 Thank you. Over to you, sir. Thank you, Ashnur. Thank you so much. Good evening, friends, ladies and gentlemen. It is pleasure as always to be part of the Indian law conclave. And the topic as Ashnur mentioned is quite interesting. And I feel, you know, stimulating as well. Last year, we all witnessed. Massive arguments, disagreements, discord, protests and demonstrations. In relation to the newly enacted Citizenship Amendment Act 2019. I noticed that most of the people who were opposing CAA did not have much of an idea as to what this law was comprised of. Sorry to say that. And they merely got carried away, I would say in a way, with the chorus. But, you know, I do respect their viewpoint as well. But I oppose their arguments, claims, contentions, beliefs. As I find nothing wrong with the CAA, whether from legal or constitutional perspective or even moral principles. According to me, it is a positive law and not restrictive or prohibitive in any manner. Nor is it, you know, prejudicial or discriminatory. It is on the contrary an enabling law. You know, enabling law for those who are oppressed in a way. Let us first understand the relevant provisions of the CAA. Don't read CAA in isolation. Read it, you know, in conjunction with the passport entry into India Amendment Rules 2015-2016. And the Foreigner's Amendment Order 2015-2016. Under the Foreigner's Act 1946. And the passport entry into India Act 1920 and rules and orders made there under. So it's a whole package of laws. The Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 and the notifications which were brought about in 2015 and 2016 into these statutes and rules which I just mentioned. Have provided Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and Parsis and Christians as well from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan. Who are compelled to seek shelter in India due to religious persecution or fear of religious persecution and who entered into India on or before 31st December 2014. You know, without any travel documents including passport or the, you know, validity of any such documents having been expired. Not to be treated as illegal immigrants. Not to be treated as illegal migrants, beg your pardon. And to be eligible to apply for the Indian citizenship by virtue of registration or naturalization under the Indian Citizenship Act as the case may be. And on grant of citizenship such persons to be deemed to be citizens of India. From the date of their entry into India. And the law also enables that the legal proceedings if any against them in respect of the, you know, illegal migration or citizenship would stand closed. Now, ordinarily the Citizenship Act lets a person apply for citizenship by naturalization. If the person meets prescribed qualifications including, you know, that the person sort of must have resided in India for the last 12 months, as many of you would know, you know, and for at least 11 years, you know, out of the preceding 12 years. Now for Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan. The CAA reduces, mind it, the CAA reduces 11 years requirement to five years. Yes. Now, that's the core of the CAA in question. The critics have attacked the CAA mainly on the ground that it is unconstitutional for it is discriminatory and violative of the Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. Which extends not only to the Indian citizen, but it also extends to the foreigners residing in India. Article 14 of the Constitution of India provides that, you know, the state shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. Now, admittedly, many of you would know that the settled position of law in so far as Article 14 is concerned is that it only permits laws to differentiate between groups of people if the justification or reasoning for doing so caters to a reasonable purpose. That has been laid down in various judicial presidents. Now it is alleged by many experts that the CAA violates the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution as it provides differential treatment to illegal migrants on the basis of what? On the basis of faith, that is religion and on the basis of their origin, that is the nation they belong to and so on. But the two being faith, religion and origin. Now, so everything boils down to the test of reasonability, which means unassailable logic, unimpeachable rationale and immaculate reasoning. In fact, the most significant ingredient of public policy making, which includes, you know, any form of legislation is the legitimacy of the need to introduce a particular public policy or let us say legislation. Laws are not introduced and passed in democracy illogically. We all know that. At least that is the implied assumption, you know, unless proved otherwise in a constitutional court, you know, the law is passed with some logic and reasonability. However, here I am taking an honest, an honest of proving that it is reasonable CAA and is constitutionally valid. That's the honest I'm taking on myself, even in the absence of there being any worthy argument. I feel there is there is no worthy argument against CAA except the chorus, because I feel that the most of the arguments against CAA are sweeping. You know, I mean, you would say you would see in even in TV studios, it's sweeping presumptuous and based on the alleged future design of the establishment that the establishment would actually eliminate a particular segment or community of people. As a public policy propagator, you know, I need to prove, primarily, I would say