Summary

Since the late 1960s when Burma's military junta began expelling them from Arakan, many Burmese-Rohingya have been quietly seeking refuge in Pakistan, the imagined Islamic homeland. Bangladeshi immigrants, on the other hand, began arriving in Pakistan in the late 1970s or well after the creation of Bangladesh, and came primarily in search of employment. Both ethnic groups share common cultural characteristics and reside mainly in Karachi where taken together they figure approximately 2.5 million migrants. Recent shifts in Pakistani citizenship norms have had important implications for these undocumented populations. This chapter investigates how the coalescing of national security concerns with broader issues of immigration has brought migrants such as the Burmese-Rohingya and Bangladeshis into the state's documented embrace. I explore the implications of such change on these Muslim migrants resident in Pakistan for several decades, and through their narratives illustrate the migrants’ ambivalence about belonging and aspirations to return.

Introduction

This chapter explores ideas and meanings of temporariness, belonging, and more specifically of return as imagined and articulated through the narratives of Burmese-Rohingya and Bangladeshi migrants in Karachi, Pakistan. By focusing on pioneer and second-generation migrants, I investigate their decisions to return or not to return to places of origin and the attendant meanings attached to the notion of home (Cassarino 2008; Braakman & Schlenkhoff 2007; Turton 2005; Gosh 2000; Castles & Miller 1998; Rapport & Dawson 1998). The relevance of the myth of return to refugees and migrants assumes that attachment to their homeland and desire to return are axiomatic. I propose that for the migrant populations considered in this chapter, the longing for home is deeply problematized not only because citizenship has played out differently for these populations, but also due to the current political-economic conjuncture that classifies them as ‘illegals’ and problematizes the idea of belonging in the coveted Islamic homeland. Here I am specifically interested in asking what kinds of technologies of citizenship have been assembled in recent years to make ‘citizens’ and to exclude ‘outsiders.’ As state functionaries exclude these migrant populations from hegemonic notions of nationality because of their alleged connections with or potential for terrorism, they simultaneously expect the migrants to demonstrate their trustworthiness by providing written evidence that authenticates citizenship. This new form of technology – identity documentation – endeavours to create a type of identity that is manageable.