‘LET’S DEFER THE NRC TILL 2024’
In an exclusive interview with Senior Editor Kaushik Deka, former Union home and finance minister P. Chidambaram explains why the UPA government initiated the National Population Register (NPR) and why the Congress is now opposed to it
QWhat’s the logic behind the NPR? Why did you start it in 2010? The Citizenship Act, passed in 1955 and amended by Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s government in 2003, contemplates an NPR. Inherently, there is nothing wrong with it. One needs to know the population of the country and who the usual residents are. It is an aid to the census. It so happened that in 2010, when we were ready to do the NPR and the Census was due the year after, the Registrar General of India and Census Commissioner decided they would do the NPR first and then the Census. It was the logical thing to do because there was no division on the issue in the country at the time. It was done in 12 or 13 states in India.
Q. If we have a census, why do we need an NPR?
The Census captures far more information than the NPR, which is confined only to the usual residents in the country. There is no point doing an NPR after the Census. It was felt there was no need to separate the two exercises since whatever we wanted through NPR would be captured by the Census. The context of the NPR is very different today. We did not contemplate an NRC because we had not thought through its pros and cons. The reasons behind the NPR now are doubtful too since it is clearly linked to the NRC. The Assam NRC exposed the current government’s intent. We now fear that NPR can lead to an NRC. Because there is stiff opposition to the NRC, the government wants to appear to step back and do an NPR quoting the 2010 precedent. But in terms of text and context, the two are very different.
Q. Why do you oppose the NRC? Don’t you think the country needs to have a count of its citizens?
Not after the Assam experience. Not after the motives of the BJP government have become clear. Whatever framework the government applies for an NRC—whether it is house-to-house enumeration or through application, as was done in Assam—it will make no difference. Ultimately, the enumerator and the enumerated will have to come face to face with each other either in the house of the enumerated or in the office of the enumerator. What is sinister is the objective of that encounter. What will be asked and what will be the answers? Seeking multiple documents will only result in harassment. You cannot find the graduation degree of the prime minister or of the former HRD minister. How do you expect ordinary citizens to locate so many records? Even for the NPR exercise, why do you want to know my last place of residence? Why on earth do you want to know what the place of birth of my parents is?
Q. The Assam NRC is not flawless, but should we discount the need for an NRC altogether because of bureaucratic flaws afflicting most official exercises in India?
We are not criticising the bureaucratic flaws. If it had been a simple administrative exercise like the Census, it would have gone through without any protest. The NRC in Assam revealed the hidden motive of the government Why should I believe the motive will be any different in the all-India NRC?
Q. But does India, as a country, need an NRC or not?
Let’s defer the whole exercise for another four years and five months—till the next general election results are out and there is stability in the country. The elephant in the room is the 1,906,657 persons identified as illegal immigrants in Assam. What do you intend to do with them? Unless you address that problem, you must not even whisper the word NRC.
Q. Is it possible to filter out people and
discriminate or create certain preconditions or situations through the NRC process by which the government can actually exclude people of a particular religion?
The government can. It can tell a person of a certain religion ‘you are a usual resident but you have not proved your citizenship’ and exclude him.
Q. But what about those, irrespective of religion, who have passports or voter ID cards?
These are not indicators of citizenship. For instance, a voter is deemed to be a citizen because no attempt has been made to identify him as a non-citizen, but will the government accept the voter ID as proof of citizenship? They would want to know whether you are a citizen by birth in India or by descent of Indian parents. They will apply the classical tests of citizenship.
Q. There is also an argument that NPR could end multiple identification processes—passport, PAN, driving licences, Aadhaar, voter ID. Rightly or wrongly—even if it meant bending some laws—the BJP government succeeded in issuing Aadhaar cards to 125 crore people. What more do you need?
Q. Union law minister Ravi Shankar Prasad has said that the CAA doesn’t violate the Constitution, as claimed by the opposition, because Article 14 of the Constitution is subject to “reasonable classification”.
The only way you can justify a classification is that it must be rational and bear a nexus to the objects sought to be achieved. It must be backed by data. The CAA is not based on data. There is an a priori, premeditated, deliberate exclusion of one religious group.
Q. But don’t you think India needs to show compassion to those persecuted in these countries?
For that, we don’t need a CAA. We only need a Law on Refugees. ■