three aspects of legislation to prove that CAA does qualify as a reasonable law being in conformity with the constitutional mandate, including article 14 in specific. First, I need to prove the existence of a legitimate mandate with the legislative body that is the parliament to enact this law. Second, I need to prove the genuineness of its objectivity. And thirdly, I will need to prove CAA qualifies and meets the test laid down in the judicial precedents from the past and in the present in respect thereof. Now, let us start with the legitimate mandate ground, whether the parliament actually had the mandate or not to pass this law. Well, the right of citizenship in India has had commenced only on India's independence. Remember that the British rule provided for no such right. Pre-independence era had, you know, the British Citizenship and Alien Rights Act of 1914, I think, which got repealed in 1948 or something. It is a matter of fact that Indians did not have any law on citizenship when they got independent, when the India attained independence. There was no law of citizenship. The constitution of India, as embraced and passed by the constituent assembly, included articles 5 to 9, which laid down as to who were to be the citizens of India, who were the Indian citizens at the commencement of the constitution. Now, Clive Maxing my argument on the first ground. Now, article 10 of the constitution provides that the Indian citizens shall continue to be so, subject to the provision of any law that may be made by the parliament. So, they will continue to be so, whoever is in India. So, clear mandate was granted to the parliament in relation to the, you know, to the continuance of the right of citizenship of people who were living in India. Now, not only article 10, the very next article, if one was to read article 11, expands the power of parliament to regulate the right of citizenship. Article 11 of the Indian constitution, I mean, if you read unambiguously, unambiguously enables the parliament to legislate on the matters of acquisition and termination of citizenship of India. Yes, article 11. So, there is a specific provision of category mandate in favor of the Indian parliament to legislate comprehensively on the domain of citizenship. And that's what parliament did in 2019. Now, here I would also like to extend the collaborative evidence from the debates, you know, which took place with regard to article five and six in the constituent assembly, you know, because I'm going through those debates these days because of the book which I'm writing. Now, Dr. B. R. M. Batkar, chairman of the committee, drafting committee of the constitution of India, had voiced difficulty in drafting article five. If you read the constituent assembly, I mean, you will, you will gather that he faced some difficulty in drafting article five. He had said that it is not the object of this particular article to lay down a permanent law with regard to the con with regard to the citizenship of the country. The business of laying down permanent law of citizenship has been left to the parliament, he said. And as members will see from the wordings, he said the entire matter regarding citizenship has been left to the parliament to determine by any law it may deem fit. So that kind of liberty was given by the drafting committee to the members of the parliament. Now, Dr. Ambedkar, you know, did not stop there only, you know, he further said that the parliament may make all together. He said parliament may make a new law all together embodying new principles with regard to citizenship. He also emphasized that the provisions made by the constituent assembly, you know, for citizenship on the date of commencement of the Constitution were not meant to be permanent or unalterable, you know, and, you know, they were ad hoc for the time being. So that means that citizenship law had to evolve in future. Dr. Ambedkar spoke in absolutely unequivocal terms that when he said that, you know, it was not possible to cover every matter dealing with the conferring of citizenship on the date of the commencement of the Constitution. That was absolutely impossible, you know, practically. And even, I would say theoretically, if there is any category of people who are left out, that is what he said. If any category of people that is left out, we have given power to the parliament to make provisions for them subsequently. So even the framers of constitution had anticipated amendments in that law. But not only Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, I would say even, you know, the prime minister then Jawaharlal Nehru in his speech in 1947, you know, at Parliament House, he had mentioned that we think also of our brothers and sisters who have been cut off from us by these political boundaries because, you know, the partition happened and people were left in Pakistan. And unhappily, you know, they cannot share the present freedom that has come to us. They are of us, he said, and will always remain of us, whatever may happen. And we shall be sharers, he said, of their good and ill fortune alike. So people who are left on the other side of the border during partition were in the minds of our political leaders even then. I mean, they were considered as brethren who were beyond borders. Yes. So I mean, we have to historically examine this amendment Act of 2019. So consequently, you know, the Parliament brought in the Citizenship Act 1955, which provided for the acquisition of citizenship after the commencement of the