Facebook Pixel Code

‘We must respect sentiments of all sections of society. That is why we can’t generalise ’

Minister of state for home Kiren Rijiju says consensus is the best way to approach contentious issues such as nation-wide ban on cow slaughter, sees nothing wrong in IAF being deployed against Naxals, and puts the onus on former home minister P Chidambaram for not banning Sanatan Sanstha

Why Kiren Rijiju

At a time when the Centre finds itself on the defensive over violent attacks across the country, Kiren Rijiju’s position is crucial as Union minister of state for Home. In the past few weeks his ministry has been issuing advisories to various states on maintaining communal harmony and is grappling with demands for ban on certain fringe right-wing groups. As an MP from the Northeast, he has also been involved in resolving internal conflicts in the region and development of infrastructure along the India-China border.

KIREN RIJIJU: I tell people of the Northeast that you should not blame New Delhi for everything. If you cannot narrate you own story, how will they know what is your problem? So it is not always the negligence of the Centre, but your own ineffectiveness in dealing with your problems and telling them to the Centre.

My position as a Union minister is a historic opportunity. One, because Arunachal Pradesh never gets a position in a sensitive ministry, where you get an insight into governance, security and the affairs of running the country.

Secondly, there is a big message that the Centre attaches importance to Arunachal or, for that matter, the Northeast.

Getting a position in a sensitive ministry is itself a recognition. I am trying to perform my role as a minister who is there to assist the Prime Minister in running the country, and at the same time is voicing the concerns of people of the Northeast, who are not normally heard here.

DEEPTIMAN TIWARY: In the past, you have spoken about border security, particularly with regard to the India-China frontier. In the last one-and-a-half years of the Narendra Modi government, how much has been achieved in terms of security at the borders?

The policy of the previous government was slightly negative, according to me. For example, in Arunachal, the policy was not to construct any infrastructure along the border. In the event of a war, they felt, the enemy would use this infrastructure to reach nearer to us. This is a very negative approach, a defeatist policy. So our government is reversing this policy. We are not looking at it from the point of view of challenging the other country — we never call a country an enemy country — but in terms of securing our own border. Like four days ago, I was in Uttarakhand, at the trijunction of the Om Parvat, from there up to a village called Dharchula that takes about a day to reach, every person, from villager to defence personnel, everyone is using Nepalese SIM cards, because we have not given them any communication network. It’s such a challenge to security, because everything is coming through Nepal. We are trying to reverse these things and to provide security to the border people.

All other countries in the world they try to settle their people near the border, because in case of a dispute, you can have a de facto claim to the space since all your people are living there. But here we are doing the reverse. We are not developing the border areas, and hence there is a thinning of population and migration from there. It’s not just one border, you go to Ladakh, you will find Chinese SIM cards working there and the Indian network not working.

Similarly, along all the borders with Nepal, only the Nepalese SIM cards are working. The borders with Myanmar, Bhutan, Bangladesh, everywhere this is the case.

It is not that India is weak but our policy needs to be reversed. That is why I am putting a lot of emphasis on border management. We are also taking a lot of steps in the fields of disaster management and refugee management. I was the first Union minister to visit a Tamil refugee camp, I was the first minister to visit a Tibetan refugee camp, no minister ever visited. In every sector, we are taking fast and effective steps.

DEEPTIMAN TIWARY: Given the repeated incursions by the Chinese, do you think we need to increase the strength of our forces on the border?

One good thing about the China border is that there is no bloodshed or violent activity there. The Indo-China border is largely peaceful. There is some issue with regard to patrolling because the border is not categorically demarcated. But in the last 15 months, incidents of intrusions have largely reduced and there is better understanding between the top leadership of India and China. With China being a large and powerful neighbour, it is important that we have a peaceful relationship with them. At the same time, we are very firm, our forces have been instructed not to disturb others and to guard our territory. So, we are not aggressive with regards to others, but we are active in protecting our territory.

ASHUTOSH BHARDWAJ: The Indian Air Force (IAF) has been operating its choppers in Bastar for several years now, but they have never opened fire on Naxals. But a few days ago, it conducted exercises with the Chhattisgarh Police and it has now changed its strategy and will open fire on Naxals from aircraft. How was this new strategy decided, and do you think this will change the course of the anti-Naxal operations?

