A Conversation with Mr Tuhin Sinha, National Spokesperson, Bharatiya Janata Party

Interviewed by Prem Ansh Sinha (Editor-in-Chief) 

Edited by Sanish Kumar (Junior Editor) & Manjari Bhargava (Assistant Editor)

An edited transcript of the interview, as taken on March 27th, 2024, is as follows:

To me, the Khatiyan is one of the most important cases in the history of Jharkhand. Let me summarise the recent updates about Khatiyan. The Jharkhand Definition of Local Persons and for Extending the Consequential Social, Cultural and Other Benefits Bill, 2022, is the formal name of the Khatiyan Bill. Former chief minister Hemant Soren had called the recommendations by the Attorney General “illogical and unreasonable” in December, and again passed the bill in the last week of December without adding the recommendations. This has been the case with many such versions of this bill. It has been stuck in an infinite loop. What is your understanding of the situation? What is its future, and how should we be going about it?

The bill is rooted in the fact that Adivasi and local interests need to be protected, but to give a cut-off date as 1937, as mentioned in the bill, is extremely unrealistic. It is a complex issue, and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is still mulling over certain aspects of it. We are discussing it with all the stakeholders. But beyond that, I do not think the bill needs to be passed hastily, as was done by the government. It requires a fresh round of deliberation. The Hemant Soren government was in a haste to pass the bill to give a different religious status to Adivasis, and all of this was done to attract a certain vote bank for his party. But in the larger interest of the state, the bill requires careful deliberation, which we will be doing in the time to come. However, due to the fluid political situation in the state, we have put the issue on hold for now.

The bill also has the provision to reserve Grade III and Grade IV jobs for locals in the state. Does the BJP agree with this idea of reservation? As Article 16 of the Indian Constitution states, for providing equal rights to all citizens in terms of employment, and according to Article 16(3), the Parliament has the right to impose any condition in the matter of employment. 

Also, in A V S Narasimha Rao and Others vs The State of Andhra Pradesh (1969), it was held that the right to impose any condition in the matter of employment is vested only with the Indian Parliament. Similarly, in Satyajeet Kumar vs The State of Jharkhand (2022), the Supreme Court declared the hundred per cent reservation given by the state in scheduled areas as unconstitutional. So, what is the BJP’s stand on this?

As a party, the BJP has always believed in One Nation, with seamless movement of people from one part of the country to the other. At the local level, some of the BJP’s leaders have also advocated a certain reservation in jobs for locals, but a hundred per cent reservation is extremely unrealistic and shows a myopic mentality. Jharkhand, today, has a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of roughly 53 billion dollars, which, considering the vast natural resources it has, is very low. To emerge as a key player in the Viksit Bharat goal, the fresh investment flows from outside the state are crucial for the state. Thus, a hundred per cent reservation for locals just reflects the myopic mindset of the Hemant Soren government. 

On the eve of the 2024 elections, I can say this with full responsibility that the main difference between the BJP and its allies, on one hand, and the INDI alliance [sic] (Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance) of opposition, on the other, is the broad vision of the BJP. While the BJP is determined to have Viksit Bharat as a clear vision for the next twenty years, the opposition is extremely myopic in its thought process, focussed on immediate vested political interest, and can go to any extent to divide people on the lines of caste, creed, and local sentiments.

Sir, do you think that the BJP supports this whole idea of reserving the Grade III and Grade IV jobs for locals?

Number one, the party has always believed in the idea of a classless society. And also, when we talk about Ek Bharat Shreshtha Bharat, we believe that people across the country should have unlimited access to any part of the country. The North East was a very closed area, and so was Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) till the abrogation of Article 370. We ensured that the ghettoisation of J&K and the Northeast ends, and they are integrated with the whole country. In Jharkhand, obviously, the Adivasi sentiments are very important as they constitute 26 per cent of the population of the state, but again, a hundred per cent reservation is no solution, and we are seeking a solution in between. 

We are trading cautiously, knowing that the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) is in its last legs, and it may not be able to survive beyond this election, because of the range of graft charges against the party members, including Hemant Soren. So, the BJP would be devising a very careful policy on all of these issues, while keeping in mind the local sentiments. Maximum impetus will be given to investments from outside the state, and industrial progress will be extended beyond the conventional centres of Jamshedpur and Dhanbad.

As you were talking about how the BJP will bring a comprehensive policy on the issue, I would like to bring up the historical stance of the BJP on the issue. The Babulal Marandi government in 2004 decided to have 1964 be the cut-off year, causing a widespread uproar, due to which he had to resign from the government. 

The Raghuvar Das government in 2016 decided that anyone who had been living in the state for the last 30 years would be defined as a local, which again caused a huge uproar in the polls. So, why do you think the BJP keeps changing its stance on the issue, and how will the BJP try to look at the issue in the future?

Well, it is a sensitive issue, as you highlighted, it leads to furore in some parts when a new cut-off date is announced. So, the BJP cannot have a fixed policy on this because local sentiments are important. A lot of it will depend on the local leadership, who becomes the chief minister and how he sets his approach to the issue. But before the elections, the BJP provides an ideal mix of tribal and non-tribal leadership. The problem is that the present dispensation skews heavily on one side, the tribal side. Not just the tribal issue, when you talk about the northern parts of Jharkhand, Dumka, and Sahibganj, the illegal immigrant population has enormously increased, and the way it has been facilitated by the JMM poses a big security threat. When we talk of the domicile issue, the problem of illegal immigrants cannot be kept isolated. And, the larger thrust here needs to be more cohesion between the tribal and non-tribal population, which has been the main reason for the opposition against this bill. And I think the BJP would be tackling it with more political maturity than the JMM has done. I can assure you that even the local leadership of the BJP will not approve a hundred per cent or anything more than 50-60 per cent reservation; it will be a much fairer deal for both sides.

Through these reservation policies, even if it is around 40 per cent to 50 per cent, are we not moving towards the idea of Dr Verrier Elvin, who wanted a sort of ‘National Parks’ protection through these reservation policies? It was also brought up to Mahatma Gandhi, who rejected the whole idea, calling it similar to separate electorates. What is your view on this?

Unfortunately, the tribal communities have not had the leadership of the nature and stature of BR Ambedkar and Jaipal Singh Munda, who was probably the sole tribal representative in the constituent assembly, because they would have advocated growth and prosperity very differently. But at present, most of the schemes post-2014, like Nal Se Jal curriculum and Swachh Bharat Abhiyan, have primarily benefited the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Even if you look at rural road construction, which has seen exponential growth since 2014, it has benefited Adivasis the most. 

When we talk about development, reservation is an important component as maintained in our constitution, but it cannot be the only one. If Rahul Gandhi believes the reservation percentage should be more than 50 per cent, I think this is the recipe for regression, and is one reason why the opposition is out of political favour with the people of the country. I think empowerment happens in different ways, like providing basic facilities to the people. Naxal incidents have gone down by around 70-75 per cent for the first time after independence, and that is because a massive sense of belongingness has been provided to the community. This happens only when you get basic amenities like clean drinking water, 24/7 electricity, internet facilities, et cetera. So, improving human capital is more important than temporary issues like reservation, which the opposition finds very convenient to ride upon.

Let us assume that the government keeps 1932 as the cut-off year. What if somebody’s ancestor had been living in the state before that but did not have any land?

There are massive practical difficulties with that. Since I have worked on many books on tribal movements in India’s freedom struggle, I tell you that if we keep 1932 as the cut-off year, not even 10 per cent of the state’s population would qualify for that. Cities like Jamshedpur, Bokaro, and Dhanbad have a shifting population. So, it is an impractical way to have 1932 as the cut-off year.

So, the BJP does not have a fixed policy on the issue. Given that you have written a lot about Jharkhand, what do you think can be a better alternative to the Khatiyan?

The fixation of a domicile cut-off date itself is a problematic approach, because you are assuming that future generations would work in the government sector in Jharkhand, but the fraction of the population who aspire for a government job is extremely low. We as a society need to be more aspirational than sulking for years and decades on it, even if the cut-off year is 2000 or 1985, it is not going to make much difference. In this age of entrepreneurial revolution, instead of focussing on government jobs like previous generations, we need to promote entrepreneurship among the tribal population. There is an urgent need to make the tribal population an equal stakeholder in the entrepreneurial revolution that the country is witnessing. When it comes to biofuel and some of the medicinal fuels, tribal areas are most conducive to housing those plants. So, we need to make them more aspirational and expose them to the new opportunities emerging in the country.

We saw that when the Raghuvar Das government tried to amend the law on domicile, concerns arose regarding the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, and the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act, 1876, leading to the Pathalgarhi movement in the state. What is your take on this movement that generated the highest number of sedition cases? Do you think the state failed to handle the issue as it assumed a violent face?

The movement was very unfortunate. But it was aggravated by some political entities with vested political interests. For the JMM, which has a very confined vote bank constituted by Christians, Adivasis, and Muslims, the Khatiyan was an emotive issue to gain electoral support. If you ask me, the Pathalgarhi movement was more similar to the farmer protests that have recently emerged, which definitely have some political backing. The whole idea was to unsettle the state apparatus and disrupt the administrative process, which they achieved to some extent, but more or less, the state was able to control and handle the issue. I think the Pathalgarhi movement does not reflect the sentiments of the majority of the tribal population in the state. The majority of them want to move forward with developmental goals, and do not want to be dragged again into a kind of unsavoury violence that the Pathalgarhi movement had seen.

In December 2019, something very unexpected and surprising happened. A five-time Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) and sitting Chief Minister lost his fortress to an independent candidate, Saryu Roy. It is said that the supporters of Mr Arjun Munda worked against Mr Das, and the humiliation of party members in the state was among the reasons why Mr Das lost his seat. What is your take on this?

