Shashi Tharoor, Member of Parliament from the Congress party, expressed strong concerns over the proposed amendments to the Waqf Act by the BJP-led government in an exclusive interaction with Megha Sharma, Executive Editor, NewsX. Tharoor questioned the need for such a bill, arguing that it infringes on the rights of the Muslim community and violates the principles of secularism enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
#TheWqfBill | In an exclusive conversation with NewsX, Congress MP Shashi Tharoor (@ShashiTharoor) discussed the Waqf Bill, stating, ‘The Waqf Bill is more complicated. The government is interfering in matters of a particular religion.'”
Watch the full telecast with @msharma179… pic.twitter.com/WjNwUADL44
— NewsX World (@NewsX) August 9, 2024
Concerns Over Government Interference
When asked whether the Waqf board should continue to have the power to claim property, Tharoor emphasized that the issue is far more complex than simply deciding the ownership of specific properties. He pointed out that the government’s interference in the affairs of one particular religion raises serious concerns. According to Tharoor, “It’s not the business of the government to be worrying about how religious affairs are administered.”
Tharoor elaborated on the broader implications of the government’s actions, highlighting the concerns related to federalism. He stated, “Under our constitution, these are issues that should be dealt with, in many cases, by the states.” He also questioned the logic behind empowering a district collector with authority over Waqf properties, a power that is not granted over similar bodies of other religions.
Tharoor further argued that the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Waqf board, as proposed in the amendment, is both unnecessary and problematic. He pointed out the inconsistency, stating, “There’s a whole question about why, when you don’t, for example, have a non-Hindu on the Devaswom boards in my state that oversee temples, you can have non-Muslims in the council that oversees Waqf.”
The Need for Judicial Oversight
The discussion also touched on specific cases, such as the controversy over the Burhanpur fort being declared Waqf property by a Waqf court, only for the High Court to question whether Waqf should also claim the Taj Mahal as Waqf property. Tharoor refrained from commenting on individual cases without a detailed study but emphasized the importance of judicial oversight in such matters.
“Where there are problems, indeed we should let the courts come up with a conclusion. The court’s conclusion will not be affected one way or the other by whether this law has been amended again or not,” Tharoor asserted. He questioned the necessity of the proposed bill, suggesting that existing legal mechanisms are sufficient to address disputes.
Skepticism About the Need for Reform
When asked whether there is a need for reform in the Waqf Act, Tharoor expressed skepticism. He noted that significant amendments were made as recently as 2013, which had already addressed many issues. “There normally needs to be a series of cases or other problems that indicate that the law was inadequate. Those earlier amendments made to the 1995 Act have relatively brought it up to date in practice,” Tharoor explained.
Tharoor also questioned the government’s motivation behind the new bill, stating, “One of the things that mystified many of the MPs who know the subject well is why on Earth this bill was necessary in the first place. What crisis had warranted the government spending its time and effort to come up with such a bill?”
Violation of Secularism and Religious Freedom
Tharoor did not hold back in criticizing the bill for its potential violation of secularism and religious freedom. He argued that the proposed amendment could infringe on the rights of individuals as guaranteed by the Constitution, particularly Articles 25 to 30, which protect the freedom of religion. Tharoor expressed concern over the “far-reaching powers that are sought to be given to the district collector over the affairs of one religion,” and questioned why non-Muslims should be included in a body that oversees a purely Muslim charitable organization.
Tharoor also raised an important point regarding the administration of madrasas by Waqf boards. He questioned whether the government might deny the Muslim community the right to run madrasas or even take over the administration of these religious schools. “Is the government going to be denying the Muslim community the right to run a madrasa, or worse, is the government going to be in the business of running madrasas?” Tharoor asked.
Call for a Parliamentary Committee Review
Despite his concerns, Tharoor acknowledged the importance of a parliamentary review of the bill. He expressed hope that a cross-section of MPs from various parties would be able to air their views on the matter. “It will be good to have the views of a whole cross-section of MPs from various parties in different parts of the country who can air their views,” he said. Tharoor emphasized that the government should take these views into consideration before bringing the bill back to Parliament.
Modernization and Reform of Muslim Institutions
The interview also touched upon the broader issue of modernization and reform of Muslim institutions like madrasas, marriage laws, and the Waqf board. Tharoor agreed that improvements could be made, particularly in the education sector. He recalled his time in the education ministry when the central government offered support to modernize madrasa courses by introducing subjects like science and mathematics.
Tharoor clarified that such reforms should not encroach on the rights of the Muslim minority but rather enhance the quality of education provided in madrasas. “That sort of thing is a kind of reform that I think would be without encroaching on the right of the Muslim minority to have madrasas,” he said. Tharoor expressed confidence that the Muslim community would not object to such government support in this matter.
Congress’ Stance on Muslim Representation
Finally, when asked about the Congress party’s role in representing the voice of Indian Muslims on issues like the Uniform Civil Code, Tharoor emphasized that the party represents the interests of all Indians, not just one particular community. “We are there to represent the interests of Indians. We are not there to represent any one particular community but to us, the very term Indians include all communities including Muslims,” Tharoor stated.
Tharoor criticized the BJP government’s approach to Muslim issues, highlighting what he described as a discriminatory attitude. He cited examples such as the criminalization of Muslim men deserting their wives and the exclusion of Muslims from the benefits of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). Tharoor condemned the government’s “bitter rejection of Muslims as first-class citizens of India” and reaffirmed the Congress party’s commitment to treating all communities and religions alike.
