Trinamool MP Kalyan Banerjee protested the stance of BJP's Jagdambika Pal during the joint parliamentary committee's discussion on the Waqf Amendment Bill introduced in August and injured his hand by throwing a bottle during an altercation with BJP's own Abhijit Gangopadhyay. However objectionable the position taken by the other party may be, there is impropriety in that conduct as a committee member. Banerjee was suspended for one day by the committee by a 9-8 majority. However, the position of the chairman who intervened is also a matter of controversy. The said incident does not touch the heart of the matter. However, the eagerness to pass the Waqf Amendment Bill and the lack of interest in democratic practices is only indicative of the Centre's ulterior motives. This is the reason for the conflicts in the committee seen from the beginning. Waqfs are assets set aside by Muslims for religious and philanthropic purposes for the sake of God. Islam believes that good deeds of setting aside wealth to continue beyond one's lifetime is a pious act. The matter was referred to a 31-member joint parliamentary committee after the opposition as a whole objected to the Centre's stand for not giving enough time to study the new Bill, which would amend the Waqf Act of 1995, which governs Waqf properties. Tuesday's dramatic events took place when various parties and individuals were presenting their views before the committee.
Muslim organizations and leaders are staunchly opposed to the Bill because none of the good intentions claimed by the Center are credible. According to the Waqf Act, 1995, the state government identifies and determines the Waqf properties through a survey. Thus the Survey Commissioner identifies these properties through local enquiries, witness statements and review of public records and the properties are entered in the official gazette of the State and the State Waqf Board maintains their record as a list. Waqf properties in each state are controlled by Waqf Boards headed by a Chairperson. The new bill changes the definition of Waqf itself. Only property owners who have been practising Islam for at least five years are authorized to endow property as Waqf. Currently, non-Muslims can also donate Waqf if their intention is similar. There is also the practice of giving assets first and - even verbally - documents being drawn up later. This principle of 'Waqf by use' will be lost by the new Bill. With that, a lot of Waqf properties that have come into existence like this may also pave the way to go to the hands of the government. The new Bill gives the district collector the final authority to decide whether a property is a Waqf or government property. The present neutral system of tribunals will be abolished. According to the 1995 Act, the commissioners who had the power of survey will now be replaced by officers of the rank of District Collectors. Once the centralized registration system and portal for Waqf documents are in place, properties not so registered within six months will be declared non-Waqf and then taken over as government property. One of the most controversial provisions of the Bill is the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Council, State Waqf Boards and Waqf Tribunals.
What is the logic of adding this reform to the properties of only Muslim communities and not other communities? The Waqf Council must have two members from the Lok Sabha and one from the Rajya Sabha, but it is not mandatory that it be a Muslim. At present all these three must be Muslim. Similarly, the new Bill requires two non-Muslims along with two women on state Waqf boards. Many sections of the new law restrict the freedom of religious practice enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution. Another amendment is tighter financial controls. Auditor appointed by CAG or officer appointed by the Central Government will be the said Audit Authority. At the state level, the state governments will have equivalent powers. It is clear that these are aimed at keeping the Waqf Committees in line and eliminating their autonomy. It is puzzling why the government itself who wanted deregulation in the economic sphere, wants so much state control when it comes to the minority communities, more specifically the Muslims. It is not for nothing that the Center is adamant about passing the Bill and then forming a parliamentary committee to claim that sufficient discussions have been held. Every move made by the Central Government before the Parliamentary Committee is one that needs tob e closely watched.