Constitution, as I just mentioned. Now by the citizenship could be attained by birth, by descent, by naturalization, by registration. And, you know, there is a provision of termination as well in the Citizenship Act 1955. And 1955 Act has undergone many amendments since 1955. In 1957, in 1960, twice in 1985, in 86, in 1992, 2004, 2005, 2015, 2016, and now the legislation 2015 and then 2019. So, you know, the amendment has been happening with regard to the Citizenship Act for many, many years now. So why this noise about 2019 amendment? Hence, I move to ground two now, you know, which is to prove the genuineness of the objective behind the CAA 2019. You know, the partition, this is very important. You know, the partition of the Greater India in 1947 was the split of British India into two independent Dominion states, as we all know, the Union of India and the Dominion of Pakistan. The Union of India became the Republic of India and the Dominion of Pakistan became what? It became the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. And there was also People's Republic of Bangladesh. Now, it is a matter of undisputed fact that the partition was not based on any geographical or territorial claims. I mean, everybody knows that. There was no geographical or territorial claims involved in the partition. The division of two provinces, Bengal and Punjab was based on district-wise non-Muslim or Muslim majorities. The partition was on religious grounds. Let's accept it. Now, the partition perished about half a million people. It was sad and displaced about 12 million people along religious lines. Triggering devastating refugee crisis. There was large-scale violence and many Muslims from what would become India, who were part of India, went to Pakistan and Hindus and Sikhs who were in Pakistan, they fled to India. Many people were left behind, all their possessions and property to avoid the violence. And they fled to the new country. The vicious disposition of the partition generated an atmosphere of antagonism, animosity and suspicion between the nations, very sadly. And that afflicted the relationship even today, which is a sad state of affairs. Though the country was divided primarily based on religion, as I mentioned, after partition, India became a secular state. While at the same time, the other nations chose to become Islamic nation. The other nation chose to become Islamic nation. It's a matter of fact. It is believed that this led to an organized way of religious persecution of minorities in the neighboring country. There is some evidence as well with the government of India, which continues till date, whereby the minorities are forced to suffer socially and politically and ultimately dispatched to their native places. The influx of large people has visibly impacted India's demographic pattern as well. There is massive influx happening of people into India from the neighboring countries. Here, I will also like to cite the historical fact of the agreement between the government of India and the Pakistan government regarding security and rights of minorities. That agreement, you may all read, it's known as Nehru Liaqat Agreement, which was signed in April 1950, and forgetting the exact date, but it was in April 1950. The government of India and Pakistan had agreed then to ensure that minorities throughout its territories will have equality in terms of citizenship. There will not be discriminated, there will be full sense of security, their culture would be protected, their property and personal honor would be safeguarded, and there will be free movement into each other's country. And there will be freedom of occupation, speech, worship, with regard to issues connected with law and morality. So both countries made commitments to each other with regard to the minorities living there. Now, members of the minorities shall have equal opportunity with members of the majority community to participate in the public life that was agreed with regard to the respective countries. And they will hold political or other offices and they will also serve in the country's civil and armed forces. Both governments declared that these rights were absolutely integral, they were fundamental, and both countries would enforce them effectively. But non-Muslim immigrants continue to enter into India, that's another story which statistics show. The Citizenship Act 1955 regulates who may acquire Indian citizenship and on what grounds. A person may become an Indian citizen if they are born in India or have Indian parentage or have resided in the country for a particular period of time as is stipulated. But illegal migrants are forbidden from acquiring Indian citizenship. Yes, illegal migrants are forbidden from acquiring Indian citizenship because they enter into the country without valid travel documents like passport and visa etc. Or any other travel document. But they also sometimes come with valid documents but stay beyond the permitted visa duration. This illegal immigration is taken action, coercive action under relevant laws by deportation etc. But as mentioned that in 2015-2016 the government brought about notifications where they legitimized the stay in India of illegal migrants belonging to these six religions from these three countries. And also making them eligible to apply for Indian citizenship. So those coercive actions were prevented by way of those notifications which were introduced in 2015-2016 followed by law in 2019. But why is Afghanistan included in the amendment when it