GUWAHATI, July 31 - Terming the complete draft of NRC as �defective�, former Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi today said that the document is not "foolproof" and that there have been lapses in its preparation.
�This is not a foolproof NRC. It has leakages. It is a defective one,� Gogoi said addressing a press conference.
He said that most of the 40 lakh people whose names are missing from the draft NRC are Indian citizens and added that while illegal migrants no doubt reside in Assam, their numbers are not so high.
Gogoi said that some people declared as foreigners by the courts as well as many living in detention camps have been included in the draft NRC.
�I am happy that the complete NRC draft is out but I must admit I am not hundred per cent happy with the process,� he said.
He called upon the government to provide legal aid to people who have not found their names in the draft NRC and said that Congress, too, will provide all help to genuine Indian citizens whose names are missing in the document.
He said that the BJP regime is unduly giving more emphasis on the 'claims and objections� part of the NRC update work.
�The government is asking people not to panic if their names are not found in the list, and has assured them of not taking action. If 40 lakh people are not to be treated as foreigners, then where are the foreigners? And if the foreigners are excluded, then why not take any action against them? If the NRC does not indicate anything, then is it not a waste of resources?� he said.
The credit for the birth of NRC also goes to him and all the modalities and formalities for preparing the document were completed during his tenure, Gogoi maintained.
He also lambasted BJP leaders for speaking in divergent voices regarding the cut-off date for foreigners and said the saffron party is trying to create confusion in the minds of people.
Regarding the inclusion of the voters list of 2014 for NRC verification, he said, �If we are rejecting the 'D' voters from the NRC based on 2014 and 2016 voting list, then why are we not accepting it as a basis for inclusion?�
