176 E. L. RHOADS AND R. DAS issued after 1948 and before the 1982 Act came into effect, but these were not widely issued, particularly as they were not required for citizens by birth. Lastly, records of residence and records of entry into Myanmar can be used to prove residence in Myanmar prior to 1948. But in practice, obtaining these documents is extremely difficult for many reasons, primarily the heavy bombing of Rangoon during the Second World War that destroyed many private and government records. For some, such an impossible task led them to abandon their citizenship applications altogether. Conclusion The “institutionalization of suspicion”170 and the precarious citizenship conditions such suspicion causes171 have become increasingly recurrent themes in scholarship on citizenship in the subcontinent. A growing body of scholarship explores the everyday vulnerabilities emanating from this suspicion, which Lucy Dubochet describes as the “citizenship of extraordinary political obligation and minimal entitlement.”172 This scholarship resonates with the administrative-bureaucratic violence and rightsbased citizenship dilemmas we have discussed in this paper but focuses on everyday precarity. The specter of the potential foreigner goes beyond the temporal immediateness inherent in such characterizations to provide a much deeper portrayal of the suspicion embedded in the overlapping contours of legal, social, and political history that can be traced back to partition and the colonial era. Despite differences in the evolution of citizenship policies in post-colonial Myanmar and India, in both states citizenship policies are predicated upon a notion of foreignness that can be religious, ethnic, racial, or administrative. This suspicion is a legacy of the subcontinent’s two partitions and has become a part of the socio-political fabric of both countries. Analyzing the legislative evolution of the notion of protecting the nation from potential foreigners in India and Myanmar reveals a critical analytical fulcrum around which postcolonial citizenship has formed. The concept of nationhood presupposes a negative, or even antagonistic, "other."173 The power relations arising from citizenship claims and suspicions about non-citizen "others" constitute an arena over which different interpretations from various positionalities have historically struggled to gain hegemony. And yet, as the current state of affairs in Myanmar and India indicate, a restrictive interpretation of this construct threatens to gain legitimacy over all other expressions of citizenship and national identity, one that has the specter of potential foreigners at its core. Acknowledgments The authors thank Michael Edwards and the Center for South Asian Studies at the University of Cambridge for organizing the “Axes of Difference in the Study of Burma/Myanmar” workshop in 170 Dubochet 2023, 110; see also Pathan and Jha 2022. Lori 2017; Punathil 2022. 172 Dubochet 2023, 107. 173 Winichakul 1994. 171