296 L. Kingston, A. Seibert Hanson Despite the recognized linguistic status of Rohingya as a language (Eberhard et al. 2021), the Burmese government has historically promoted a Burmese and English language-oriented education policy that makes Burmese the core language of instruction while ignoring minority languages.4 Ethnic minority languages were banned in state schools in the 1960s5 and history was taught through the Bamar majority’s ethnic and language lens, attempting to assimilate ethnic minorities and emphasizing nationalism. UNESCO characterizes Myanmar schools as “a vehicle for social division” based on the imposition of Burmese as the dominant and “unifying” language, among other things (UNESCO 2011, pp. 131), while the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar reports that Rohingya students are separated from other students, ignored by teachers, and unable to properly communicate with educators (Human Rights Council 2018, pp. 133). “The right to mother tongue language education has been one of the key demands of ethnic stakeholders in Myanmar’s prolonged…conflicts,” write Ashley South and Marie Lall (2016), who study ethnic minorities in Myanmar broadly. “At a minimum, ethnic nationalists have demanded the teaching of minority languages in schools, including state schools; a stronger version of this position is to demand teaching of the curriculum in the mother tongue, at least through primary schooling” (pp. 132). Despite government policies, many ethnic committees have supported private ethnic language literacy programs in Myanmar—but Rohingya is not among them. In 2016, the Myanmar government passed legislation creating space for mother tongue education in ethnic nationality-populated areas, after which some state and regional governments began to introduce minority languages into the government schools at the lower levels. Limited resources were provided but, unsurprisingly, Rohingya is not among the minority languages being reintroduced. In fact, a recent progress report on the new language education policy does not even mention the Rohingya language (Lo Bianco 2016). In its attempt to foster a “unified” ethnic and national identity centered on the concept of taingyintha, the Burmese state has reinforced deep divisions and facilitated pervasive human rights abuses. Tun Khin, a Rohingya activist affiliated with the Burmese Rohingya Organisation UK, notes that centuries of Rohingya culture have been destroyed through government policies and genocidal violence—including attempts to erase the Rohingya language. Fellow activist Nay San Lwin of the Free Rohingya Coalition further argues that linguistic differences are used to segregate Rohingya and deny their membership in the broader Burmese community—of which they ought to be recognized as a national race and, therefore, legal nationals. “The denial of Rohingya history and culture created the structure that allowed this to happen,” says Amal de Chickera, co-director of the Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion.6 Furthermore, Ken MacLean (2019) argues 4 While Burmese is “the sole language of government administration, mass media, and the sole legal medium of instruction in government schools,” Patrick McCormick (2019) notes that Burmese is often secondary to English in practice, especially in written form (pp. 247). 5 McCormick (2019) argues that it is “not clear whether using other languages was officially made illegal, or whether the practice was simply discouraged.” Regardless, these measures created resentment and anger among ethnic groups and disadvantaged minority language speakers within the educational system. Burmese also became the sole medium of instruction in Burmese universities (pp. 248). 6 These comments were made during a Q&A session following a panel presentation at the World Conference on Statelessness and Inclusion, The Hague, The Netherlands, 27 June 2019. The event was hosted by the Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion. 13