‘The BJP’s agenda is to defame Muslims’: Congress MP Naseer Hussain on Waqf Bill

Syed Naseer Hussain is a second-term Rajya Sabha MP of the Congress party from Karnataka. As a member of the JPC (joint parliamentary committee) on the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, he has been part of the fractious proceedings on the proposed amendments. In conversation with Vikhar Ahmed Sayeed, he explains his reservations on the Bill and why he remains suspicious of the BJP’s intentions. Excerpts:

Various state waqf boards together control 8.7 lakh properties spanning 9.4 lakh acres across the country. This number is striking and has led to a lot of speculation about how the waqf boards came to own such huge parcels of land.

It is important to clarify that the Central Waqf Council or the state waqf boards do not own even an inch of property. Waqf boards merely oversee auqaf (plural of waqf) donated at some point of time. Large chunks of land were given by royals of all faiths over centuries as ‘inam’ (land grants) to mosques, dargahs, cemeteries, idgahs and other centres of religious activity, and these constitute a sizeable proportion of waqf properties.

The figure of 8.7 lakh properties may seem striking, but if one were to add up the lands owned by and those associated with the religious activities of other communities, the figure will be proportional to their population. For instance, the Hindu religious and charitable endowments boards in just Telangana, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka together manage around 11 lakh acres.

There are more than 6.5 lakh villages in the country, and Muslims are present in at least 80–85 per cent of them. Every settlement will have, at the very least, a mosque, a cemetery, an idgah and several dargahs. The idgah itself will be at least an acre.

[…]

One of the stated intentions of the Waqf Bill is to introduce transparency to prevent mismanagement of waqf properties…

The government says it wants greater transparency by digitising information on properties managed by waqf boards, but this has already been done. The minority affairs ministry has even issued a statement to this effect. All this data has been gazetted by state governments after surveys by survey commissioners of waqf appointed by state governments. It makes no sense to launch another portal for the same task. Does the Union government not trust state governments, including those governed by the BJP, to provide reliable data?

There have been allegations of corruption in the management of waqf properties and of encroachment by mutawallis (managers of waqf properties), but what has the BJP government done to get these encroachments cleared? Has anyone been held guilty and convicted or has an FIR been filed?

It is also shocking that the new Bill reduces the punishment for an encroacher from two years to one year.

The Central Waqf Council has been in limbo for the past three years. State governments where the BJP is in power have not framed rules after the 2013 Act.

Certain provisions of the Bill have become controversial. For instance, the compulsory appointment of two women in every waqf board; appointment of non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Council and the waqf boards; the provision to appeal the Waqf Tribunal’s decision in a High Court; and the inclusion of sectarian minorities as members of waqf boards. Why do you disagree with these provisions?

The strangest among all these provisions is the inclusion of women [because] the 2013 Act already provides for this, and all waqf boards have two women members. Clearly, the minority affairs minister [Kiren Rijiju] has not read the 2013 Act.

[…]

In a secular country [in the Western sense], an administrator of any faith could be appointed in any department. I do not have a problem with that personally, but laws governing the functions of Hindu endowment boards, temple trusts, etc., in states across the country explicitly mention that only a Hindu can be a member of the governing board or trust. When that is the case, why is a different yardstick being used for the functioning of waqf boards?

Moreover, waqf or Hindu endowment boards deal with the religious activities of a particular faith. How will a person from a different faith understand the customs, traditions and religious practices of a different faith? The appointment of non-Muslims will not improve the functioning of waqf boards in any way; the [proposed amendment] is a way of saying the government does not trust Muslims.

[…]

Another contentious provision is that only a person who has been practising Islam for at least five years may declare a waqf. What is your opinion?

This is against the secular and liberal traditions of our country. Any citizen should be allowed to donate to any person, to support any religious activity or institution of any faith. We have innumerable examples in our history. Kings and queens, nawabs and sultans have given grants to people of all faiths. Besides, which authority will certify religious credentials?

What is the government’s intention with the proposed Bill?

The BJP’s agenda is clear: they want to polarise the electorate. They have an established method to do this. It starts with an issue getting immense traction on social media, followed by massive fake news. Then, this propaganda is picked up by BJP politicians, who provide specious arguments to give legitimacy to false claims, which is eventually followed by legislative measures.

If this Bill is passed in Parliament, do you think claims made by Hindu right-wing groups on historical Islamic sites will increase?

If this Bill becomes law, it has the potential to ignite religious divisions in every village of the country. Anybody can go to the deputy commissioner and create doubts about the provenance of historical monuments and land titles leading to major communal contentions. All this will lead to litigation on communal lines, which in turn will be utilised to polarise [people]. That is why the Bill is dangerous for the democratic secular fabric of the country.

Several farmers all over the country have complained about notices from district waqf boards claiming their agricultural lands. What do you have to say about this?

I cannot comment as I am not well versed with the facts of different cases, but broadly, what is happening shows the disjunction between various land laws. Inam Abolition, Land Ceiling and Land Reform Acts were passed in many states. As part of this, land has been redistributed to the tiller but such laws were challenged legally and the Supreme Court delivered a judgment that a waqf land cannot be alienated [part of the judgment reads: ‘Once a waqf, always a waqf’].

This has led to situations where the waqf boards feel they have the right to claim lands that were taken away. In such cases, state governments should step in and come up with a solution so that the aggrieved farmers and the waqf do not suffer any loss and are compensated appropriately.

Couldn’t the BJP have prevailed on its allies to get the Bill passed? Why did it send it to the JPC?

The Bill is ill-conceived, poorly drafted and bereft of legal logic; it was hastily tabled in Parliament. No stakeholders were consulted in its preparation and there was no need for it at all. There have been no serious complaints or judicial prodding about the functioning of the Waqf Act 1995 and its amendments of 2013.

The Bill was brought in to rake up political controversy. All opposition parties opposed its introduction; even some BJP allies such as the Telugu Desam Party suggested that it should be sent to the JPC. Sensing that the Bill would not get Parliament’s approval, they sent it to the JPC for further consultation.

A longer version of this interview originally appeared in Frontline