Involving the Indian Army, Navy or Air Force is the ultimate step. When the defence forces are called in, it means that the situation is very, very grim and there is a need to be decisive. So there is a good reason for the IAF providing aid and support to the conventional agencies that have been conducting the operations already. When the IAF is involved, it will be decisive. I cannot discuss the nitty-gritty of the operations, but these will be effective.

LIZ MATHEW: Cow slaughter is an issue that has been mentioned in the BJP manifesto, many states have also banned it. But the Goa chief minister has already rejected the idea, and the Kerala BJP president has said the party cannot take a stand against the culture of any state. Doesn’t this show that the BJP’s stand on cow slaughter is just politicking?

India is a very diverse society. What is a very important social issue in Haryana, will not be an important issue for the state of Nagaland. India also has a federal structure that says that all state governments have their priorities and they need to take care of their people and look at their own governance. So, for the national parties, there is a larger context to issues which they incorporate in their national agenda. At the same time, state governments have been given freedom to examine matters in their own way. After all, we need to respect the sentiments of all sections of society. That is why we cannot generalise these things.

LIZ MATHEW: So, do you mean that the demand for a national ban on cow slaughter, as well as the views of the RSS on the issue, will remain just that?

I cannot comment on that. But see, I am a Buddhist by religion, I may not be a hardcore practising Buddhist, but I am nobody to talk about the imposition of my feelings and sentiments on somebody else. In the party too, freedom is given to each state unit. There are some issues which are nation-wide, accepted policies. So I cannot make a judgment. It is very situational.

DEEPTIMAN TIWARY: In your opinion, should there be a national ban on cow slaughter?

How can that be? See, if everybody reaches a consensus, it’s well and good. Consensus is the best thing in democracy, but before that… even if I say something today, there will be a controversy tomorrow.

COOMI KAPOOR: Should the Home Ministry not bear some responsibility for the growing violence in some parts of the country, like Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Delhi?

Definitely. We are not running away from responsibility. That is why, if there is any incident (of violence) anywhere in the country, we are the first ones to get in touch, seek a report and extend any possible assistance. The home ministry has to be hands-on, we cannot really look away. At the same time, the state government has to look after law and order problems, and only if there is an internal security matter, grave threat, then it is a matter for the home ministry. If there is a heinous crime, we seek a report because it has an impact on the society at large.
So we will not shy away from our responsibility, but the failure of the state government cannot be used to blame the Central government.

SHEELA BHATT: During the UPA tenure, the ministers of state would always complain that they hardly got any attention. There were many who never even met the PM. What is your position as a minister of state? What is the nature of the job that is being assigned to you, and do you get to meet Modi?

Since the beginning, the PM has been calling meetings of the entire Council of Ministers. It is very good when the Council meets, you get your space. That is one thing. Number two is, every file is going through the minister of state now. In some ministries, there are two ministers of state, so there is division of work and ministers of state are directly making presentations to the PM. So he (PM Modi) is directly involving everybody. But, after all, the Cabinet is the Cabinet, it has the final authority, minister of state is a transitory position. But there is no negligence or isolation, it is integrated. The PM is running the government in true spirit of togetherness. Everybody feels like a part of the system. Even the bureaucrats, they may be hard-pressed, because they have to work more, but they are also secure.

RITIKA CHOPRA: Do you agree with the demand of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal that law and order responsibilities be handed over to the state government for a year, given the spree of unfortunate incidents in the Capital recently, like rape of minors?

It is very difficult to engage with Arvind Kejriwal in a verbal duel, because he enjoys it and we don’t. He became CM just riding on the Anna Hazare wave without really working hard for years. He loves to equate himself with the PM, because then he is always in the news. I keep meeting him on various occasions, he is such a sweet person. He is such a down-to-earth, soft-spoken and intelligent person. In fact after meeting him, I don’t want to speak anything against him. He is a very lovable person, but when he starts speaking about issues beyond his domain, I feel how can a wonderful person like him speak like that. See Delhi is the national capital and it has its own ramifications, he needs to understand that. You cannot play with it just for your petty political interests.

With regard to police jurisdiction and authority, see the problem in the state of Delhi is not a new one. I know when there are incidents, there will also be reactions, but to abuse the entire police system is not correct. Saying “Modi ji ka police” everytime, all this levelling of charges, dragging the PM into all issues that you speak about, is not good. When you are fighting the Delhi elections, you know what is the power and function of the Delhi CM. Tomorrow when you are handed everything, you will say I want to become the PM to clean the system. When you become PM, you will say no, no, I also want to be the PM of Pakistan to take care of the neighbouring country. You can’t have unending terms, whatever responsibility you have, do that first.

