JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES 4803 Ethnocracy’, a political system where Hindu and Buddhist majorities in these countries wield state power to promote their own interests, often at the expense of minority groups, especially Muslims. Their work adds to the larger work on ‘ethnocracy’ by Yiftachel (1998, 2000, 2006, 2008), who in the context of Israel notes how the dominant group (the ethnos) controls the state apparatus and uses it to ethnicise the territory and society. Berger & Garg, on the other hand, delve into the evolving citizenship regimes in these countries, highlighting the systematic marginalisation of specific groups. Both sets of authors agree on the significant impact of majoritarian nationalist ideologies on the legal and civil framework of these countries. Shahid and Lee’s discussion of Saffron Ethnocracy reflects a political environment where the majority’s religious beliefs significantly influence governance, leading to a form of authoritarianism steeped in religious and ethnic biases. Concurrently, Berger and Garg’s examination of citizenship regimes reveals how these biases are institutionalised through legal and bureaucratic means, creating barriers for minorities and reinforcing systemic exclusion. This intersection highlights a critical aspect of ethnonationalism in the region, where the intertwining of religious identity and state power not only undermines the status of minorities but also erodes the fundamental principles of equality and freedom. The societal and economic implications of these political ideologies are profound and far-reaching. Shahid and Lee articulate how Saffron Ethnocracy impacts various aspects of society, from land ownership to business operations and interpersonal relations. They particularly emphasise the heightened vulnerabilities faced by Muslim populations, exacerbated during crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic. In parallel, Berger and Garg’s focus on the production of liminality and zones of uncertain citizenship illustrates how state policies create environments of legal and social uncertainty for minorities. This systematic approach to marginalisation, fuelled by ethnonationalist ideologies, not only disrupts societal harmony but also has tangible economic and social repercussions for those caught in the crosshairs of these policies. Lastly, both articles stress the importance of a deeper, more nuanced understanding of these phenomena, emphasising the need for further research and highlighting the global implications of these regional dynamics. Shahid and Lee call for studies on the development of non-Abrahamic ethnocratic frameworks and their impact on democracies in the global south, pointing to the potential threats of statelessness and genocide against minorities. Berger and Garg, meanwhile, advocate for a comprehensive analysis of the interplay between legal, bureaucratic, and political factors in shaping citizenship regimes. Their insights into the erosion of democratic processes and the rule of law in these countries underscore the broader implications of these nationalist and ethnocratic tendencies, not just for the nations involved but for the wider international community. This synthesis of themes from both articles offers a detailed and multifaceted view of how religious and ethnic majoritarianism in India, Myanmar, and Sri Lanka shapes state policies, citizen rights, and societal norms, with significant consequences for democracy, social cohesion, and human rights. Another important dimension is added by Gogoi and Sen, who discuss the political role of federalism in the formation and undermining of citizenship status. They frame the attrition of Indian citizenship to highlight the role of ‘little nationalisms’ (Guha 1979). In late 19th and early twentieth century India, a strong form of nationalism, championed by the emerging pan-Indian upper caste bourgeoisie, sought to dominate the