New Delhi: The government referred the Waqf (Amendment) Bill to a joint parliamentary panel, after a heated debate between the ruling and opposition party leaders in the Lok Sabha where it was introduced on Thursday. BJP allies TDP, LJP and Jan Sena also suggested that the Bill be sent to the joint panel.
Leaders across the opposition parties opposed the draft legislation, saying that it was against the Constitution and federalism.
Sources said leaders from the TDP, LJP and the Jan Sena conveyed to the BJP that it would be better to refer this Bill to the committee.
Speaker Om Birla said a joint parliamentary committee would be formed after consulting leaders from all parties. The panel would have 20 members from the Lok Sabha and ten from the Rajya Sabha.
Congress: Calling the bill “draconian”, Congress MP KC Venugopal said in the Lok Sabha that move to amend the law was a “fundamental attack on the Constitution”.
“The Supreme Court constituted the board for the Ayodhya temple. Can anybody think that a non-Hindu will be a part of the Ayodhya mandir,” Venugopal asked. The proposed amendment violates the right to freedom of religion, he said
Samajwadi Party: The Bill is being introduced to appease the BJP’s hardcore supporters, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav said. What’s the point of including non-Muslims in Waqf boards when this is not done in other religious bodies, he asked.
NCP (SCP): Referring to the situation in Bangladesh, NCP (SCP) leader Supriya Sule requested the government to withdraw the Bill.
“There is so much pain in Bangladesh. We are all very concerned about what is going on there. So, my point is that minorities should be protected in every country because they are lesser in numbers … strongly object to this Bill and request the government to withdraw this,” Sule said.
Trinamool Congress: This Bill is divisive, TMC floor leader Sudip Bandopadhyay said, calling it anti-constitutional and antifederal.
DMK: This Bill is against the Constitution, federalism, religious minorities and human beings, DMK leader Kanimozhi said.
AIMIM: Party chairperson Asaduddin Owaisi claimed that the House did not have the competence to make the amendments. No such provision exists for the Hindu endowments or for the Sikh Gurudwara Parbandhak Committees. It is a grave attack on the basic structure of the Constitution, he said.
Telugu Desam Party: Party leader Harish Balayogi said he appreciated the concern with which the government had brought the Bill. It is the responsibility of the government to bring in reforms and introduce transparency in the system, he said. “We support it. We believe that the registration of the property as proposed in this Bill is going to help the poor Muslims and women in the country by bringing transparency…,” the TDP MP said.
Government: Strongly defending the Bill, union minority affairs minister Kiran Rijiju said the Wakf Act of 1995 did not serve its purpose and the amendments were necessitated as the Congress could not achieve the reform it should have.
“Because you couldn’t do it, we had to bring these amendments…Some people have captured Waqf boards and this Bill has been brought to give justice to ordinary Muslims,” he said.
He claimed that many leaders in the opposition had privately told him that state Waqf boards had turned into a mafia. “I won’t take their names and destroy their political careers,” Rijiju said.
“In our country, no law can be a super law and that can’t be above the Constitution. However, in the 1995 Wakf Act, there are provisions that are above the provisions in the Constitution. Shouldn’t that be changed,” he asked.
“The wrongs which you have done, now, we are correcting those,” Rijiju said, hitting out at the Congress.
JDU leader and Union Minister Rajiv Ranjan Singh said, “Several members are making it sound as if the amendment in the Waqf board law is anti-Muslim. How is it anti-Muslim? Here an example of Ayodhya is being given … Can you not differentiate between a temple and an institution?” He said the Bill aimed to enhance transparency, and also to ensure that no institution operated in an autocratic manner and that transparency is maintained.
