or Return to ‘country of origin’? 42. The ‘Statement of Objects’ provides a further justification for the differential treatment in terms of determining the possible beneficiaries of the CAA. As per its terms, a distinctive feature of the beneficiaries of the special regime for obtaining Indian citizenship created by the CAA is that they are of ‘Indian origin’. It is implied that their shared historical belonging, as “citizens of undivided India”, also justifies their status as beneficiaries of the CAA from specific countries of origin. 43. However, this framing of the justification of historical association with “undivided India”, whereby their migration to India is said to take the form of a return or repatriation, as being complementary to the justification based on their status as refugees [thereby requiring protection], is contradictory in law. It is a well-established principle of international refugee law that refugee status is fundamentally characterized by the irrepatriability of the refugee. 67 This position is made clear by the simple fact that repatriation (or a return to one’s ‘country of origin’ or ‘homeland’) is one of the three established ‘solutions’ recognized under international refugee law, one that brings to an end the status of being a refugee. 68 Under international law there is no possibility to be simultaneously recognized as a refugee (i.e. one who lacks national protection) and as a returnee (one who is reacquiring national protection). 44. Furthermore, if one is to consider this justification of the CAA as simply facilitating the return of persons of ‘Indian Origin’ (and not as being complementary to the justification of refugee protection), then one must contend with the fact that not all three named countries fall within the ambit of “undivided India”. “Undivided India”, as defined under Section 2 (1, h) of the Citizenship Act, refers to “India” as it was defined under the Government of India Act, 1935. While present day Pakistan and Bangladesh did indeed form a part of this pre-partition entity (and are successor states to it), this is not the case for Afghanistan. 69 In fact, at the time of the enactment of the Government of India Act of 1935, Afghanistan was an independent state, with its own Constitution, and maintaining control over its own international relations. 70 45. Finally, taken as a measure for facilitating return of persons of ‘Indian Origin’, the CAA is under-protective in that it excludes persons belonging to the Muslim faith. This is particularly egregious for any measure fashioned to facilitate a right of return. In keeping with the established international practice on the right of return, it is most commonly 67 Refugee Convention (n 15) art 1 A.(2),. See Katy Long, The Point of No Return: Refugees, Rights and Repatriation (Oxford University Press, 2013). 68 Refugee Convention (n 15) art 1 C. The other two being naturalization, under Article 34 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees, and resettlement. 69 Government of India Act 1935, s 311 (1). 70 It is pertinent to note that Afghanistan only gets included under any category of “undivided India” if one wholesale adopts the exclusivist geographical imaginary as expounded by extremist Hindu Nationalist discourses, wherein Afghanistan does indeed form a prominent part of the so called “Akhand Bharat” (i.e. “undivided India”). However, these are more akin to mythical imaginaries, and are not in keeping with the historical configuration and exercise of sovereign authority and territorial apportionments in the region. See Anustup Basu, Hindutva as Political Monotheism (Duke University Press, 2020). 14