Sultan Irfanovic
Citizenship is an important factor for human beings. Many people in the modern world (such as the Rohingyas) remain stateless since they are not considered to be citizens of Myanmar. What sort of future lies for them? Will they be able to get the benefits and privileges of the country where they were born? These questions keep circling their heads all the time as they face persecution from government forces.
While writing this, I remember Tom Hanks’ famous film ‘The Terminal’. In the film, Tom Hanks plays as Viktor Navorski who is a citizen of an imaginary nation named Krakozhia. He travels to the United State to fulfil his late fathers’ wish to meet the famous saxophonist, Benny Golson. While on his way to the United States, Krakozhia faces a coup d’état while he was in the air and the US government does not recognize the new Krakozhian government. Thus, he becomes stateless since his passport is not recognized by the government. Now, he lives in the airport at a lounge which is under renovation and improves himself by learning English and skills which land him a contractual engineering job. After nine months of staying in the airport, Viktor finally steps on US soil and gets his fathers’ wish come true.
The entire movie is based on the true story of Mehran Karimi Nasseri, an Iranian refugee, who lived in Terminal 1 of Charles De Gaulle Airport in Paris from 1988 to 2006. Though Nasseri received some amounts of money from the producers of the film, nowhere in the film is it mentioned that it was based on a true story.
In the modern world, there are heaps of people who are stateless. Though The Terminal shows one side of these sorts of people, many are not fortunate enough to even set foot on a plane. These people seem to live like primal beings because they have to survive no matter what.
If we look at the situation of the Rohingyas, the government of Myanmar does not recognize them to be citizens of Myanmar. The government said that Rohingyas “are Bengali in origin and they are, under no circumstances, not connected to Myanmar”. But how much history do these people know? Have they forgotten about the times when tribes mixed with one another to form new generations? Have they forgotten when empires brought in prisoners of war from other empires just to make them citizens of that invasive empire?
The 2017 speech of the de facto leader of Myanmar, Aung Sang Suu Kyi, brought up her support by the majority Buddhist population. Even though she spoke in English, it seemed that many people were pro her ideologies. One member who protested for Suu Kyi said that “she can solve this problem” and that they “strongly believe in her”. Many changed the profile pictures on their social media accounts to pictures of Suu Kyi to show their support.
There were others who claimed that the media is claiming false information and are ignoring the fact that people of the same state but of different religion were expelled from the area as well. The Rakhine Buddhists were expelled from the Rakhine state just because they did not look like Burmese. So, should this be considered as making people stateless or is it another form of ethnic cleansing?
The Bajau people (also known as Sama Bajau) are sea nomadic people living in Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia who, according to the BBC, did not ever set foot on land. They are facing the harsh reality of being stateless. They are considered a marginalized community and have been affected by policies, such as the National Integrated Protected Areas System Act, which restricts their movement into protected areas. Discrimination, including a lack of birth certificates and fear of arrest, further contributes to their vulnerability. UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, recognizes the plight of the Sama Bajau and is working with governments and other partners to address the issues of statelessness and discrimination.
So, what can be said about these people? Do they have a future? Or do they have to live nomadic lives wandering for hope? The answer lies within the political situation and the mindset of the government. Governments of countries where statelessness poses as a risk should take into consideration to grant them some sort of identity. The Kurds and Uyghurs are able to obtain identification documents despite having a lack of access to facilities. The Bajau and the Rohingyas should be looked with the same priority so that they can have a future.
For now, many countries are accepting these stateless people with open arms (e.g. Bangladesh accepting Rohingyas). But they pose risks to the community by doing heinous acts which make these wanderers move somewhere else. There is no place to call home for these people. On the other hand, every place on Earth is a temporary home for them. NGOs are looking to work with the governments for these people but how long will they be able to provide for them as these NGOs have other matters to deal with. It is best for the governments to come with a solution before things get out of hand. At least, an identification document of some sort would settle some matters quickly.
The writer is a freelancer