 |
|
The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, having successfully navigated the Lok Sabha amidst contentious circumstances, has now been introduced in the Rajya Sabha, reigniting debates and highlighting divisions within the Indian political landscape. The government, led by the Union Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju, has persistently maintained that the legislation is designed to safeguard the rights of Muslims and promote inclusivity, aiming to dispel accusations of targeting the community. However, the Opposition parties remain largely unconvinced, voicing strong concerns that the bill may inadvertently marginalize Muslims and exacerbate communal polarization. Amidst this polarized environment, a notable development emerged: the Biju Janata Dal (BJD), initially expressing intentions to oppose the bill, opted to refrain from issuing a whip to its members, thus allowing them to vote according to their conscience. This unexpected shift in stance underscored the fluid nature of political alliances and the complexities surrounding legislative decision-making. Minister Rijiju, in his address to the Upper House, emphasized the bill's inclusive nature, asserting that it seeks to empower Muslim women and protect the rights of all Muslim sects. He underscored that the management and creation of Waqf properties would remain under the purview of Muslims, with beneficiaries also being Muslims, thus negating any involvement of non-Muslims in these matters. He further reiterated the government's commitment to transparency, accountability, and efficiency in the handling of Waqf properties, asserting that the bill is purely administrative in nature and does not impinge upon religious matters. Addressing concerns surrounding ‘Waqf by user,’ Rijiju clarified that properties already registered with proper documentation would not be subjected to retrospective action, thus allaying fears of dispossession. However, he acknowledged that disputes pertaining to land or matters that are sub-judice would continue to be adjudicated by the courts. Leader of the House J P Nadda vehemently refuted the Opposition's claim that the government was attempting to bulldoze the legislation through, highlighting that the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) constituted under the Modi government boasted a significantly larger membership compared to its predecessor under the UPA regime, thereby demonstrating adherence to democratic norms. Nadda further emphasized that the Waqf Bill is aimed at introducing checks and balances in the management of Waqf properties, mirroring practices prevalent in Muslim countries across the world. He echoed Rijiju and Union Home Minister Amit Shah's sentiments, pointing to amendments made to the Waqf Act by the UPA government in 2013, alleging that these amendments led to losses for Muslims and benefited land mafia, particularly during the period between 2013 and 2025. The opposition, however, presented a contrasting perspective, with Congress MP Syed Naseer Hussain initiating the debate by characterizing the bill as an attempt to treat Muslims as second-class citizens. He questioned the government's assertion that the existing law precluded individuals from challenging a Waqf tribunal’s decision in courts, citing the numerous pending cases in the High Court and Supreme Court as evidence to the contrary. Hussain also questioned the government's rationale for requiring individuals to be practicing Muslims for five years before creating a Waqf, raising concerns about how the government would determine who qualifies as a practicing Muslim. He expressed apprehension that the government might resort to intrusive measures, such as monitoring individuals' attire or religious practices, to ascertain their eligibility. This sentiment was echoed by Trinamool Congress’s Mohammad Nadimul Islam, who questioned whether Muslims would be required to register to prove their religious affiliation. The CPI (M)’s John Brittas questioned whether the government would impose similar conditions on newly converted Hindus, questioning the fairness and consistency of the proposed legislation. The RJD’s Manoj Jha expressed reservations about the inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf boards, suggesting that such experiments should not be confined to Muslim institutions alone. He also raised concerns that the bill might serve as a legal cover for discriminatory practices. Jha urged the government to reconsider rushing through the legislation and suggested that it be sent back for further consultation to reduce the Executive’s influence. Regarding the government's claims about the UPA government handing over 123 prime properties to the Waqf board ahead of the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, Hussain clarified that these properties primarily consisted of masjids, graveyards, and dargahs, which were handed over to the Waqf by the British authorities after construction in the Lutyens Delhi area. He also questioned the government's requirement for individuals to provide documents to prove ‘Waqf by user,’ arguing that it would be impossible to produce historical records for properties dating back hundreds of years. Islam further raised concerns about the requirement to register on a government portal within six months, questioning whether those who fail to do so would have their land deemed illegal. He also pointed out that the bill's claim to bring Muslim women into the Boards is misleading, as women are already represented in state Waqf boards and the Central Waqf Council. Sanjay Singh of the Aam Aadmi Party echoed Islam's sentiments, emphasizing that the 2013 Waqf Act also included reservations for women. He challenged the government to introduce a bill to reserve 80% of positions in all Hindu religious institutions for Dalits, Adivasis, and OBCs, pledging his support for such a measure. Singh questioned the government's sincerity in claiming to act in the best interests of Muslims, given the lack of Muslim representation in Parliament and the government. Tiruchi Siva of the DMK pointed out that the Tamil Nadu Assembly had passed a resolution rejecting the bill, suggesting that the legislation would ultimately be struck down by the Supreme Court.
The debate surrounding the Waqf Amendment Bill reflects deep-seated political and ideological divisions within India, particularly concerning the treatment of religious minorities. The government's insistence that the bill is intended to protect Muslim rights and promote inclusivity is met with skepticism and resistance from the Opposition, who view it as another attempt to marginalize and discriminate against the Muslim community. The BJD's decision to allow its members to vote according to their conscience adds another layer of complexity to the situation, highlighting the challenges of forging consensus on sensitive issues with religious implications. The various concerns raised by Opposition members, including the potential for intrusive government oversight of religious practices, the requirement for historical documentation to prove ‘Waqf by user,’ and the inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf boards, underscore the depth of their reservations about the bill. These concerns suggest that the Opposition believes the bill may inadvertently undermine the autonomy and self-governance of Muslim institutions. The debate also touches upon broader issues of representation and inclusivity in Indian politics, with critics questioning the government's commitment to Muslim empowerment given the underrepresentation of Muslims in key decision-making positions. Sanjay Singh's challenge to reserve a significant portion of positions in Hindu religious institutions for marginalized communities further highlights the need for a more equitable and inclusive approach to religious governance. The ongoing deliberations on the Waqf Amendment Bill underscore the importance of constructive dialogue and consensus-building in addressing issues of religious freedom and minority rights. A more inclusive and participatory approach, involving consultation with diverse stakeholders and a willingness to address legitimate concerns, is essential to ensure that any legislation impacting religious communities is fair, just, and consistent with the principles of secularism and equality.
In conclusion, the Waqf (Amendment) Bill's introduction in the Rajya Sabha has served as a catalyst for a multifaceted debate encompassing religious freedom, minority rights, and the role of government in religious affairs. While the government portrays the bill as a progressive measure aimed at enhancing transparency and protecting Muslim interests, the Opposition remains deeply skeptical, viewing it as a potential tool for marginalization and discrimination. The BJD's nuanced stance further complicates the political landscape, highlighting the complexities of navigating sensitive issues with religious dimensions. The criticisms leveled against the bill, ranging from concerns about intrusive government oversight to questions about the representation of Muslim voices, underscore the imperative for a more inclusive and participatory approach to legislative decision-making. Ultimately, the fate of the Waqf Amendment Bill will hinge on the ability of political actors to engage in constructive dialogue, address legitimate concerns, and forge a consensus that respects the rights and interests of all stakeholders. Failure to do so risks further exacerbating existing divisions and undermining the principles of secularism and equality that underpin India's constitutional framework.
Source: Waqf Bill comes to Rajya Sabha, BJD shows chinks in Opposition armour