The JPC chairman, BJP MP Jagdambika Pal, operated in accordance with his party’s directives and showed little regard for the opposition’s dissenting opinions, said AIMIM leader
Abdul Bari Masoud | Clarion India
NEW DELHI — Opposition members in the JPC fiercely opposed the contentious Waqf Amendment Bill’s planned removal of the “waqf by user” clause, arguing that it had been in place for ages.
Asaduddin Owaisi, the president of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) and a member of the joint parliamentary committee (JPC), has been a vocal opponent of the Waqf Amendment Bill 2024. He has offered a list of changes that were rejected since the opposition camp did not have enough members on the panel. Actually, Owaisi had proposed changes to forty-three of the bill’s forty-four provisions.
Additionally, he has filed a comprehensive 229-page opposition statement outlining the reasons for this. He told a news channel that right after the meeting to approve the draft report and the proposed bill they ( opposition members) felt that this legislation was to end the power of the Waqf Board, and the amendments that have been brought in would make sure the waqf boards would lose multiple properties.
“In fact, one of the dangers of losing the Masjid, which is right in front of Parliament, also looms large. This bill in its form is not acceptable to us, and we will go to the public. We tried very hard to present our points in the JPC through multiple meetings. It is not in favour of the Muslims,” Owaisi underlined.
Expressing his concern over the treatment meted out to members of his community he claimed that this bill will deepen the divide between the majority and the minority communities.
“At a time when divisive elements have raised mischievous claims questioning the status of ancient mosques and dargahs as places of Muslim religious importance, the bill seeks to weaken the defence of the Muslim side in these disputes by removing the statutory recognition given to ‘waqfs-by-user’, a rule of evidence that hitherto allowed long use of a property as a waqf to be a sufficient basis for the property to be statutorily recognised as a waqf. Further, waqfs created by oral dedication have been de-recognised contrary to established principles of Muslim personal law recognised in this country for over a century. Thus, the only defence available to a waqf in a legal proceeding questioning its status will be to produce a written deed of dedication, a requirement that waqfs established centuries ago will not be able to meet,” Owaisi said.
In the course of its deliberations, the committee called several witnesses to testify before it. According to Owaisi, many of these witnesses feel deceived because their opposition to the bill has not improved relations with the panel, and the bill is still being passed as the ruling government wants it to.
He writes in his dissent letter that “The Joint Parliamentary Committee received representations opposing the proposed amendments from an overwhelming number of Muslim organisations. In particular, it may be noted that the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board, Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Hind, Jamaat-e-Islami Hind and the Muttaheda Majlis-e-Ulama (Jammu & Kashmir) have all vehemently opposed the proposed amendments. These organisations between themselves represent a very large portion of Muslims in India. The fact that the erudite arguments and detailed reasons put forward by each of these stakeholders were not accepted by the Joint Committee demonstrates that this ‘consultative process’ was a mere eyewash and the Joint Committee in its draft report has been blind, if not actively inimical to Muslim interests and has reached what were in any event foregone conclusions.”
Furthermore, Owaisi contended that the committee chairman, BJP MP Jagdambika Pal, operated in accordance with his party’s directives and showed little regard for the opposition’s dissenting opinions and the established protocols.
“The Hon’ble Committee has been unduly captured by partisan sentiments, as evidenced by the disproportionate attention given to a few communal voices that supported the majoritarian changes proposed in the current Bill, in stark contrast to the substantial majority of stakeholders who strongly criticised it. Despite the overwhelming opposition to the proposed legislation, the Hon’ble Chairperson chose to disregard these concerns and, exploiting the numerical strength of the proponents – comprising members of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party and its allies – pushed the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, through with only minimal revisions, thus sidelining the legitimate objections raised by dissenting members,” the Hyderabad MP says in his note.
The AIMIM chief’s desire to have the entire bill discarded was evident throughout his entire set of amendments. Finally, he stated in his note of disagreement, “Therefore, in light of the grave implications of the proposed amendments and the undeniable bias that underpins the entire process, I, on behalf of the Muslims of this country, wish to unequivocally express my dissent and urge the Hon’ble Houses of Parliament to accept the changes proposed by me to the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024. The actions of the present Government, aimed at weakening the very foundations of waqf governance and undermining the rights of Muslims in this country, must not be allowed to stand. As I record my opposition to the Bill, I do so not in my name alone, but in the name of justice, equality, and the constitutional values which define the soul of this nation. History will remember this moment, and it will judge whether we stood on the side of fairness or succumbed to divisive forces.”
Twelve opposition MPs, including YSRCP MP Vijaysai Reddy, who just resigned from the Rajya Sabha, rejected the bill in its current shape, according to his dissent note message. His note will be included in the draft report that Parliament sees because it was submitted before he resigned.
In his dissent note, DMK member A Raja said the proviso of ‘waqf by user’ existed since the time of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and any move for its omission would violate the fundamental rights of the Muslim community.
The JPC met one last time on Wednesday to review the revised draft bill and draft report before it was forwarded to the speaker of the Lok Sabha for final approval in the coming days. The joint parliamentary committee, which was established on August 9, held more than thirty meetings before adopting the draft report on January 29. The report will be presented to the speaker of the Lok Sabha and then presented to the house during the budget session. The bill must first be approved by the government before it can be brought to Parliament for passage since it has been amended with fourteen new revisions.
