Waqf report reflects BJP’s majoritarian attitude, not majority opinion: MP Md Jawed

With the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) examining the Centre’s Waqf (Amendment) Bill adopting its report on the proposed law, the contentious legislation has moved a step closer to being enacted by Parliament.

BJP MP Jagdambika Pal, who chaired the JPC, will submit the panel’s report to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla on Thursday (January 30). The Bill, with amendments proposed by the NDA members of the JPC, is likely to be moved by the Centre for consideration and passing in Parliament during the Budget session starting on January 31.

The JPC report and Pal’s conduct of the panel’s proceedings through a bulk of its 36 sittings have been slammed by at least 11 Opposition members of the committee, which, at the time of adopting its final report, had 30 members following the resignation of YSRCP leader V Vijaysai Reddy from the Rajya Sabha.

Also read: Waqf Bill | JPCs only for show, govt using these to push agenda: Oppn

Dubbing Pal’s conduct of the JPC proceedings as “autocratic” and “designed to push the government’s agenda”, the 11 Opposition members — A Raja, Kalyan Banerjee, Gaurav Gogoi, Asaduddin Owaisi, Syed Naseer Hussain, Mohibullah, Imran Masood, MM Abdulla, Mohammed Jawed, Arvind Sawant, and Nadimul Haque — have submitted a dissent note against the panel’s report.

In an exclusive interview with The Federal, JPC member and Congress MP Mohammed Jawed explained why the Opposition dissented against the adoption of the panel’s report and the disturbing sociopolitical implications the Bill may, in his view, have for the country if enacted in its current form. Edited excerpts:

Q. Why have Opposition members on the panel dissented against the report?

MJ: Let me first make it clear that when the discussions of the JPC began in August, they were going very well and we had several rounds of fruitful deliberations. Somewhere down the line, the chairman’s attitude suddenly changed. I think the Centre realised that the way the discussions were taking place and the kind of submissions that were coming in, they may not be able to bring a Bill that serves their political agenda, which essentially is to humiliate Muslims, push them into a corner and, of course, usurp land across the country that is rightfully Waqf property. I think instructions were sent from the very top of the government to the chairman to conduct the proceedings in a certain way. That is when the discussions became acrimonious.

Also read: JPC approves final report on proposed legislation on Waqf affairs

Q. How did the chairman’s attitude change?

MJ: I cannot divulge the exact details of what transpired in the meetings, as that is privileged information. What I can tell you, though, is that all of a sudden, non-stakeholders, people who did not even know what Waqf means, how Waqf works, or those who had a direct conflict of interest with either some Waqf Board or Waqf Board members, began to be called for depositions. Many such people, who have been instrumental over the years in spreading fake narratives about the Waqf, were called.

It was this very fake narrative — that Waqf is essentially a land mafia that has wrongfully grabbed land across the country or that Waqf Boards are involved in massive corruption — that the original Waqf (Amendment) Bill reflected and the JPC was supposed to rectify.

This is when the Opposition first began to raise objections, asking how such people were being allowed to make depositions, and when the chairman rejected all our objections, it became clear that the proceedings were now being dictated by the top echelons of this government.

Eventually, the whole exercise became a farce and there were heated exchanges with the chairman and MPs of the ruling coalition on one side and the Opposition on the other. All discussions were geared towards ensuring that the government is not just allowed to meddle in the affairs of the Waqf but take it over entirely so that it can not only humiliate Muslims further but also get control over Waqf properties.

What also made it clear to us that the discussions were heading towards a pre-determined goal was that in at least 30 of the 36 sittings of the JPC, several members from the ruling side remained absent because they knew what the end result was going to be.

Also read: Waqf Amendment Bill infringes on religious freedom: Senior journalist

Q. Could you please elaborate on why you think the government wants to take control over Waqf properties?

MJ: Three main political objectives of the BJP seem to be at play here. First, of course, is to humiliate Muslims, for which they have been finding new ways throughout the past 10 years of Narendra Modi’s prime ministership.

The second is to trigger communal and social unrest because if you keep pushing the Muslims into a corner, there will be a pushback at some point, and then the RSS will get up to its usual task of stoking polarisation because ultimately this is what the BJP relies on the most to win elections.

I would like to point out here that the tenure of the JPC was extended in the winter session till the last day of the Budget session, which is on April 4. So why was there this tearing hurry to finalise the report even before the Budget session started? Is it because Delhi goes to polls on February 5 and the BJP wants to use this Bill to polarise voters?

The draft report that was adopted today (January 29) was sent to us late last night; some of us got it around 7.30 pm while some received it after 10 pm. The report runs into 665 pages. Is it humanly possible to read through 665 pages, understand all aspects, draft objections and concerns and report at 10 am the next day for the JPC meeting?

Lastly, we all know how the Modi government functions primarily for the benefit of select industrialists and businessmen. Industries and businesses require land and, over the last decade or in the states where the BJP is in power, we have seen how government land has been handed over to some corporates at throwaway rates.

Also read: Discussion | 'Waqf Bill will have a devastating effect on Muslims'

The Waqf, though I don’t remember the exact figure, controls large swathes of land across the country, even though a big chunk of this land has been mired in litigation. The idea behind this Bill, I suspect, is also to allow the government to usurp Waqf land so that Modi’s friends can benefit.

Q. Of the 13 remaining Opposition members on the JPC, after the resignation of Vijaysai Reddy, 11 of you have dissented on the final report. The chairman of the JPC says the report was prepared in a democratic way and amendments were adopted by majority. Your comments.

MJ: The report doesn’t reflect majority opinion in the country but the majoritarian attitude of the BJP. Despite the chairman allowing many non-stakeholders to depose before the panel, I can tell you that as high as 90 per cent of the depositions before the committee were against the Bill. A majority of the people who spoke to us, irrespective of which state they came from, said the Bill was unconstitutional, undemocratic and trampled on the fundamental rights the Constitution guarantees to the Muslim community.

Many stakeholders, including non-Muslims, who deposed before the panel, said that once the government is allowed interference in the Waqf, this will spread like a plague to establishments and endowments of other religious groups too. What will the government do if tomorrow Muslims demand representation on boards of Hindu temples and religious institutions the same way that this Bill allows non-Muslims to be part of Waqf Boards? It is a recipe for social unrest, for disaster.

Q. In its first two terms, the Modi government largely avoided scrutiny of crucial laws by parliamentary committees and the Opposition claimed unconstitutional laws were being bulldozed through Parliament. In its current term, the government has shown eagerness in referring controversial laws like the Waqf Bill and the One Nation, One Election Bill to JPCs and standing committees. Yet, going by the Opposition’s experience in the Waqf JPC, it seems the net result is still the same — seemingly unconstitutional laws being pushed through by the government.

MJ: I agree completely. In the first two terms, they had a brute majority in Lok Sabha and managed numbers in the Rajya Sabha. When they found some difficulty, they got mass suspension of MPs done by the presiding officers in both Houses of Parliament. Now, the only difference is that you are witnessing mass suspension of Opposition MPs even from JPC meetings, and a brazen attempt is being made to give unconstitutional laws legitimacy on the fake ground that such laws have gone through detailed scrutiny. It is an eyewash.