Better Must Come found that there has been a general improvement in either access or entitlement to healthcare, education and employment in wake of the 2003 grant of citizenship, but much like the reported success of ending statelessness in Sri Lanka, this too is a rather narrow conclusion to draw and risks concealing the ongoing human rights deficit in the Up-Country twice over. With respect to those located in the more rural parts of the Up-Country, the rights to education, employment, and political participation remain unfulfilled. It is true that this situation is underpinned by the interplay of poverty, isolation and political alienation and not a product of direct discrimination, though it would be altogether incorrect to conclude that this rights deficit is the product of natural forces. Rather, the legacy of educational neglect, the ascription of this population as plantation workers, and a history of institutionalised disenfranchisement — all of which are informed by an undercurrent of Sinhala Buddhist ethno-nationalism and hegemonic social and political systems — sustain this rural rights deficit. In other words, there is no single perpetrator to be held accountable for this situation, for it is institutional forces that render recently acquired citizenship to be at best second class, but this is not reason to avoid seeking redress. Beyond this rights deficit, a sense of belonging in the wake of citizenship is in disrepair, buttressed as it is by the belief that recently acquired citizenship is of no benefit and that many perceive of themselves not as the equals of the majority population. Though it was only a minority that expressed such sentiment, some within this population harbour a self-imposed sense of non-entitlement to life beyond the plantation. Of course, that this is self-imposed is not to suggest these individuals arrived at such an understanding of the world in isolation, but that fiftyfive years of this population as a much-maligned stateless Sri Lankan labour force are revealed in the words and actions of certain individuals. For this reason, it can be said that belonging has not followed from the conferment of citizenship, or that the latter does not nor should be understood as necessarily entailing the former. However, when this express sense of not belonging is placed in view of the many who deem the acquisition of citizenship as bringing with it no substantive benefit along with the general sense that this population are not the equals of the majority population, the assumption that citizenship provides for belonging is further corrupted. Looking now to dissensus, this concept has revealed that among the minority who are subject to a rights deficit, inaction, accommodation or resignation characterises how people respond to the denial of rights they suffer. In some respect, this is positive insofar as it suggests that the majority of those consulted are not without the rights they have, or that their rights have in fact been fulfilled. In contrast, for those who continue to struggle under hegemonic social and political systems, no indication of a dissensus being waged against the denial of rights they suffer was identified, suggesting that at the moment of analysis there are some who are without the rights they have and that the conferment of Sri Lankan citizenship is little else than a hollow inscription or guarantee of equal rights. However, it is because of this very finding that dissensus maintains utility as a conceptual tool as it allows one to avoid identifying any group as altogether rightless or without agency, for when agency is understood as a continuum of one activity ranging from resignation to resistance, dissensus can be deployed to acknowledge and preserve the agency of those in question irrespective of how that agency is expressed. Furthermore, and though not by intentional design, it is important to recall that everyday forms of resistance may evade detection by 35