ or banditry (Crosthwaite 1912), the Arakanese Buddhists as ‘indolent,’ and Chittagonians as ‘industrious’ (Smart 1917). In fact, ethnic categories in colonial Burma were not always accurate and did not always reflect the realities on the ground but nonetheless became socially significant themselves when deployed as part of a broader project of British economic and political dominance (see also Lehman 1967; Leach 1973; Lieberman 1978; Scott 2009). As Amrith (2013:184) explained in the context of Burma: The ethnic division of labor that pitted Indian landlords against Burmese tenants and immigrant plantation workers against local cultivators was partly a matter of design— the classic imperial strategy of ‘divide and rule’— and partly unplanned, in the sense that, once established by intent or by accident, these patterns tended to replicate themselves. These British categories in contemporary Myanmar continue to inform the ethnic classifications on which the 1982 Citizenship Law’s taingyintha criteria rest and provide the basis on which to deny citizenship to Rohingya, individuals of mixed parentage, and others (Cheesman 2017; Nyi Nyi Kyaw 2017; European