New Delhi:
The promised eight-hour debate on the Waqf Amendment Bill – which proposes changes to laws that decide how Muslim charitable properties are administered – began Wednesday morning with Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju tabling the proposed legislation in the Lok Sabha.
That was accompanied by jabs at the Congress. Mr Rijiju claimed the opposition party had made “questionable” changes to Waqf laws when it was in power, including the denotification of “123 major buildings… (that) were given to the Waqf”. The Congress-led UPA government, he sneered, would have handed over the (old) Parliament building to the Waqf if not stopped.
Mr Rijiju then criticised the opposition for standing against changes – that sources told The Hindkesharilast year are meant empower Muslim women and children who “suffered” under the old law – insisting there will be no changes to management of mosques. “This is a property management issue,” the Union Minister raged, “The government has nothing to do with religious sentiments.”
The opposition – which has united against the Waqf Amendment Bill – should not spread misinformation about this law, Mr Rijiju continued, slamming the Congress and other parties for trying to politicise the issue. “Appeasement does not lead to votes,” he warned.
Controversy over changes to the Waqf laws comes as Bihar – where the Muslim population is around 17 per cent – votes in an Assembly election later this year.
“We have come with a very clear brief… we want the Waqf to be secular, inclusive,” Mr Rijiju said, outlining several of the proposed changes, including a contentious rule requiring two-non Muslims to be part of each state Waqf Board and the central Waqf Council.
The Minority Affairs Minister also questioned the lack of female representation on these boards, declaring the government had written in provisions to guarantee at least two women members.
Mr Rijiju’s fierce speech was preceded by a brief ruckus as two opposition MPs – NK Ramachandran of the Revolutionary Socialist Party and the Congress’ KC Venugopal.
Mr Ramachandran questioned the authority of the joint parliamentary committee – which had been tasked last year with reviewing the original Waqf Amendment Bill – to make changes.
And Mr Venugopal complained about the opposition not being given enough time to study the changed bill. To this, Speaker Om Birla reiterated he had ensured equal time for both sides.
Mr Ramachandran had said that, by his interpretation of the rules, the JPC should not have introduced changes to the bill, as it had not been expressly authorised to do so by the House.
He was referring to the 14 changes (all suggested by MPs from the ruling BJP or allied parties, another point of contention with the opposition) that had been made by the committee.
These changes were cleared by the Union Cabinet in February.
Union Home Minister Amit Shah rose for a brief rebuttal.
Mr Shah said the committee – led by the BJP’s Jagadambika Pal – had offered suggestions that were then accepted by the union government and not the committee itself.
The Home Minister also took the opportunity to attack the Congress, declaring that the Waqf Bill committee was not a “rubber stamp committee” like those formed when the opposition party was in power. “Our committees are consultative,” he said.
The Waqf Amendment Bill was first tabled in the Lok Sabha in August last year amid furious protests from the opposition, which slammed the proposed law as “draconian”.
A day later it was sent to the committee, which filed its report in February after claims from opposition MPs on it that their views had been ignored.
The BJP refuted that claims; panel member and Lok Sabha MP Aparajita Sarangi said Mr Pal “tried to hear everybody out and gave sufficient time for everybody to move amendments…”
The JPC held nearly three dozen hearings in six months but many of those ended in chaos, and at least one in physical violence after Trinamool MP Kalyan Banerjee smashed a glass bottle on the table, after claiming provocation from the BJP’s Abhijit Gangopadhyay.
Eventually 66 changes were proposed, of which all 44 from the opposition were rejected while the 23 from BJP and allied parties were accepted. After a vote 14 of the 23 were cleared.
The removal of an annexure with dissent notes from the opposition triggered another row. The centre said the Chair had the discretion but, after talks, said the notes would be included.
The original draft of the Waqf Amendment Bill had proposed 44 changes.
These included nominating non-Muslim and (at least two) women members to each Waqf board, as well as a Union Minister, three MPs and persons of ‘national repute’. There was also a proposal to limit donations from Muslims practicing their religion for at least five years.
