Why Waqf panel depositions have triggered a BJP-Opposition spat

“People who are not stakeholders are being called for deposition. It only means your intention is not right. It shows you are not interested in doing justice,” Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Arvind Sawant, who walked out from some of the committee meetings, told The Indian Express. An Opposition MP also alleged that more deposition time was being given to those who suit the “BJP and government agenda” on the Waqf issue.

It is learnt there is discomfort among Opposition MPs over invitations to Goa-based organisations such as the Sanatan Sanstha and the Hindu Janjagruti Samiti that have in the past faced scrutiny from law-enforcement agencies — especially in the wake of the killings of Narendra Dabholkar (2013), Govind Pansare (2015), and M M Kalburgi (2015). The organisations have denied any link to terror activities. The parliamentary panel has also seen depositions from Nashik’s Kalaram Temple and RSS leader Indresh Kumar’s Muslim Rashtriya Manch as well.

Sawant and other Opposition MPs walked out of a meeting on October 14 after a former office-bearer of the Karnataka State Minorities Commission deposing before the panel commented on Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge regarding the allotment of Waqf land. The Opposition members alleged that the officer-bearer was a BJP leader.

Sawant later said the committee “should be run according to rules and regulations”. “There are some ethics. If these are not followed, we will boycott. This is what we have done today,” he said.

A day later, on October 15, Opposition MPs wrote a letter to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla alleging that the “proceedings of the Committee were conducted in a biased and partisan manner by the Chairperson Jagdambika Pal”, requesting the Speaker’s “immediate intervention in the matter”.

The Congress whip in the Lok Sabha, Mohammad Jawed, earlier posted on social media that “religious organisations that do not belong to the Muslim community” were being invited to the meeting and that it should be “reconsidered” since “Muslim representation is not sought” in matters concerning other religious communities.

Opposition MPs, it is learnt, also objected to oral evidence being recorded during meetings by Supreme Court lawyers Vishnu Shankar Jain and Ashwini Upadhyay, who is a former Delhi BJP spokesperson.

A public interest litigation (PIL) plea by Upadhyay challenging the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Waqf Act on the ground that no similar laws have been made for other religions is also pending with the Delhi High Court. Vishnu Shankar Jain is a lawyer in the apex court and also represents the Hindu litigants in the Gyanvapi mosque-Kashi Vishwanath temple case.

On October 22, panel chairperson Jagdambika Pal said Opposition members were given ample opportunities to speak during the panel’s meetings. “AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi sahab said he would speak for one hour, and I let him. No Chairman in history has held deliberations like this. I sit here from morning to evening. This is the first time they are levelling allegations to hide their crimes. I don’t stop anyone from speaking. We have regular meetings. Has any member alleged that Jagdambika Pal doesn’t let them speak? There are parliamentarians from the minority groups there. I care for their sentiments as well. If any member says I don’t let them speak, I will resign from the chairmanship,” he told reporters.

BJP MPs argue that the Waqf issue is of public interest and “everyone must have a say”. “When it comes to public property, every Indian citizen is a stakeholder. So, there is no argument there. If you are going to claim every property as yours, you will have to show papers,” BJP MP Sanjay Jaiswal told The Indian Express.

Committee member and BJP MP Nishikant Dubey earlier alleged the involvement of “fundamentalist groups” in submissions to the committee. Last month, Dubey wrote to Pal, raising “serious concerns about the massive number of submissions” received on the issue and seeking an investigation, including into “the geographical origin” of the submissions, by the Union Home Ministry.

Dubey alleged that “fundamentalist groups”, “individuals like Zakir Naik”, or “foreign powers like the ISI (Pakistan) or China or their proxies” may be involved given that “1.25 crore submissions have been received”. If such forces were involved, Dubey said, it would be an attempt “to manipulate our legislative process”, “an attack on the very foundations of our parliamentary system” and “must be treated as a national security issue”.

The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, which seeks to amend the Waqf Act, 1995, proposed some sweeping changes to the regulatory framework of Muslim charitable endowments. The changes, opposed by Opposition parties and dubbed “unconstitutional”, include giving the government a big say in regulating Waqf properties, redefining how a property is deemed to be in the possession of Waqf to changing the composition of Waqf boards in states. The 31-member committee was tasked by the Lok Sabha to scrutinise the Bill to amend the law governing Waqf boards.

Those who have been called for oral evidence so far: