The objective behind the setting up Parliamentary committees was laudable. Away from the din and noise of regular sessions of the two Houses, where members both from the treasury benches and Opposition indulge in grandstanding with keep an eye on the media galleries, Parliamentary committees were expected to examine issues threadbare in a dispassionate manner uninformed by partisan considerations. It was thus that increasingly key legislations were remitted to Joint Parliamentary Committees attached to various ministries for granular examination and for recommending changes, if any. Given that the sittings of the two Houses over the years have been drastically cut, the joint committees’ members drawn from various parties as per their numbers in each House were expected to scrutinise legislation in greater detail. Naturally, the ruling party would have more members since it enjoyed majority in the Lok Sabha. These committees met when the parliament was in session and also during the inter-session periods. In short, time was not a constraint for the functioning of the Parliamentary committees. Unfortunately, the injection of bitterness and visceral antagonism in politics in recent years has so vitiated the atmosphere of Parliamentary committees that these too have become a veritable battleground for members to exercise their lung power and try and drown out the voice of fellow members and even of the presiding officer. A particularly ugly incident occurred when a Trinamool Congress member of the Waqf law Parliamentary committee hurled a plastic water bottle at the Chairperson Jagadamibika Pal in a fit of anger. The meeting was abruptly ended but not before suspending the errant member, Kalyan Banerjee, for a day. In the subsequent meeting on Tuesday, October 29th, Banerjee did not express regret, instead sought to justify it, arguing that a BJP member from West Bengal, Abhijit Gangopadhya, had provoked him. The incident reflects the increasing degeneration of Parliamentary committees into shouting arenas. Therefore, it is most unlikely that the deliberations of the waqf committee will yield a consensus. Since the Muslim clergy is bitterly opposed to the reform of the Waqf laws, Opposition members with their gaze fixed on the sizeable Muslim vote seems certain to resist the passage of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024. The Bill seeks to introduce major reforms, digitise records of lands and properties under Waqf control, minimise corruption in management, and remove illegal occupation of properties. As per a conservative estimate, the Waqf lands and properties total over eight lakhs, spanning over nine lakh acres with an estimated value of well over Rs. one lakh crores. After the armed forces and the Railways, the Waqf board is the third largest land-owner in the country. The functioning of various Waqf boards is opaque while ordinary Muslims per force have to consider its word as law, and have no remedy to address grievances. Once a Waqf declares a property as its own there can be no challenge before any judicial or administrative authority, its word being final. In short, a measure of transparency and objectivity intended to be injected in the functioning of various Waqf boards may help loosen the stranglehold of its members over huge real estate and other assets across the country. Lacking transparency and regulation, the waqf boards wield enormous clout in the minority community. Two Bills, the Waqf (Amendmenet) Bill, and the Musasalman Waqf (Repeal) Bill, 2024, were introduced in the Lok Sabha in August amidst noisy protests by the Opposition. Obscurantist elements in the community, encouraged ordinary Muslims to petition the committee, arguing against any changes in the existing laws. It is argued that the waqf properties belong to the Allah and these cannot be taken away from the control of waqf boards. More recently, Waqf boards had laid claim to the building housing the Surat Municipal Corporation, and, most controversially, to the Eidgah Maidan in Bengaluru.
It is notable that the proposed changes in the Waqf laws duly incorporate recommendations made by the Sachar committee which was set up by the Manmohan Singh government. Yet, there was the standard criticism that the proposed changes were motivated by the ruling party’s anti-Muslim attitude. On the contrary, a cursory look at the proposed changes would fully bear out the claim that these would at improve the management and control of the vast waqf empire without any non-Muslim profiting from it. In fact, the shrill opposition against non-Muslims being appointed as administrators on Waqf boards underlines the communal approach of the critics who in order to pander to the vested interests in the minority community are ready to overlook massive corruption and mismanagement of various waqfs. The proposed changes aim to ensure accountability in the management of the waqf properties, but the Maulivs and Mullahs fear loss of power, and even incomes. A large number of Islamic countries do not have Waqfs to manage charitable properties. The majority community here does not have such boards to manage charitable properties donated by of its members. In India there are over 3.5 lakh Waqf estates under management of various Waqf boards, a case of a state within a State, if ever there was one. Meanwhile, it will be interesting to watch the response of the Shiv Sena (UBT) on the proposed changes in the Waqf laws. Since a Muslim-centric party has entered the electoral fray in Maharashtra, with the avowed objective of stalling the proposed amendments in the Waqf laws, the response of the Sena (UBT) in particular and the Maha Vikas Aghadi in general will be keenly watched. The MVA leaders must clarify their stand before polling day next month.
