[While the CAA is decidedly "arbitrary" and, of course, "discriminatory", it's essentially a bluff.
Even now, the "rules" remain to be formulated.
It's main purpose is to send out two (noxious) messages: (i) Muslims do not belong (to India) and only non-Muslims suffer religious persecutions (in Muslim-majority countries).
It, by itself, can hardly have any practical impact beyond North East and Bengal.
Even there, it's highly doubtful.
The NPR/NRC is designed to be the real horror of gigantic proportions.
Threatening to strip millions and millions of their citizenship.
Thereby would trigger huge social chaos - most likely, designed to provide the final push towards the "New India" - a "Hindu Rashtra", denuded of all vestiges of substantive democracy and pluralism.
Make no mistake, it's launch is only "suspended" on account of unforeseen extraordinary circumstances.
*The role of the concerned state governments would be critical in the roll-out of the NPR survey - the opening and most crucial part of the NRC drive.*
Consequentially, also for the prospects of waging any effective resistance.
Once the NPR is done, the Union Government will no longer have to look for any assistance by the state administrations.
It'll be able to go ahead, just on its own.
That one can't just afford to forget.
<<However, the reaction of the Supreme Court and the High Courts was different in many ways, with the latter often taking a more humane, emphatic and proactive stance to uphold constitutional rights and protect citizens, as compared to a worrying disregard by the apex court.>>]
https://www.thequint.com/amp/story/news/india/1-year-of-caa-how-high-courts-stood-by-protesters-when-sc-didnt-protection-of-civil-liberties?fbclid=IwAR3uDCeAeli_VWDwSQN8MutYw5dk6x7njEPubNSBnBBa7ZZP2pSnnhLw0B81 Year of CAA: How High Courts Stood By Protesters When SC Didn’t
The reaction of the Supreme Court and the High Courts to anti-CAA protesters was starkly distinct in many ways.
Mekhala Saran
Published: 30 Nov 2020, 7:16 AM IST
Snipped