was not part of the partition? You must be wondering that. Well, it is a matter of fact that there have been multiple attacks against Indian interests in Afghanistan. We all know our assets have been hit in Afghanistan. The minority communities in Pakistan had actually migrated to Afghanistan from Pakistan during the pre-independence India. Now they are facing continuous atrocities due to their Indian origin. So who will protect them? A number of persons belonging to minority communities in Afghanistan have also come to India on account of religious persecution or fear of religious persecution. Who will come to their rescue? You tell me. No other country is willing to embrace them. But then why other neighboring countries like Sri Lanka, Myanmar etc. are left out? That's another question people ask me. Well, it is an important note to note that the government of India has issued a standard operating procedure in 2011. Please look at that SOP of 2011 for dealing with foreign nationals in India who claim to be refugees. These guidelines are applicable to refugees from various countries including Sri Lanka and Myanmar etc. So there is a provision even for their aid. It's not that those countries have been left out. There is a separate set of SOP to deal with refugees coming from Sri Lanka and Myanmar. Now notifications of 2015 and 2016 from where 2019 was derived act were intermittent reprieve for the illegal immigrants that they are not prosecuted, punished or imprisoned or deported. While the CAA is a process of grant of citizenship based on the prescribed procedure and eligibility criterion. It's not run of the mill kind of grant of citizenship. It is not automatic. There will be an organized mechanism available with the government to verify the claims and authenticity of the applicants as to religious persecution in their respective countries. Nobody can come and say, oh I was persecuted so give me citizenship. There has to be an evidence which has to be led and government has to be satisfied. Now as per the SOP under preparation with the Ministry of Home Affairs may have been ready by now. The applicant who applies for citizenship under religious persecution, he has to give an affidavit where he has to prove that he faced religious persecution. There was a fear of religious persecution in any of these three countries and a detailed inquiry would then be conducted by the FRRO, that is the Foreign Regional Registration Officer or the Foreign Registration Office concerned. The facts are then verified on the basis of the application and affidavit and supporting documents and then a decision is taken and that decision is not final. Suppose if the decision is against then the person concerned will have a right to go to the Foreigner Tribunal which has been set up under the Foreigner Tribunal Act 1964. The CA does not add or amplify any provision against Muslims or for that matter against any religion or any religious group. It does not, just read that act. It merely facilitates settlement for a set of minority communities. Now it is amply clear from the discussion that there exists genuineness of the highest order in the objective behind the passage of CA. Yes, which is humanitarian and it finds its origin from the partition days as I explained to you in my preceding lecture, part, segment and section. So there is a history behind it. Finally, the third and last ground of judicial precedents, whether the CA meets the test of judicial precedents or not is supposed to be constitutionally valid and meeting the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution. Well, I would say that the CA quite easily fits into the test of reasonable qualification as settled by seven judge bench in the state of West Bengal versus Anwar Ali Sarkar. It is a 1952 judgment. You will be able to pull out this judgment. There is utmost clarity and reasonability in the classification adopted in the CA as to the drawn distinction. If you will read that judgment, you will be able to make a very logical analysis as to the CA 2019 meeting all the requirements of reasonability. Article 14 enshrines no special provision to be made in favor of anyone and that all are equally subject to the ordinary law of the land. The positive conception of equality does not assume or suggest equal treatment minded of all persons. It does not. You know, there has to be distinction many times, but there has to be equality of treatment in dissimilar conditions where they exist. And classification for purposes of legislation also has to be has been taken care of. And one may also refer to another judgment in Ram Krishnan and Dalmia versus Justice S.R. Tendulkar wherein the exact connotation and extent of Article 14 was echoed or echoed as many people say. The court has held that the Article 14 forbids class legislation and it does not, but it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. In order, however, to pass the test of permissible classification, two conditions must be fulfilled. The court said namely that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differential. Yes, which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group. You know, that's point one and point two, that the differential must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. So these two tests are fairly met by CA 2019. Now it was also observed by Supreme Court that, you know, a law may be constitutional even though it relates to single individual if on account of some special circumstances or reasons applicable