(N)PR, a fraud, anti-national venture

‘The population enumeration in the Census 2011 has nothing to do with the citizenship issues under the citizenship law at this stage, because the census does not involve any preparation of ‘National Population Register’ (NPR) now, but only the collection of information for the preparation of NPR later.’ This is what the Union home minister means in his statement on the Census 2011 in Parliament (May 7). The acute legalism in the minister’s statement conceals the truth and presents a fake view of the population census for the NPR, thus totally whitewashing this ongoing fraud on the nation.

Start with what is undeniably a lie, even forgery. The title ‘National Population Register’ is itself faked. Neither the Indian Citizenship Act 1955 nor the Citizenship Rules 2003 speak of any ‘National’ Population Register. The Citizenship rules talk about just ‘Population Register’. The omission of the prefix ‘National’ here is no accident. It is intentional. This is self-evident from the citizenship rules, which, in the same breath, talk of ‘National Register of Indian Citizens’ (NRIC). The use of the prefix ‘National’ there is intentional in contrast. The reason why the Population Register is not similarly prefixed with ‘National’ as in the NRIC is obvious. The lawmakers knew that the Population Register is not a record of the Indian ‘National’ Population. That is why the Citizenship law titles it as ‘Population Register’, that is, it is ‘PR’, not ‘(N)PR’. But how then did the prefix ‘National’ get forged into the PR to make it (N)PR in the minister’s statement? Will he explain?

Saying that ‘the population census is the total process of collecting demographic, economic and social data’ the minister adds, ‘the particulars in respect of the individuals are kept confidential’. He further says that ‘the particulars collected’ ‘shall be verified’ afterwards under the citizenship law, and cases of ‘doubtful citizenship’ will be dealt with appropriately. Thus, the minister implies — yet not says explicitly — that the ongoing population census is not under the citizenship law, but exclusively under the census law. But, as the analysis here unfolds, the minister’s explanation that what the Census 2011 does is just to collect data for the Population Register and that the verification of the information would take place under the citizenship law later, is patently untrue, why, even a lie. A seer is needed to discover this? No.

The website of the minister’s own home department on Census 2011 uncovers it. The census manual in the website says: “the field-work of the House-listing and Housing Census and the National Population Register are being conducted simultaneously by the same enumerator”. And the answer to one of the FAQs in the website http://censusindia.gov.in/2011-FAQ/FAQ-Public.html says: “The Census is a statutory exercise conducted under the provisions of the Census Act 1948 and Rules made there under. The NPR is being created under the provisions of the Citizenship Act and Rules.” So, admittedly, Census 2011 creates the PR under the citizenship law. And it involves enumeration under both laws — for housing under the census law and for population under the citizenship law. Does the minister’s statement that the census is purely a data collection under the census law just now survive the truth in his own website?

Now test the Union home minister’s statement on the rules under the citizenship law. The data for Population Register (PR) and National Register of Indian Citizens (NRIC) are collected under the citizenship law and rules, not the census law. The citizenship rules provide for population census thus: the government shall conduct house-to-house enumeration to collect details ‘including the citizenship status’; and the Registrar General of Citizen Registration (RGCR) under the citizenship law shall notify the period and duration of the enumeration. The particulars to be collected for the PR are also mentioned in the citizenship rules. So, the enumeration for PR is prescribed under the citizenship law, not census law. Therefore, the minister’s claim that the enumeration is under the census law and the later verification will be under the citizenship law is patently untrue.

The implication in his statement that the name of the registrar general, who is the authority under the census as well as citizenship laws, may have led to misunderstanding in the sense that he is involved from the side of the citizenship law, is deceptive. This subterfuge conceals the fact that the population details now being gathered are actually under and as prescribed in — but without complying with — the citizenship rules. But for this subterfuge, the minister will have to concede that the query in the ongoing enumeration, the Query No 11, to the effect ‘citizenship as declared’ is not only contrary to the citizenship law, but is actually a fraud on the law. Read on, with some patience as it is all about law.

It is the citizenship rules, not the census law, that provide for both the collection and verification of the population data. It is not that, as the minister pretends, information is collected under the census law now and verification takes place, later, under the citizenship law. Just take one mandate in citizenship rules. The citizenship rules direct that ‘during the verification process, particulars of such individuals whose citizenship is doubtful shall be entered with appropriate remark in the Population Register.’ Unless the enumerators are first asked to notice cases of doubtful citizenship, how will such cases come up for verification at all? But, instead of asking them to notice and record the cases of doubtful citizenship during enumeration, see how the census manual directs the enumerators to fill the space against Query No 11 ‘Nationality for each of the enumerated person has to be asked from the respondent and recorded. …… Please record the nationality of the respondent as declared by her/him for each of the persons enumerated. Do not get into any argument with the respondent regarding this.’(See Para 5.21.1 of general instructions). That is, when the citizenship rules ask for doubtful cases of citizenship to be identified, the census manual to collect details under the very citizenship rules virtually says ‘don’t doubt the respondents on their claim of nationality; just record what they say.’ How then will suspect cases of citizenship be discovered? Clearly, the ongoing enumeration is not intended to discover suspect citizenship, but to suppress them, and make them appear genuine. Can the minister deny that Query No 11, read with the census manual, exposes his lie?

Shockingly, anyone who had entered into India six months before the census, or any one who intends to stay for six months after, becomes a ‘usual resident’ under the ongoing census rules. Such persons, thanks to the census, can declare themselves as Indian citizens in response to Query No 11. And more shockingly, the government proposes to issue ‘National Identity Cards’ to all such people even though under the law, ‘National Identity Cards’ are allowed only for Indian citizens.

Imagine, like Kasab who did the mayhem in Mumbai on 26/11, a Pakistani enters India today and promises to be here for six more months, he is eligible to declare himself as an Indian citizen in response to Query No 11, also get a National Identity Card. He will be an Indian terrorist, not a Pakistani jihadi. According to intelligence sources, some 40,000 Pakistanis have entered India and after throwing their passports away, they have melted into Muslim-dominated areas. Under the Census 2011 they are ‘usual residents’, can declare themselves as Indian citizens and will now get National Identity Cards. After all the enumerators are directed to not to argue with them when they declare their nationality as Indian, and to just write as they claim.

QED: The ongoing population census is undoubtedly an anti-national venture. It is placing millions of timeless bombs all over India. Is the home minister, who seems lost in legalisms, aware?

(The writer is a well-known commentator on political and economic issues.

E-mail: comment@gurumurthy.net)