4798 M. A. BHAT AND R. SHAHID logic of security slips inside the national borders. This is what Bhat notes as the process of ‘migration crisis’ becomes an ‘internal’ threat of the ‘body politic’. Processes of securitisation, thus, do not follow from a pre-existing insider/outsider binary, but constitute that binary both inside and outside national territory. As Sharma notes, ‘the threat of security provides a strong justification for laws’ for ‘shrinking of citizenship’, and languages of risk, danger and insecurity are ‘framed to exclude some groups’ within the body politic. Another related theme is how securitisation and bureaucratic technologies are interlinked. Sharma shows how states rely on digital technologies like biometrics ‘to verify and manage people’. Similarly, Bhat maps the emergence of influential digital technologies in India based on the emerging racialised and exceptionalism citizenship politics. There are several transnational comparisons to be made here. One, as Sharma notes, securitisation of status is a wider phenomenon, including in western contexts of citizenship revocation, securitisation or heightened criminalisation of immigration and border control, and treating asylum claimants as national security threats. Two, the expansion of digital technologies – surveillance and carceral policies among others – in border control, where borders are both outside, inside or at the edge of national technologies. Three, the constitution of ‘borders’ comes out strongly in the contributions. The outsourcing of ‘borders’ by Europe, Australia and the UK (Menjívar 2014; Zedner 2022) is the flipside of what Sharma and Bhat describe as the ‘internalisation’ of border through securitised digital technologies. Securitisation in the case of India has done many things. First, as Sharma notes in detail, securitised (and ethnicised) political discourses narrowed down and eventually diminished India’s inclusive secular citizenship. In her words, the state used it to ‘deny, postpone, or expedite’ citizenship claims. Second, as Bhat, and Gogoi and Sen note, it legitimised the expansion of discretionary regimes of status adjudication, particularly in Assam. Bhat (2023) described them as exceptionalist regimes ‘at the edge of legality’ because even courts treated them to be immune to ordinary constitutional standards of due process. Third, it has procedural manifestations, best described as paradoxical. In Bhat’s account, while these processes legitimised an unpreceded expansion of documentary regimes, they simultaneously undermined the trustworthiness of documents in the eyes of precisely those official functionaries who demanded them. In Berger and Garg’s account, they laid the foundation of extensive, complex, and contradictory legal routes of proving citizenship, which in the ultimate analysis were too burdensome. The related theme is the interlinking of securitisation and bureaucratic technologies. Tazzioli (2022) explores how technology mediates access to asylum and financial support, revealing the bureaucratic challenges that are also prominent in Assam as highlighted by Bhat. Walters (2022) offers a historical and political analysis of deportation, contributing to our understanding of how these practices are embedded in a broader regime of citizenship regulation and emphasise the role of governmentality. Bigo (2022) discusses the proliferation of smart borders within the European Union, illustrating how security stakes have been technologised through systems like SIS-VIS – EURODAC, EES, ETIAS and ECRIS, which filter travellers and assess their risks. This process, he notes, has led to a reconfiguration of security professions, blending data analysis and IT expertise into new forms of governance. Aradau (2020) further deepens this discussion by examining how mundane devices and big data transform security landscapes, shifting focus from