to him and not applicable to others. That single individual may be treated as a class by himself. Supreme Court has said that. Now they have said that there is always a presumption in favor of the constitutionality of the enactment. You can't doubt the enactment. There has to be a presumption of it being constitutional and the burden to prove, you know, that it is unconstitutional would lie on the person who attacks it. You know, he has to prove that there is a clear transgression of the constitutional principles. So the owners lies on the attacker. Now, there are several judgments where, you know, courts have laid down several principles in support of, you know, reasonable classification. And one such principle I remember may not be the judgment, you know, where Supreme Court said that the legislature is free to recognize, you know, degrees of harm and may confine its restrictions to those cases where the need is deemed to be the clearest. So, you know, eventually, courts cannot step into the role of legislature. Legislature has to take a final call as to the, you know, objective of the legislation. That is, you know, that in order to, you know, basically, you know, sustain the presumption of constitutionality. The Supreme Court has said that they may take into consideration, you know, matters of common knowledge, matters of common report, the history of times and may assume that, you know, every state of facts, which can be conceived existing at the time of legislation. So, I mean, any law cannot be examined as to its legitimacy in isolation just based on its text. It has to examine from the basis of its background as well. I can cite so many judgments of the Supreme Court. You know, I mean, I can go on and on where the, you know, courts have held that once it is found that there is sufficient material for taking a particular policy decision bringing it, you know, within the four corners of Article 14 of the Constitution. The power of judicial review would not extend to determine the correctness of such a policy decision or to indulge, you know, into the exercise of finding out whether there could be more appropriate or better alternative. I mean, the court cannot sit over judgment over a law in terms of, oh, no, you have to, you have omitted that word so you insert that word as well, you know, you have omitted that community insert that they cannot. I mean, they can only ask for reconsideration of or reassessment or reanalyzing or further scrutiny of a particular law. The legislature is therefore competent to exercise its discretion and make a reasonable classification. Differential treatment does not per se constitute violation of Article 14. Now, additionally, you know, the CA has absolutely, you know, nothing to do with any Indian citizen in any way. You know, the Indian citizens are not affected by CA at all, you know, not withstanding their faith, you know, I mean, they enjoy all fundamental rights conferred on them by the Constitution of India. No, no statute, including CA can curtail or deny, mind it, no statute, including CA or whatever can deny or curtail the legal process of acquiring Indian citizenship by any foreigner of any category through naturalization. You know, which is Section 6 of the Citizenship Act, just read that, or through registration, which is Section 5 of the Citizenship Act 1955, they continue to be operational. This law is purely to deal with some people who have been affected by religious persecution or fear of religious persecution in these three countries. The CA does not amend or alter it in any manner whatsoever the Citizenship Act. Foreigners right of getting citizenship. You know, as I said, it is basically dealing with only those communities who are minorities in the three nations. In 2014, you know, after the settlement of Indo-Bangladesh boundary issues, 14,864 Bangladeshi citizens were given Indian citizenship. Can you imagine that when their enclaves were, you know, incorporated into the territory of India? And thousand of these foreigners, you know, out of these almost 15,000 foreigners, thousands of them were Muslims. The CA is a compassionate piece of legislation which seeks to provide, you know, a manner of relaxation, I would say, in the nature of MNST. You know, to specific communities from the specified countries with a clear cutoff date due to persecution on the ground of religion in light of the undisputable, in light of the undisputable theoretical constitutional, theocratic constitutional position in those specific countries. So, you know, you cannot, you know, by virtue of being part of a chorus start attacking CA 2019 without understanding the whole history, objective and purpose behind CA 2019. I'll take just couple of more minutes. The CA does not, you know, impinge upon any existing right, I may reassure, that may have existed prior to the enactment of the amendment, you know, and further in no manner whatsoever, I would say, you know, it does not seek to affect the legal, democratic or secular rights of any Indian citizen. Just read that piece of legislation once again 2019. It does not do that. And, you know, further the existing regime, you know, for obtaining citizenship of India by foreigners, I'm repeating again, of any kind of, you know, foreigners coming from any country is untouched by CA and remains the same. It is submitted that, you know, that the legal, you know, migration, you know, on the basis of valid documents and visa continues to be permissible for all countries in the world. You