86 State power and identification schemes in Rakhine Pakistan had been put to rest by Suhrawardy and the Muslim League. Raschid also wrote to U Nu that whilst some British military officers may have made promises to Muslims in Maungdaw/Buthidaung, the suggestion was not initiated or sanctioned by the British government. Raschid also noted that Suhrawardy’s comments had arisen from his assumption that the vast majority of people living in northern Rakhine ‘retained cultural contacts with Chittagong.’ Raschid responded that ‘while this may be correct, the bulk of people were domiciled in that part of the country.’52 This statement clarifies that Rohingya were not migrants to the areas but were rather caught up in the religious, cultural, and linguistic notions of nationality that framed independence negotiations relating to citizenship in Pakistan, India, and Burma. A draft of the public statement to be made following these meetings read, ‘The AFPFL’s53 attitude towards minorities in the country are well-known. The AFPFL will do all it can to redress the genuine difficulties that people of the Maungdaw and Buthidaung area may have.’54 According to Rohingya narratives and articles, this redress included citizenship. Aung San and the AFPFL’s approach to citizenship on the eve of independence was to try to pragmatically and strategically embrace minorities under ‘one citizenship’ based on the principles of equality and non-discrimination (The Union Citizenship Act 1948:Articles 10–15). In 1946, Aung San had visited Maungdaw.55 This visit featured in several of the fieldwork narratives relating to citizenship. During this visit, he spoke to Muslim populations in a strategic effort to assure them of their belonging and secure their loyalty towards building a united independent Burma.56 Amongst other issues discussed between the Burmese delegation and the British Government in January 1947 in London was the question of the term ‘Burmese national.’ It was defined for the purposes of the elections regarding who could stand for office and who should be registered to vote.57 During these talks, it was noted that there was difficulty differentiating between those Indians who were migrant and those who were permanently settled— particularly since much of the population tended to move backwards and forwards between India and Burma on a regular basis.58 The term Indian used during these discussions was predominantly used as a racial term rather than one referring to a place of origin. These discussions were relevant to Rohingya since by this time they were recorded as an ‘Indo-Burman race.’ It was agreed in London that ‘Burmese national’ would mean any person born in Burma and living in Burma for at least eight out of ten years.59 Two letters from Raschid to Aung San immediately after his return from London urged him to reconsider this definition, noting that under this definition he and two other close colleagues of Aung San’s in the Burma independence movement would not pass as nationals. He himself was born in India during his mother’s temporary visit to the country, despite Burma being his home since birth. He suggested using born or domiciled instead of born and domiciled.60 In a press statement on return, Aung San noted that the definition of ‘Burmese National’ vis-à-vis Burmese-Indians needed to be considered more fully.61