144 COLUM. J. RACE & L. [Vol. 11:83 there is no reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised.”266 Similarly, in the Biao v. Denmark decision, the Grand Chamber stated that, while not all differential treatment amounts to discrimination: A difference in treatment is discriminatory if it has no objective and reasonable justification, that is if it does not pursue a legitimate aim or if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved.267 Such matters must be examined closely and the wider context appreciated. As Benhabib notes, positive discrimination in nationality laws is problematic when combined with the goals of preserving ethnic majorities and ethnic purity.268 In our view, a contemporary example is the current citizenship crisis in India, which arguably “broadly aim[s] to convert India into a ‘Hindu Rashtra’ or a homeland for Hindus.”269 Applying this analysis to the context of racial discrimination in nationality laws, and against the background of the peremptory prohibition of systemic racial discrimination, the effect of Articles 1(1) and 1(3) of ICERD is that state regulation of nationality must not discriminate, whether directly or indirectly, on the basis of race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin in the attribution, regulation or deprivation of citizenship, except in narrowly circumscribed situations where differential access to citizenship is applied pursuant to a legitimate aim, and is proportional to the achievement of this aim. This limited exception is logically applicable only in relation to acquisition of or access to citizenship and not deprivation. 266 Belgian Linguistic Case, supra note 265, at 31. 267 Biao v. Denmark, App. No. 38590/10, ¶ 90 (May 24, 2016), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-141941 [https://perma.cc/BR9T-9HZB]. See also Comm. on Elimination Racial Discrimination, Concluding Observations on Denmark, supra note 263. 268 BENHABIB, supra note 260, at 138 n.2 269 ASIAN L. CTR., MELBOURNE L. SCH., CONSTITUTIONALISM AND CIVIL LIBERTIES: A BRIEFING NOTE ON RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN INDIA (2020) (citing Edward Anderson & Christophe Jaffrelot, Hindu Nationalism and the ‘Saffronisation of the Public Sphere’: An Interview with Christophe Jaffrelot, 26 CONTEMP. S. ASIA 468, 468–82 (2018)), https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/3441054/Statelessnessin-India-Briefing-Note.pdf [https://perma.cc/K5QD-B22Q]. See also Christophe Jaffrelot, The Fate of Secularism in India, in THE BJP IN POWER: INDIAN DEMOCRACY AND RELIGIOUS NATIONALISM 51 (Milan Vaishnav ed., 2019); BENHABIB, supra note 260.