New Delhi:
The Waqf Bill, after a smooth route through the Lok Sabha, after another marathon debate 24 hours after the Rajya Sabha, after another marathon debate. In its own way, it exposed a mess in the armor of the parties opposing the bill. The voting bill had 128 votes in favor and against 95.
Just a few hours before the voting, the Biju Janata Dal of Naveen Patkiq, telling its seven upper house MPs, opened gates for “Vivek Vote” that they would not be tied to a whip and can vote for what they wanted.
Senior party leader Samsmat Patra said in a post on X that he took that approach after taking into account the “Various sections of minority communities” about the “Amendment) Bill.
Discussion
However, arguments were on the expected lines. Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju, opening the debate, dismissed the allegations that the bill would damage Muslim interests and claim that non-Muslim Waqf Board matters could not interfere in matters as its management, construction and beneficiaries will remain particularly Muslims.
Emphasizing their argument that the bill is not about religion, but about property and its management and its purpose is to stop corruption, he said that the evidence of ownership would now be necessary before being declared a property. This, he said, will end the previous provision where any claim by the Waqf Board automatically led its designation as Waqf property.
Mr. Rijiju and Union Minister Amit Shah listed the properties listed yesterday, which were labeled WAKF, Lutyens Zone in Delhi, 400 -year -old temple in Tamil Nadu, land for five -star establishment and even in Old Parliament House.
Syed Naseer Hussain of Congress, who responded to Mr. Rijiju, said, “They are creating confusion about 123 properties. They are either mosques, burial grounds or dargahs”.
“I want to present a list of them,” he said. He said, “When the British captured Lutyens’ Delhi, these properties were handed over to Waqf after the construction of the area.
There was still a sharp exchange between Mr. Hussain and Amit Shah, when the former questioned the BJP’s argument that under the current Waqf Act, people cannot transfer to court if they suffer from the tribunal’s decision. “This is wrong. How are there so many pending cases in the High Court and Supreme Court if no one can go to court?” He said.
“Wo (Congress) has not placed a provision for a civil suit in the court in the 2013 Act, which has a broad scope. They only have a provision for the jurisdiction in the High Court, which has a very limited scope,” said Mr. Shah.
Speaking in favor of the bill, Union Minister JP Nadda alleged the protest that he should try to turn the issue and take off the tracks and claimed that it would be good if they pay attention to the deprived sections of the Muslim community. He also questioned that when Muslim nations are making Waqf qualities transparent and digital, why can’t it change in India.
Mallikrajun Kharge of Congress said that the bill should not be made in the issue of a reputation. “What you (government) are doing is not good. This will cause disputes in the country. You are sowing seeds for disputes … I appeal to the Home Minister to withdraw it. What is the loss in improving the errors?” He said.
He said that he said “comparative statement”, he said that the bill was passed in the Lok Sabha with 288 Ayes and 232 Noes. “Did everyone accept it? This means that there are shortcomings (in the bill). You should see it … If you go by ‘Kiski Lathi Uski Bhans’, it will not be good for anyone,” he told the house.
Targeting the Center on the provisions of the law, he said: “Why two non-Muslims are required (to be a part of the Waqf Board)? In Tirupati, do you keep a Muslim? Are you a Muslim member in the Ram temple trust? Alone Muslims, you will not put even a Dalit Hindu.”
His words resonated Amim leader Imtiaz Jalil, who said, “If the non-Muslim Waqf is going to be appointed on the board, is he going to include Imtiaz Jalil in the Shirdi Saibaba (Temple) Trust or Tirupati Temple Trust. If such a board comes for the Sikh community, then why can they not.
What ahead of bill
The Lok Sabha passed the bill after running the bill for more than 12 hours with 288-232 votes in the early hours of Thursday.
The proposed law-which will be sent to the next president’s sign-off-the purpose is to amend the 1995 law controlling the WAQF properties.
Controversial provision of Waqf Bill
The amended bill includes compulsory provisions in the controversial provisions to include compulsory two non-Muslim members in the Central Waqf Council and Waqf boards.
It is also a stipend that only people who practiced Islam can donate assets to Waqf for at least five years. The opposition has questioned how the government intends to determine who is a Muslim who is a practice. He has also argued that preventing convergence from donating is an interference in fundamental rights to practice law on religion and equality.
Under the proposed law, the government property identified as WAQF will close in relation to it and the local collector will determine its ownership. The bill also proposes that an officer above the post of Collector will investigate the government properties claimed as WAQF. In the case of disputes, the senior government official would have to say whether any property belongs to Waqf or Government. It replaces the existing system where such decisions are made by the Waqf Tribunal.
Along with the opposition, a part of the Muslim community explained it as a government step to gain control over Waqf properties.