know, including from these three specified countries, you know, not withstanding whether they belong to minority community or not. And it has been affirmed by the central government, you know, that as per the Citizenship Act 1955, all foreigners, irrespective of their religion, living in these said specified countries, or even other countries I would go a step ahead to say, can legally migrate to India. Yes. And subject to obviously, you know, fulfillment of conditions as laid down in the Indian Citizenship Act 1955. So my assessment in conclusion I would say is that CA 2019 has the controversy with regard to its legitimacy has been blown out beyond proportions. It is very important for some responsible people of the society to carry out a deep orientation with regard to the understanding, the correct understanding of 2019 and spread that orientation extensively amongst the Indian diaspora. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Actually, you are from your session what I understood was that we should not be sheep people, we should not go with the herd and we should have a particular understanding of what is happening and not blindly follow what the certain group of people are protesting. Right. So this was an outstanding and enriching session for everyone I must say. Thank you. Sir, your words brought us so much clarity and solved so many doubts and queries. I'm certain that that our audience is as appeased by the session as I am the upper mission Sir I would like to ask you a few questions. Sure. Yes, sir. So what do you think that communication of this I could have been in a better way that public does not get instigated and create that it does not create a misunderstanding. Fantastic question, you know, and this is something you know which I have been propagating for almost a year now, and not only with regard to CA 2019. I mean with regard to any law for that matter, you know, whether it be even the recent farms bill, you know, I feel that, you know, I'm not going at the back of the legislation. I'm not questioning the right of the legislature, the majority party to pass the law, but I'm definitely propagating as the question itself, you know, has an answer in it that whatever law is passed by the parliament, especially those which affect larger people and where some questions have been raised, government should form a committee or if not committee a group of, you know, some experts, eminent people who could, who should carry out presentations, orientations, explanations, and perhaps lectures to explain the, you know, impact, scope, significance, nature, and the whole intent, you know, of the law, not at those forums which are not accessed by the public at large, perhaps, you know, going around the nation as a whole, or coming through some medium, which has a maximum reach to touch upon the masses, you know, and that's what I'm gathering that, you know, people have massive misunderstanding. There is a huge communication gap between the, the, the, the, the government and, and the people, you know, who this law is going to govern. So, so it is important that the link of communication should be strengthened, furthermore, so as to address these issues of misconceptions, misapprehensions, and, and misunderstanding. Yes, sir. Thank you so much, sir. Sir, what I gather is because in India's population, most of the population of India's population is uneducated. So they are just following what others are saying. So that is creating even more mess and chaos. Sir, moving on to the next question, sir, as you said that the reduction of the time period from 11 years to five years has been done acting upon this act. So why do you think it has been done that why the cutoff date is set as 31st of December 2014. Well, see why this has been done is that because, you know, eventually, you know, I mean, based on the statistics, you know, they're the government, the data which, you know, you know, government sort of authorities had, you know, there was in flux of a huge number of these illegal migrants, you know, because they were illegal migrants until this CA 2019 was passed. So based on the, the, the number of people who had in who had sort of, you know, walked into India over a period of time, you know, they, they felt that it was important to sort of legitimize their presence in India, because the corresponding several laws provided for their serious prosecution and deportation. But on the basis of evidence and intelligentsia, what the government had, they felt that these people were in no position to go back to their country. It was, you know, it was more of a human rights decision, decision of a humanitarian decision, a decision to take care of, you know, in a way refugees, you know, who had no other place to go. And this cut off date had relevance purely based on the people who are already present in India. Now, henceforth, obviously, you know, the there is already law in place with regard to, you know, you know, applying for Indian citizenship under the process of registration or naturalization, but they wanted to sort of legitimize the presence of those people who were already stationed in India. And if they were to be not allowed shorter period, there was no other way but to prosecute them. And that prosecution would have led to their imprisonment or their deportation, which was practically impossible, because these people had not come to India with some ulterior motives. They had come to India for shelter, because these people were literally driven out of their