In politics, many things happen that are the results of intra-party dynamics, so I do not have a view on it because it is for Mr Das to ponder over why it happened, and I think the local unit of the party might have done an exhaustive postmortem of this. There are times when, despite putting in efforts to develop the state, a particular leader is not very popular in his constituency. There can be many factors behind it; it can be the perception or the approachability, or something else. I believe that the internal aspirations of people within the party are among the major factors in these cases.

Recently, Sita Soren, sister-in-law of Hemant Soren, joined the BJP. What do you think could be the reasons behind this?

There are many leaders in the opposition who are capable and do not want to be on the losing side in every election. Since Prime Minister Narendra Modi is heading for a consecutive third term, defying the anti-incumbency, converting it into pro-incumbency, the opposition seems redundant, with no substantive issues or support for them. So those in the opposition who feel they are capable and need to find a better place for themselves are joining the BJP in large numbers.

So, are you trying to imply that it is not the BJP that is trying to do something extra, but that the opposition is very weak?

No, the BJP has already fulfilled its promises. But the opposition is relying on frivolous and divisive issues of caste, like asking a student, ‘aap konse jaati ke ho?’ (Which caste do you belong to?) and ‘Kya apko apna haq mila ki nahi?’ (Have you got your rights?). This is not what the youth of the country votes for. The improvement of human capital through 24-hour electrification and providing basic amenities is among the top priorities of voters.

Coming to the last question pertaining to Jharkhand. Union Minister Mr Nitin Gadkari is determined to reduce the usage of coal in India. Given the large contribution of coal in Jharkhand’s economy, is it something that is going to affect Jharkhand in particular? What alternatives do you think would help us if a ban is imposed on coal usage in the country?

I think it is still an imaginary situation, given the large dependence of India’s economy on coal. But again, the renewable energy sector is emerging as a sector where big investments are pouring into the country. There are periods when one sector dies, and the other sector is ready to make up for it.

Recently, we have seen a lot of politicians, commentators, and even the public alleging the BJP of weaponising government institutions like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED), in the context of the arrest of Delhi Chief Minister (CM) Mr Arvind Kejriwal and Jharkhand CM Mr Hemant Soren. To what extent do you think they are right to say this?

See, most of them are opposition faces, for whom money laundering was considered a pretty common case. Most of the charges pertain to money laundering and excise cases, like the land scam charges against Hemant Soren, where around 4.35 acres of prime properties within Ranchi were given away to his close relative at throwaway prices in benami (anonymous) names. Similarly, there was a very systematic liquor scam established, which has been admitted even by Manish Sisodia. They can get some relief through some laws, but even the court is convinced of their culpability.

A question that is a part of every discussion at a coffee or tea stall across the country is: Who is the potential candidate for the position of Prime Minister after Modi? Is it pre-decided or will it be decided when the situation arises?

See, in the BJP and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), these things do not get decided right away. So, I think this would be decided a few days before such a situation arises, when the change becomes inevitable. For the media, it is a pastime to keep guessing, but for the party, I do not think it is even the remotest consideration right now, as Mr Amit Shah has mentioned that Mr Modi is here for about the next 10 years. Also, the Prime Minister has been talking about the 2047 goals, which again reflects that there are no such considerations in the party right now.

Will it not contradict the whole idea of retirement from politics at 75 years?

We would look at that once he crosses 75. I think the opposition and media just keep guessing: ‘Who after Modi?’. I think the average party worker is happily contained in the present and future goals.

We know that the BJP is vocal about the rights of the Kashmiri Pandits, who had to leave the Kashmir valley after a genocide in the 1990s, but we still have refugee camps in Delhi where living conditions are not up to the mark. So, is it hypocrisy on the BJP’s part that they are not doing anything on the ground for the section of people that they are vocal about?

It would be unfair to say that nothing on the ground has been done for them, because the Kashmiri Hindu population has been given domicile status. I personally know some people who have gone back to the valley. They may not have settled there, but they have been purchasing property, and their children are applying for government jobs in the state. When you talk about the refugee camps, there have been exponential improvements in their living standards. Still, if something has been left behind, the government is figuring it out.

One last question, with which I think I would be opening a Pandora’s Box, pertains to the Uniform Civil Code (UCC). I think, there will be some provisions for various tribes in, let us say, Nagaland and Jharkhand, to make sure that certain communities are not affected by that. Do you think this would become a way for politicians to play the game of reservation politics by promising exemptions from the UCC?

See, the UCC is a complex issue, and that is why we have let our state governments take the lead in formulating a policy in their respective state rather than having a central policy on it. And, these state government UCCs will pave the way for the National UCC. Ideally, it should have been implemented in states many decades ago, because with the passing of time, they have also grown. But the UCC is required in a country that believes in uniform laws for all, especially in the matter of polygamy. Assam has adopted a new way of tackling polygamy by creating anti-polygamy laws. I think a modern society has no room for polygamy, because that leads to a dysfunctional society. Since the state governments, like Uttarakhand and Goa, have taken the lead in the matter, the central government would ideally collate and put forth a plan that would work on a national level.

Ends.