Union Minister for Minority Affairs Kiren Rijiju launched a scathing attack on the Congress-led UPA government during the Lok Sabha debate on the Waqf Amendment Bill, alleging that the previous regime had denotified properties, including the Parliament building, in favour of the Delhi Waqf Board.

Rijiju claimed that “123 major buildings” were handed over to the Waqf Board during the UPA’s tenure and said, “If Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government did not come to power… even the building we are sitting in could have been claimed as Waqf property.”

Rijiju calls bill a property management reform

The minister insisted that the Waqf Amendment Bill does not interfere with religious aspects but focuses solely on governance and supervision of waqf properties. He stated that the amendments aim to resolve property management concerns and do not change the administration of mosques.

He further said that the government had removed a clause in the existing law that allowed any land to be declared waqf property, calling it a “draconian provision”. Rijiju accused the opposition of spreading misinformation and politicising the bill, adding, “Appeasement does not lead to votes.”

Proposed changes aim for inclusivity

Highlighting the bill’s key proposals, Rijiju said it aims to make waqf boards more inclusive and secular. The new provisions include mandating two non-Muslim members and at least two women in every state waqf board and the Central Waqf Council.

Rijiju also questioned the current lack of female representation and said the amendments would ensure gender inclusion.

Opposition protests over committee changes

The debate saw resistance from opposition members including NK Ramachandran and KC Venugopal, who criticised the changes introduced by the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC). They argued that the JPC was not authorised by the House to make such amendments.

Speaker Om Birla, however, maintained that equal time was given for debate. Home Minister Amit Shah also intervened, stating that the committee only offered suggestions which were later cleared by the Union Cabinet, countering allegations of unilateral decisions.

Shah further took a dig at the Congress, asserting that the BJP-led committees were not “rubber stamp” panels, unlike during the Congress rule.

Timeline and controversy around the bill

Originally tabled in August last year, the Waqf Amendment Bill was met with sharp protests. It was referred to a JPC, which submitted its report in February. The committee’s review process saw frequent disruptions and even an instance of physical altercation.

In total, 66 changes were proposed, with all 44 from the opposition rejected and 14 of 23 suggested by BJP allies approved. A dispute also erupted over the removal of annexures containing opposition dissent notes, later reinstated after discussion.

Among the bill’s key suggestions were the inclusion of non-Muslims, women, and notable public figures on waqf boards, and a clause to limit certain donations to Muslim individuals practicing the faith for at least five years.

The Lok Sabha witnessed a heated start to the eight-hour-long debate on the Waqf Amendment Bill, with opposition MPs raising strong objections to the parliamentary committee’s role in amending the draft legislation.

NK Ramachandran of the Revolutionary Socialist Party opened proceedings by questioning whether the joint committee that reviewed the bill had the authority to make amendments. This came shortly after Congress MP KC Venugopal voiced concerns about the opposition being denied adequate time to review the altered draft and articulate their stance.

Ramachandran argued that, under parliamentary norms, the committee was not explicitly empowered by the House to modify the bill. He pointed to 14 amendments—all proposed by BJP or its allies—that had been included in the final draft.

Union Home Minister Amit Shah, in response, asserted that the committee had only made suggestions, which were then adopted by the Union government. He dismissed allegations of overreach, stating, “Our committees are consultative, not rubber stamps like those formed during the Congress rule.”

The committee, led by BJP MP Jagadambika Pal, submitted its report in February after months of deliberations. The process, however, was marred by disorder and even one instance of physical altercation involving Trinamool MP Kalyan Banerjee.

Out of the 66 changes proposed to the bill, all 44 by opposition members were rejected, while 23 from BJP and allies were taken up, with 14 eventually being approved.

Another point of contention was the exclusion of opposition dissent notes from the final report. Though the government claimed that the Chair had discretion over this matter, it later agreed to reinstate the dissenting views following internal discussions.

The Waqf Amendment Bill was first tabled in August last year and immediately drew criticism from the opposition, who labeled it “draconian.” Key provisions of the bill include the inclusion of non-Muslims and at least two women in every Waqf board, along with the appointment of a Union Minister, three MPs, and reputed individuals. It also proposes donation eligibility conditions based on religious observance.

Union Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju tabled the revised bill following Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla’s ruling in favor of the government amid disruptions from both benches.

In a serious breach of the ceasefire agreement, Pakistani Army troops intruded across the Line of Control (LoC) into Jammu and Kashmir’s Poonch district, triggering a mine blast and opening unprovoked fire, Army sources revealed.

The incident occurred on April 1 in the Krishna Ghati sector, where a mine explosion was caused due to the cross-border intrusion. According to Army sources, “This was followed by unprovoked firing and ceasefire violation by the Pakistan Army.”

Responding swiftly, Indian troops retaliated in what the sources described as a “controlled and calibrated manner”. No casualties were reported on the Indian side, and the situation remains under close observation by security forces.

The Indian Army emphasized the significance of continuing to honour the understanding established between the Director Generals of Military Operations (DGMO) of both countries. This understanding, reached in 2021, reaffirmed the commitment of both sides to uphold all ceasefire agreements and address issues that could lead to escalation.

Despite the agreement, violations such as this remain a point of concern. The Indian Army’s stance remains firm on maintaining peace but with readiness to respond to any provocation.