own home countries, and why they were driven out because there is a history of 1947, you know, at that stage they chose not to come to India. At that time they had an option when Greater India was partitioned, they had an option to come to India, meaning their, you know, forefathers or their fathers, but they chose not to come assuming or thinking that they would be safe in the country where they chose to be, but they were minority there and they were persecuted or if not persecuted, they remained under constant fear of persecution. So they came to India and, you know, a via media was adopted to adopt them as Indian citizens. But I don't see there was any sort of political agenda. You know, how could there be any political agenda because you are not giving them citizenship automatically, you know, they have to file several documentation to prove that they are victims of religious persecution or fear of, you know, religious persecution. Indeed. Indeed. Very well, sir. So some of the questions from the attendees. Firstly, I would be asking is that NRC was brought by the by the 2003 amendment to the Citizenship Act. Entire controversy with regard to CAA is being confused with NRC and it is being boiled into a political controversy. Don't you think there is no basis of any challenge? Absolutely not. The competence of the parliament. Yeah. Parliament for either CAA or NRC for that matter. Well, see, both are independent of each other. NRC is not something new. NRC came to have an NRC, you know, national register for citizenship came almost a decade back, you know, that measure was proposed almost, you know, a decade back. And that NRC is something which is there even in countries which are much below India, you know, it is it is it is a step of organizing your nation. You know, NRC is something which gives you an identification almost every developed country, every developed country, and most of developing countries have a national register of citizenship. That is, that is purely in the interest of your development, your internal security and your forwardness. And that has got nothing to do with CAA 2019. Though India has had introduced this measure, but the access is to have a register never took off, you know, and now the current establishment is proposing that by next couple of years, you know, they would be able to sort of consolidate the, you know, the register of citizen citizen, Indian citizens. And I wish them best it should be done, you know, now you have other hard cards, you have bank cards, you have your driving license, your asset, everything has got digitized, you know, you have a digital wall locker where all your government documentation is there that is you only, you know, you don't have to carry a driving license now, you know, you can on the phone you can show your driving license digitized. So, you know, this is something which is basically to also identify who are encroachers and trespassers in our nation, which is in the interest of law and order in the interest of internal security of the country. And would you in your home, allow somebody to live in your house outhouse, you know, or, you know, who who who's absolutely unknown to you, who's who has absolutely no credentials, who has no identity, you know, he could be threat to your life property and security. So, NRC is something which is in the interest of the entire nation and the entire citizenry. Very well. Moving on to the next question from Miss Perena. She says that what are the key elements of identifying illegal migrants and do the Hindu migrants from the Muslim dominant countries that are enabled by the CIA to receive citizenship. Citizenship. Are they also subject to the to be regarded as illegal migrants even if they are staying as they are residing for more than five years. Yes, absolutely. See, if they any obviously you're talking with regard to these three countries, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, is it? Yes, sir. Yeah, see, as I mentioned to you that, you know, Hindu, the all these religious sections mentioned, you know, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Parsis, Christians, etc. Now, if they have walked into India without any passport or valid document or with a valid document and valid visa, but that valid document and visa has expired, they will be treated as illegal immigrants, not withstanding what religion they belong to, even if they're Hindus, they are illegal immigrants, unless they are able to prove, you know, that they have been there for, you know, they qualify under CIA 2019, that they have been living in India illegally, purely because of fear of religious persecution, or they were actually persecuted there on the ground of their minority religion, and their faith, and therefore they should be granted citizenship. But if they fail to prove that, you know, and the evidence is not sufficient, they will be treated as illegal migrants. And for that, under the relevant laws, they could face imprisonment and deportation. Now, if you are not able to deport them, you will have to imprison them, because they have violated the law of the land, you know, and the similar law would hold good in any part of the world, whether it is United States, Canada, England, you know, I mean, you see anybody being there, you know, illegally, what serious action do they take. So likewise, India will also, India will also be taking that action, you know, unless those particular segment sections of people qualify under CIA 2019. Totally sir, totally agree.