Defending the stand taken by the Biju Janata Dal (BJD) to support the Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB) in Parliament, senior BJD leader Pinaki Misra Thursday said the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) is less harmful than National Register of Citizens (NRC). The BJD Parliamentary Party leader in the Lok Sabha also said his party has never supported the NRC and that it had expressed reservation about it.
Odisha Chief Minister has decided not to support NRC. What is the reason behind this sudden decision?
There is no sudden change; he always had this view that NRC is not welcome as he has articulated this view before many of the groups which had come to meet him and seek his opinion. This is for the first time that he has come out to the media and said it but privately we knew all along and our MPs on the floor of the House also said we have very serious reservations about the NRC when we supported the CAB.
Your party had supported CAB in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. Don’t you think the NRC and CAB are two sides of the same coin? Why did you support CAB in Parliament?
They can be interpreted as two sides of the coin. But the CAA is yet to be tested by the Supreme Court. Let’s see what the SC holds. We felt that it was certainly less harmful than the NRC. The CAA is only intended to help certain classes of foreigners who are now stranded in India and those who are sought to be given protection in India. It doesn’t exclude any Indian of any religion and that’s the important thing no Indian of any religion is to be touched. Therefore, we felt the CAA could be supported.
Do you think the CAA can be operational without NRC? How will you identify illegal migrants without NRC? If you couldn’t identify the illegal migrants and their religion, how will you give them citizenship?
The people who are going to benefit from CAA have been identified. Those are the people who have sought asylum and protection of the government. Those numbers are already well known. Any further inclusions will be subject to their identification from the countries they have come from and they will be given citizenship.
You supported the CAB and your party MPs spoke in Odia in Parliament. In Rajya Sabha there was no translator available and many people couldn’t understand your party’s stand. Was that to avoid attention from larger section of the society?
We spoke in Odia because we have domestic constituencies to address. We are a regional party. There are people in Odisha who were concerned about this and we wanted primarily them to be satisfied. Therefore, we spoke in Odia in both Houses not for any other reason. I’m surprised there was no translator in the Rajya Sabha because this is a recognized language. There should be a translator for every language and I’m sure we gave notice both in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.
Your party’s demand was to include Sri Lanka in the ambit of CAB. Why didn’t your party MPs move any amendment for this in Rajya Sabha?
The inclusion of Sri Lanka can happen at any time in the future. There can be a further amendment to include Sri Lanka, Maldives, Nepal, Burma and any other country. It is inclusionary. It’s not exclusionary. Therefore, nothing prevents another government to come in and include more countries. There is no difficulty at all.
Since you claim that your party is a secular one, why did you support CAB as it seeks to grant citizenship on the basis of religion?
This is now something Supreme Court will decide. The whole point of Article 14 is that there has to be a reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia and with clear nexus to the objects sought to be achieved. There are these three factors the SC will consider and work out. There are two shades of opinions. One shade of opinion believes this is not violative of Article 14 because it does not deny any Indian Muslim any right. There is another view which is that, perhaps, giving citizenship to those who are of particular denomination may violate Article 14. This is to be tested only by the Supreme Court. It will be too premature for us to give any opinion on that.
Your stand on the ongoing protest of students across the country against CAA and NRC.
There need not be any protest over NRC because a number of states have now come forward and have said NRC will not be implemented. NRC is proved to be a complete failure in Assam. Even the BJP understands that. A staggering Rs 16,000 crore has been spent needlessly. Around 52,000 government employees have had all their time wasted on NRC which didn’t satisfy anybody. So, I think if the government sees sense they will see that it is pointless bringing NRC. As far as protest against CAA is concerned, I think what the Supreme Court said Wednesday it is the government which should propagate the principles of CAA. Explain it to the people to understand that no Indians are to be affected by this. Only some foreigners are going to be given benefits.
Why the CM did not oppose NRC earlier when chief ministers of West Bengal and Congress-ruled states declared that they will not implement it?
There was no question of opposition earlier because NRC was never sought to be imposed in Odisha. So, where was the question of opposition? If NRC is being done in some other state why should Odisha protest about it? The NRC in Assam was being done under the aegis of Supreme Court. Why should a chief minister oppose when the Supreme Court is mandating it?
Reports claim that NRC will be conducted in Kendrapara district of Odisha. Will your government stop that?
There is no NRC in Odisha and Kendrapara is a part of Odisha.
