Politics

No Need for NRC, Conduct NPR as Per 2010 Format: Bihar Assembly Passes Unanimous Resolution

The all-party resolution followed a debate on adjournment motion moved by leader of the opposition Tejashwi Yadav and others in the House. It got the approval of the house in the post-lunch session.

Patna: The Bihar assembly on Tuesday passed a unanimous resolution holding that there is no need for the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in the state and updating of the National Population Register (NPR) should be done according to the 2010 format.

The all-party resolution followed a debate on adjournment motion moved by leader of the opposition Tejashwi Yadav and others in the House. It got the approval of the house in the post-lunch session.

Welcoming the resolution, Union minister and Lok Janshakti Party (LJP) founder Ram Vilas Paswan said, “I have already said there is no need to be scared of the NPR, and the Prime Minister has also asserted that there is no proposal for the NRC.”

Earlier, while replying to the debate on the motion, Chief Minister Nitish Kumar had reiterated his opposition to “additional clauses” having been inserted into the NPR. He told the house that the state government has written to the Centre requesting that these be dropped.

Kumar told the assembly that there should be “no confusion” regarding how the NPR exercise would be carried out in the state and that nobody would be asked to furnish information like place and date of birth of one’s parents.

Reading out the text of the letter to the Centre, he said it has also been proposed by the Bihar government that “transgenders” be included in the gender column of the NPR.

A strong opponent of National Register for Citizens (NRC) despite his alliance with the BJP, Kumar, however, disapproved of ‘hauva’ (bogey) of NRC being raised by the opposition despite Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s categorical statement that its countrywide implementation was not on the anvil.

Kumar said that CAA is a Central act passed by Parliament which is currently pending with the Supreme Court.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

You may also like