Let's not be biased in parliamentary committees

The objective behind the establishment of parliamentary committees was laudable. Far from the hustle and bustle of regular sessions of both Houses, where members of both the ruling party and the opposition engage in blabbering with an eye on the media galleries, parliamentary committees were expected to consider issues in a non-partisan manner. Please check. Idea. Thus, key legislations were referred to Joint Parliamentary Committees attached to various ministries for detailed scrutiny and recommending changes, if any. Given that the sittings of both Houses have been drastically reduced over the years, members of the Joint Committees, drawn from different parties according to their numbers in each House, were expected to examine the legislation in more detail. Naturally, the ruling party will have more members as it enjoys majority in the Lok Sabha. These committees met when Parliament was in session and also during the inter-session period. In short, time was no constraint for the functioning of parliamentary committees. Unfortunately, the injection of bitterness and internal conflict into politics in recent years has so soured the atmosphere of parliamentary committees that it has become possible for members to exercise their lung power and criticize fellow members and even have become a veritable battleground to try to suppress the voices of other members. Presiding Officer. A particularly ugly incident occurred when a Trinamool Congress member of the Waqf Law Parliamentary Committee threw a plastic water bottle at chairperson Jagdambika Pal in anger. The meeting was ended abruptly, but not before suspending the erring member Kalyan Banerjee for a day. At the next meeting on Tuesday, October 29, Banerjee did not express regret but tried to justify it, arguing that Abhijit Gangopadhyay, a BJP member from West Bengal, had instigated her. This incident reflects the growing decline in the shouting grounds of parliamentary committees. Therefore, there is little possibility that the deliberations of the Waqf Committee will lead to a consensus. Since Muslim clergy are strongly opposing reforms in the Waqf laws, opposition members, who largely have their eyes set on Muslim votes, will definitely oppose the passage of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024. Digitalizing records of lands and properties under Waqf control, reducing corruption in management and removing illegal encroachment on properties. According to a conservative estimate, the waqf lands and properties total over eight lakh acres, spread over nine lakh acres and have an estimated value of over Rs. One lakh crore. 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 common Muslims are forced to take its word as law and have no recourse for redressal of grievances. Once a Waqf declares a property as its own, there can be no challenge before any judicial or administrative authority, its word is final. In short, the intention to bring transparency and fairness in the functioning of various Waqf boards can help in loosening the grip of its members on huge real estate and other properties across the country. In the absence of transparency and regulation, Waqf boards wield immense influence in the minority community. Two bills, the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, and the Muslim Waqf (Repeal) Bill, 2024, were introduced in the Lok Sabha in August amid uproar from the opposition. Conservative elements in the community encouraged ordinary Muslims to file petitions in the committee, arguing against any changes to existing laws. It is argued that Waqf properties belong to Allah and cannot be removed from the control of Waqf boards. More recently, the Waqf Board had laid claim to the Surat Municipal Corporation building and most controversially, the Idgah grounds in Bengaluru.

It is notable that the proposed changes in the Waqf laws have duly incorporated the recommendations made by the Sachar Committee, which was set up by the Manmohan Singh government. Nevertheless, the standard criticism was that the proposed changes were motivated by the anti-Muslim attitudes of the ruling party. On the contrary, a cursory glance at the proposed changes would completely vindicate the claim that these would improve the management and control of the vast Waqf empire and would not benefit any non-Muslim. In fact, the strong opposition to the appointment of non-Muslims as administrators in Waqf boards underlines the communal outlook of critics, who seek to ignore rampant corruption and mismanagement in various Waqfs to promote vested interests in the minority community. Are ready for. The proposed changes are intended to ensure accountability in the management of waqf properties, but clerics and mullahs fear loss of power and even income. 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 the charitable properties donated by their members. India has over 3.5 lakh waqf estates under the management of various waqf boards, a case of a state within a state if there ever was one. Meanwhile, it will be interesting to see Shiv Sena's (UBT) reaction to the proposed changes in Waqf laws. As a Muslim-centric party enters the electoral fray in Maharashtra with the stated aim of stopping the proposed amendments to the Waqf laws, the reaction of the Sena (UBT) in particular and the Maha Vikas Aghadi in general will be keenly watched. MVA leaders should make their stand clear before the polling day next month.