LIZ MATHEW: The Assam BJP has revived the plank of sending illegal migrants back to Bangladesh and they have had some discussions with the home ministry too. In the Lok Sabha, you said that a migration policy is on the cards. How do you plan to handle the issue of illegal migrants in Assam and other Northeastern states?

There are two issues concerning illegal migrants. Those illegal migrants that have come from West Pakistan, they have documents which have become invalid over the years. The illegal migrants who have come from Bangladesh, they do not have any documents with them. The reality is that there are a large number of illegal migrants. We have to examine the circumstances under which they have come. Now if somebody comes due to religious persecution, then that is a different issue, because he has been forcefully thrown out, like in the case of minorities in Bangladesh and Pakistan. So in such cases, we have to examine the cases on humanitarian grounds. Now, those who come with a design, we have to be a little harsh. It is not a question of differentiating on the basis of religion, but on the basis of circumstances. For now we have decided to validate their entry (cases of religious persecution), but to give them some status, the Passport Entry into India Act needs to be changed, for which we have sought an amendment. By validating their entry, at least their stay here will not be considered illegal. As for conferring citizenship, we still need to decide on that.

DEEPTIMAN TIWARY: Why is the Central government dragging its feet on banning the Sanatan Sanstha, which has been found to be involved in at least three blasts, while their links to at least three recent murders of rationalists are being investigated?

First of all, the decision of not banning the Sanatan Sanstha was taken by the previous government. I have gone through the entire file, P Chidambaram (the former home minister) clearly stated that there is no reason to ban this Sanstha. The report from Goa and Karnataka governments was on the same lines. The Maharashtra government was a little critical and said that there are some incidents which really make a case for the Sanstha to be banned. After the report from Maharashtra came, it was the decision of Mr Chidambaram that it was not to be banned. So, the matter has not come to us, whatever decision was taken, it was taken by the previous government.

SHEELA BHATT: We don’t see much difference between the home ministries of the UPA and the NDA governments. There are no major, fundamental changes in law and order, in terms of approach etc. Do you agree?

I will not differ with you in terms of cosmetic changes, and I don’t believe in that also, and a revolutionary change may take some time. But I believe that we have made a fundamental change in our approach. We are dealing with issues much more rationally. We don’t let unnecessary external influence into the system. But with regards to the total face of the ministry, I am not sure, maybe we are not able to project the ministry in a manner that people expect, but our approach is very sincere and honest.

AMITABH SINHA: There have been many incidents of growing intolerance and many demands for the PM to speak. He hasn’t. But even you, who speaks his mind on most issues, haven’t spoken on say the M M Kalburgi murder or on Dadri. Why is that?

After the Dadri incident, we issued very strong directives, that the fabric of the secular society cannot be eroded. It was a very strong and categorical advisory. Unfortunately that was not part of the discussion. Political blame game began and some of the leaders visiting the place for photo-ops and political mileage took centrestage. But the home ministry was never silent, we took necessary steps at the right time. We may not be good at PR, we are doing many substantial jobs, but we are unable to portray it in the correct way, as some other organisations would do it.

Those who demand that PM speak on every occasion, even when he speaks, they will create problems. There are ministers and ministries handling different issues. The PM will speak whenever it is necessary and he has been speaking. But to demand, you speak now… PM is speaking, he is speaking at the right time on the right issues, and since this particular issue is under the home ministry, that is why the home ministry is speaking.

PRADEEP KAUSHAL: Do you agree with your colleague VK Singh’s statement, which he made in connection with the murders of two Dalit children in Haryana — that even if you throw a stone at a dog, the Centre will be blamed?

See, I cannot clarify on his behalf, but maybe what he meant was that for every issue, don’t blame the Centre or Prime Minister. That is what he may have meant. But the analogy may be wrong in the context of the incident that has happened. But I am sure what he meant was that the Opposition parties have been targeting the PM over everything. V K Singh is a very strong-headed and efficient minister and the former Army chief. If his statements are being misinterpreted, then we should ask him again about what he actually meant, so that way he can clarify.

Get live Share Market updates, Stock Market Quotes, and the latest India News and business news on Financial Express. Download the Financial Express App for the latest finance news.

First published on: 25-10-2015 at 00:13 IST
Market Data
Market Data
Today’s Most Popular Stories ×