 Now, the Citizenship Amendment Act is a dangerous legislation which runs contrary, as we have heard, to the basic principles of the Constitution and its secular ideals. It seeks to redefine citizenship by introducing, for the first time, a religious criterion for the determination of citizenship. This is at odds with the constitutional framework that confers equal rights on all citizens, regardless of caste, creed, tribe, or gender. The openness puzzle of a religious test for citizenship has divided the country as nothing else has done in decades. However, the government is going ahead with the CAA, despite opposition and parliament, despite large sections of public opinion and people across the country opposing it. And as has just been said, we are witness to the biggest civil disobedience, opposition, or protest in defense of the Constitution and against this act. Now, the citizenship law was amended to fast track citizenship to non-Muslim refugees from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan on grounds of religious persecution in their respective countries. The key issue, as Gautam Bhatti, I think, just pointed out, is why does the list of minorities include only those from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan? Apart from the dubious assumption that Muslims are not persecuted in Islamic countries when they clearly are, Ahmadiyya, Shias, and individual critics are examples of this, this arbitrary listing of countries of origin is striking in what it leaves out. Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar, and China find no mention. Sri Lanka and Myanmar are particularly stark omissions because of the many Tamil refugees who have come to India in the recent past and the exodus of Rohingyas after their massacre in the Rakhine province in Myanmar. There can be only one reason why a government would exclude persecuted Hindu, such as Tamins of Sri Lanka from the list, because their oppressors are not officially Muslim or official representatives of Islam. Clearly, the idea is not simply to help persecuted minorities, but also to demonize and isolate one group. Consequently, only this group is singled out for hostile treatment. This is what is significant is that this legislation recognizes Muslims exclusively as a group of perpetrators or oppressors, but does not recognize them as victims. That's the logic of singling out three Muslim majorities or countries or Islamic countries. The point of this exercise is not inclusion, but exclusion. I think that's the critical point. Now, the main provisions of this act fail to make a meaningful categorization. Equal protection of the law, envisaged in Article 14, is that the basis for classifying a group for a particular kind of treatment should bear a rational nexus with the overall objective. Now, if protecting persecuted minorities in the neighborhood is the overall objective, then the classification and exclusion of some countries and communities using religion is patently unjust and might well fail the test of constitutionality. Secondly, it's hard to establish that refugees coming to India are fleeing religious persecution. In fact, there's just an article today in the Indian Express which clearly points out that most of them are really economic migrants or economic refugees. None of them have claimed at the time that they entered India illegally that they were being persecuted, nor have they made any such claim to any authority in India since then. In fact, there was some interviews quite recently on NDTV this last week of people who have been recently granted citizenship and they're living in Rajasthan, and none of them mentioned religious persecution. And in fact, two of them clearly said that we are here because our relatives are here, our family is here, and that's why we want to live in India. So as I said, none of them have made any such claim to any authority since then. How the BJP government in 2019 has come to the conclusion that all non-Muslims were persecuted when they illegally entered India, whereas no Muslim is ever persecuted in this country is unclear. Thirdly, under the NRC, which is of course related, notwithstanding protestations to the contrary by the prime minister and the government, millions of Indians, I mean, it seems to be very much on the anvil. So under the NRC, millions of Indians would have to prove their Indian nefs. But the onus is on individuals to prove that they are not outsiders or infiltrators or as our home minister likes to call them guspatias. But with the new citizenship law, everybody gets a free pass except Muslims. Any government now, once NRC is in place, any government will be able to legally single out Muslims for investigation because after the CAA, the only category of immigrants likely to be declared illegal will be Muslims. Fourthly, and I think this is a significant point, which is that the principle of religious discrimination once introduced will not be limited. It will extend to other spheres. We have seen this in the blatant discrimination and brutal violence unleashed by the Uttar Pradesh government in response to the anti-CAA protests. And I see this, I see the response of the UPA government as part of that whole system of discrimination which is being put in place. On December 19th, soon after the protests broke out across the UPA against the CAA, Chief Minister Adityanath Bish promised or threatened that his government would take butler against protesters and auction of their properties. And he's been true to his word. Last week, people across the state were served notices demanding monetary damages for alleged acts of vandalism of public property. Finally, now the CAA will create and deepen communal divisions and social polarization. It is imperative that this agenda is countered. This can be done in three ways. Sustained country-wide protests involving a cross-section of the opposition and civil society over the new citizenship law is essential to foil these divisive moves. At this time, it's important to emphasize that this is not a fight for Muslims. This is not a fight for Muslim rights. It's a fight for democracy and secularism. Second, while citizenship is a central subject and state governments, as we've been repeatedly told, have little room for maneuver. And yet, when Chief Ministers oppose a central law or stop NPR and NRC, they're making an important political and symbolic point which the center in a federal democracy would normally be hard put to ignore. At least seven states, including NDA rule Bihar, have announced that they will not implement the CAA. In the wake of recent protests, West Bengal and Kerala governments have announced suspension of NPR work. I think all non-BJP governments should do the same. They need to do the same. The resolution, I believe the resolution passed by the Kerala Legislative Assembly just a couple of days ago against the CAA is an extremely important move in this regard. It is a reflection of the discomfort, the significant sections of the population and states have about the BJP's ideological project. And this is an ideological project. It's much more, it's not just about citizenship, but it is about, as was said, it's about changing the very idea of India. So, and states have about the BJP's ideological project to redefine India as a Hindu nation through the CAA. Finally, public protests and opposition from state governments can have some impact, or so we hope, on the Supreme Court. In this event, the court's rejection of the CAA would hinder the NRC and NPR.