On the surface, Monday’s agreement between Bangladesh and Myanmar on the repatriation of Rohingyas is reassuring enough for the half million who have been dispossessed in what the UN has called “the world’s fastest developing refugee emergency”.

closer reflection, however, it is no more than a statement of intent and without a time-frame, let alone the fundamental entitlements of the “nowhere people”. Not to put too fine a point on it, the world body has informed the world that Buddhist-majority Myanmar is engaged in “ethnic cleansing against its Rohingya Muslim minority”.

Fundamentally, therefore, it has turned out to be a war of religions. This must be more than a little distressing not least because nonviolence is the hallmark of the country’s dominant religion. The Bangladesh foreign minister, Abul Hassan Mahmood Ali, and a key Myanmarese official, Kyaw Tint Swe, have agreed to set up the “working group” to draw up plans for repatriation. Markedly, Myanmar was not represented by its foreign minister at the high table in Dhaka.

Hundreds of thousands of Rohingyas have sought refuge in neighbouring Bangladesh over the years in the face of persecution, direly systematic.

Not that repatriation plans have not been tried before; such programmes have floundered on the rock of citizenship, indeed the status of the Rohingyas ~ a core issue that remains unsettled from the late 1970s to the present day. As they get buffeted from shore to shore, the Rohingyas are denied citizenship and classified as “illegal migrants” despite their roots in Myanmar’s Arakan province dating back centuries. In the absence of citizenship documents, it is doubtful if the latest agreement on repatriation between Dhaka and Naypidaw will attain fruition.

Ergo, execution of the pact boils down to according the marginalised their due… after having suffered bouts of communal violence over the years. The deal struck by the two neighbours is critical, but less easily settled is the manner of execution. As the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Filippo Grandi, told a recent meeting in Geneva, the problems of statelessness must first be tackled. Thus did he emit a signal to both Myanmar and Bangladesh ~ “Nowhere is the link between statelessness and displacement more evident than with the Rohingya community.” B

eyond the signal of intent, the Dhaka pact has somehow skirted the problem that is central to the humanitarian crisis. More accurately, the thorny issue of citizenship does not only concern Bangladesh and Myanmar. At stake are the certitudes of international law, with a profound bearing on the subcontinent.

The generally reticent Suu Kyi’s pledge to repatriate Rohingyas who can furnish citizenship documents may be valid in terms of international theory, but holds no water in practical application. The hapless Rohingya can flaunt no such document. He ought not to be stateless any longer. Citizenship is the pre-condition for repatriation. Sadly, this was overlooked at the Dhaka talks last weekend.