The Waqf bill, after a smooth passage through Lok Sabha, breezed through the Rajya Sabha 24 hours later, after yet another marathon debate. On its way, it exposed a chink in the armour of the parties opposing the bill. The voting was 128 votes in favour of the bill and 95 against.
Just a few hours before the voting, Naveen Patkaik’s Biju Janata Dal opened the gates for a “conscience vote’ telling its seven upper house MPs that they would not be bound by a whip and could vote for whichever side they wanted.
The party’s senior leader Sasmit Patra, in a post on X, said they took that view after taking into consideration the sentiments of “different sections of the Minority communities regarding the Waqf (Amendment) Bill”.
The Debate
The arguments, though, were on expected lines. Minorities affairs minister Kiren Rijiju, opening the debate, dismissed allegations that the bill would harm Muslim interests and asserted that non-Muslims cannot interfere in the Waqf Board’s affairs as its management, creation, and beneficiaries would remain exclusively Muslims.
Emphasizing his argument that the bill is not about religion but property and its management and aims to root out corruption, he said proof of ownership will now be required before a property is declared Waqf. This, he added, will eliminate the previous provision where any claim by the Waqf Board automatically led to its designation as Waqf property.
Mr Rijiju and Union minister Amit Shah had yesterday listed properties that were labelled Wakf, among them properties in Delhi’s Lutyens zone, a 400-year-old temple in Tamil Nadu, land for a five-star establishment and even the old parliament building.
Congress’s Syed Naseer Hussain, who responded to Mr Rijiju, said, “They are creating confusion about 123 properties. They are either masjids, burial grounds or dargahs”.
“I want to submit a list of those,” he said. “When the British occupied Lutyens’ Delhi, these properties were handed over to the Waqf by them after construction of the area. These properties are with the Waqf. These were the ones that are being referred to by them in relation to 2013,” he added.
There was also an acrimonious exchange between Mr Hussain and Amit Shah today, when the former questioned the BJP argument that at under the existing Waqf Act, people can’t move court if they are aggrieved with the decision of the Tribunal. “This is false. How are there so many pending cases in the High Court and Supreme Court if none could move court?” he said.
“They (the Congress) did not keep a provision for a civil suit, which has a wide purview, in the court in the 2013 Act. They only have a provision for writ jurisdiction in the High Court, which has a very limited purview,” retorted Mr Shah.
Speaking in favour of the bill, Union Minister JP Nadda accused the Opposition of attempting to divert and derail the issue and asserted that it would be good if they paid attention to the deprived sections of the Muslim community. He also questioned why India cannot make changes when Muslim nations are making Waqf properties transparent and digitized the system.
Congress’s Mallikarjun Kharge said the bill should not be made into a prestige issue. “What you (government) are doing is not good. This will lead to disputes in the country. You are sowing seeds for disputes… I appeal to the Home Minister to withdraw this. What is the harm in rectifying the errors?” he said.
Giving what he called a “comparative statement,” he said the Bill was passed in Lok Sabha with 288 Ayes and 232 Noes. “Did everyone accept it? This means that there are drawbacks (in the Bill). You should see this… If you go by ‘jiski laathi uski bhains’, this will not be good for anyone,” he told the House.
Targeting the Centre over the provisions of the legislation, he said: “Why two non-Muslims are required (to be part of Waqf board)? In Tirupati, do you keep any Muslims? Are there Muslim members in the Ram Temple Trust? Let alone Muslims, you won’t put a Dalit Hindu like me also there.”
His words echoed AIMIM leader Imtiaz Jaleel, who said, “If non-Muslims are going to be appointed on the Waqf Board, are they going to include Imtiaz Jaleel in Shirdi Saibaba (temple) trust or Tirupati temple trust. If such a board comes up for the Sikh community, no non-Sikh can be appointed. So, why such things are for the Waqf Board only,” he questioned.
What Next For The Bill
The Lok Sabha had passed the bill with a 288-232 vote in the early hours of Thursday after a debate lasting over 12 hours.
The proposed legislation — which will be sent for President’s sign-off next — aims to amend the 1995 law governing Waqf properties.
The Contentious Provisions of Waqf Bill
The contentious provisions in the amended bill include mandatory inclusion of two non-Muslim members in the Central Waqf Council and Waqf Boards.
There is also the stipulation that only individuals who practiced Islam for at least five years can donate properties to Waqf. The Opposition has questioned how the government intends to determine who a practicing Muslim is. They have also argued that barring converts from making donations is an interference in the fundamental rights to practice religion and the law on equality.
Under the proposed law, government property identified as Waqf will cease to belong to it and the local Collector will determine its ownership. The bill also proposes that an officer above the rank of collector will investigate government properties claimed as Waqf. In case of disputes, the senior government official will have the final say on whether a property belongs to Waqf or the government. This replaces the existing system where such decisions are made by Waqf tribunals.
The Opposition as well as a section of the Muslim community interprets it as a government move to gain control over Waqf properties.