2021 STATELESSNESS AND THE CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT, 2019 187 and non-discriminatory.210 They concede that the ‘homeland for Hindus’ arguments were voiced in the Constituent Assembly and that the permit system has unsecular foundations,211 but remind us that the ultimate form of Indian citizenship which the Constituent Assembly ultimately adopted was birth-based and non-discriminatory.212 Further, they highlight that the Partition was an exceptional moment of determining citizenship, which should not be used as a bright-line test for determining contemporary Indian citizenship.213 In particular, Bhatia argues that Chapter II should be read in conjunction with constitutional provisions like equality, non-discrimination, safeguarding of minority rights, and secularism.214 For Ram and Bhatia, then, Indian citizenship does, has and will continue to signify a pluralist and secular form of citizenship.215 The inquiry into religious identity and descent as spearheaded by the ‘illegal migrant’ question in citizenship law promises to create, or deepen, rifts in India. It creates a precarious situation for persons belonging to religious minorities, revives a ‘homeland for Hindus’ notion of India and places the rights of its resident refugees and stateless persons at risk. Thus, it is imperative for India to remind itself of the pluralist and secular ideals it was born with, particularly for determining Indian citizenship. Although there have been disagreements over whether jus soli or jus sanguinis form the rightful foundations of Indian citizenship, it is imperative for us to advocate and practice for a jus soli-based Indian citizenship; this is because jus soli complements the plurality of India as a nation, and protects persons born in its soil irrespective of their parents’ citizenship status. Thus, stateless persons like Sri Lankan Tamil refugees can acquire citizenship through a model based on jus soli citizenship.216 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 Bhatia (n 51); Ram (n 30); similarly, Shadan Farasat, ‘Framers Put Forth a Plural, Secular Basis for Citizenship’ (Hindustan Times, 23 January 2020) <https://www.hindustantimes.com/ india-news/framers-put-forth-a-plural-secular-basis-for-citizenship/story-d2jdwOt9IE4IxKey5lZC3J.html> accessed 28 July 2021. Dr Ambedkar noted that the citizenship provisions had been subject to prolonged debate, ‘I do not think that any other article has. given the Drafting Committee such a headache as this particular article’ in Constituent Assembly Debates Vol IX (10 August 1949) <https://www. constitutionofindia.net/constitution_assembly_debates/volume/9/1949-08-10> accessed 28 July 2021. .Ram (n 30); Bhatia (n 51); Rochana Bajpai, Why Did India Choose Pluralism? Lessons from a Postcolonial State, Accounting for Change in Diverse Societies (2017). Ram (n 30); Bhatia (n 51). Bhatia (n 153); Constitution of India 1950, Preamble, Part III. Ram (n 30); Bhatia (n 51). Discussed infra in Part IV.