Waqf Bill comes to Rajya Sabha, BJD shows chinks in Opposition armour

Tabling the Bill in the Upper House, Union Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the “inclusive” legislation aims to empower Muslim women and protect the rights of all Muslim sects. “The management, creation of Waqf properties will be done by Muslims, and beneficiaries will be Muslims. The waqif and mutawallis will be Muslims… There is no question of involvement of non-Muslims in these matters,” he said.

Asserting that the Bill aims to bring “transparency, accountability, and efficiency”, Rijiju said it has nothing to do with religion, but deals only with properties.

On apprehensions regarding ‘Waqf by user’, he said properties already registered with proper documentation will not see retrospective action. “All such Waqf properties will remain so… But if there is any disputed land or any matter that is sub-judice, we cannot do away with the right of courts.”

Leader of the House J P Nadda, who spoke for the Bill, rejected the Opposition claim that the government was bulldozing the legislation through. “The Joint Parliamentary Committee that was set up in 2013 (under the UPA government) only had 13 members. The committee that the Modi government set up had 31 members. What is the other benchmark for following democratic norms?” he said.

The Waqf Bill only meant to bring “checks and balances” in handling of Waqf properties, the same as Muslim countries across the world, Nadda said.

Like Rijiju and Union Home Minister Amit Shah on Wednesday, Nadda spoke about the amendments made to the Waqf Act by the UPA government in 2013, and claimed that “the wrong direction” between 2013 and 2025 had resulted in losses to Muslims and benefits to the land mafia.

From the Opposition side, Congress MP from Karnataka Syed Naseer Hussain initiated the debate, slamming the Bill for “seeking to treat Muslims as second-class citizens”. “Everybody knows who benefits when communal polarisation takes place,” Hussain said.

He also questioned the government’s assertion that under the existing law, people could not move courts to challenge a Waqf tribunal’s decision. “How are there so many pending cases in the High Court and Supreme Court, if none could move court?” Hussain, who was a member of the Waqf board in Karnataka, said.

Amit Shah interjected at this moment, saying: “They did not keep a provision for a civil suit, which has a wide purview, in the 2013 Act. They only had provision for writ jurisdiction in the High Court, which has a very limited purview.”

Congress president Mallikarun Kharge intervened, requesting the Chair not to permit “disturbance of the flow of the speech of the speaker”, saying the Treasury benches could make their points during their speeches.

Resuming his address, Hussain spoke about the provision that only someone who has been a practising Muslim for five years can create a Waqf. “How will the government determine who is a practising Muslim – through his skull cap, beard, dress, CCTV cameras at homes and mosques to check if they are reading the namaz? Will they have a different department to determine who is a Muslim?” Hussain said.

The Trinamool Congress’s Mohammad Nadimul Islam made the same point later, saying: “Will Muslims have to register to prove they are Muslims?”

The CPI (M)’s John Brittas asked whether a regime “interested in ghar wapsi” would put the same conditions before a newly converted Hindu, so as to consider him a Hindu.

Islam and Hussain also objected to the Bill allowing inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf boards. The RJD’s Manoj Jha said he would be happy if the government promoted “mixed representation” in all religious institutions, but could not support “experiments” being conducted in Muslim institutions alone. Alleging a concerted attempt to marginalise communities, he asked whether the Bill was a “legal cover for the bulldozer’.

Jha urged the government to not “hurry” with the legislation. “… everything will fall apart… Send this again for consultation and reduce the Executive’s influence in this.”

About the government raising the issue of 123 prime properties being handed over to the Waqf board by the previous UPA government ahead of the Lok Sabha elections of 2014, Hussain said: “These are either masjids, graveyards or dargahs. I want to submit a list of those. When the British occupied Lutyens Delhi, these properties were handed over to the Waqf by them after construction in the area. These properties are with the Waqf.”

Questioning the government laying down the condition of documents to prove ‘Waqf by user’, Hussain said: “We had lots of kings and dynasties throughout our history; there are beautiful temples, mosques and gurdwaras. How will they show documents of something 500 years old?”

On the requirement to register on a government portal within six months, Islam asked whether those who could not do so would have their land deemed illegal.

Islam added: “The Bill says it brings Muslim women into the Boards. But women are already there in state Waqf boards and the Central Waqf Council.”

Sanjay Singh of the Aam Aadmi Party asserted the same, adding: “The 2013 Waqf also had reservations for women.” The government should next bring a Bill to reserve 80% positions in all Hindu religious institutions for Dalits, Adivasis and OBCs, Singh challenged, adding that he would support it.

“The government says we are bringing this law for the benefit of Muslims… You don’t have Muslim MPs except one, Ghulam Ali; you have no Muslim minister; you finished the politics of Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi and Shahnawaz Husain. Are you benefiting Muslims?” Singh said.

Tiruchi Siva of the DMK pointed out that the Tamil Nadu Assembly had passed a resolution rejecting the Bill, and said the legislation would be struck down by the Supreme Court.