SIDHARTH NATH SINGH was in Andhra Pradesh as part of the BJP's campaign to spread information about the Citizenship (Amendment) Act when THE WEEK reached out to him. In an interview, the minister of micro, small and medium enterprises talked about the situation in Uttar Pradesh, police action there and the courts' role in the matter. The interview was conducted before the CAA was notified in the gazette.Excerpts:
There have been reports that Uttar Pradesh has started implementing the CAA. Are those true?
We will be the first state to implement the CAA. However, first, procedures and frameworks have to be laid down by the Centre. We can only implement on the basis of [that]. You do not implement [it] in the air.
There are reports of certain district magistrates (DMs) being asked to identify illegal migrants. Has that been done?
I do not know anything about any such government order being issued. There is a lot of misinformation, falsehood and propaganda being spread. There is deliberate fear-mongering. If someone is claiming that the DMs have been written to, show us the government order that says so.
That means there is no step whatsoever to implement the CAA?
We will get going as soon as we receive the framework from the Centre. We will be the first state to do so because that is how fast we want to implement it.
Sidharth Nath Singh
Logically then, there is no movement on the nationwide National Register of Citizens either, as there is no clarity from the Centre on it?
Those who are speaking on the NRC should get a magnifying glass and look for it. The NRC exists in Assam only because of the Supreme Court order. Had the government of the day not got cold feet in 1985 (when the Assam Accord was signed), the Supreme Court would not have needed to intervene.
Do you think the situation went out of hand in Uttar Pradesh as the government did not provide enough information to the people?
Sometimes you do not expect such a reaction. We are all political parties that have been in opposition. Yet we did not expect that the opposition would go on to create such a massive disinformation campaign to play with emotions, and that would lead to violence. We, being in the government, could not judge it. Perhaps that is where our mistake lies. All political parties need to be very careful henceforth and must not play with emotions. Do not stoke passions, particularly on religious lines.
Did the state police use excessive force by picking up so many who were innocent, even some who were under house arrest?
If stone pelting starts and you are in the crowd, at that moment, the police do not know if you did pick up a stone or not. If one is arrested then there is a process of law to be followed [for them] to be bailed out. Arresting those under house arrest is a measure of prevention. It is part of law and order.
Could the government have preempted the violence?
Normally, in Lucknow, such protests are not allowed to go beyond the Chowk (old Lucknow) area. If the government would not have allowed the protestors to reach Parivartan Chowk (the site of the main protests), people would have accused us of being undemocratic. So it cuts both ways. The police take a call by gauging the situation. Let me make it clear that the police were not working on an agenda.
Some of those jailed have now been granted bail and the courts have made negative observations about the manner in which the arrests were made.
We have the High Court saying that the police could have been firmer. One court might say something, the other something different. I will not get into that. All I will say on record is that no directions were given to the UP police to work against any innocents.