Clarifying that RSS does not play any role in the government’s decision about Waqf, functionaries said the Bill is being brought after a long consultation with multiple Muslim organisations. (Getty)
Senior Sangh functionaries also see the Waqf Bill as a step forward for Uniform Civil Code, noting that no community should have a different set of rules in the country
The amendments to the Waqf Act over a period of time by the Congress were ‘unconstitutional’ and brought in to ‘please and appease’ some ‘influential and wealthy’ Muslims, said a senior RSS functionary who is also a member of the organisation’s central committee.
Clarifying that RSS does not play any role in the government’s decision about Waqf, the functionary said: “The Bill is being brought after a long consultation with multiple Muslim organisations and their intellectuals. They suggested that the changes in the Waqf board Act do not help common Muslims, women and children anyway. Instead, they only grant undue advantage on land and property issues to a particular section.”
The senior functionary, while talking to News18, said: “The government stopped Haj subsidy and the quota system. There was no commotion over it because it was only aiding rich Muslims. This is what the Congress did to appease a particular wealthy and influential sections of Muslims. No common Muslim gained because of such decisions taken by the Congress. Rather, more Muslims are now travelling to Haj on pilgrimage.”
Referring to the earlier amendments to the Waqf Board Act, brought in 2010 and 2013 by the Congress, the functionary added: “The Act was created for other purposes. But post the amendments, the Act was just catering to a particular section of Muslims — the wealthy and the influential.”
Step forward for UCC?
The functionaries of RSS also see the Waqf Bill as a step forward for Uniform Civil Code. “There should be equality in all forms. There should not be any specific privilege for a specific community and in a country like India, no community should have a set of different rules,” said another senior functionary.
Taking a dig at Rahul Gandhi’s caste comments in Parliament, he said: “Senior opposition leaders talk about alleged caste discrimination in government services in Parliament. But can they also come out with data to establish how such Muslim boards, Waqf and others have been running? Do they have representation of poor Indian Muslims, or the Pasmanda Muslims? How much representation and decision-making power does a Muslim woman have in such organisations? These should be seriously considered.”
Earlier Amendments to Waqf Act
According to a senior officer, the Act has seen multiple amendments over the past decades. In 2010, the UPA government brought an amendment, but the Sachar Committee and the Joint Parliamentary Committee suggestions were not fully incorporated. Both the reports on Waqf had recommended that greater powers be given to Waqf boards to evict encroachers.
There was another amendment in 2013. Even though, the amendments brought some progressive changes, they also triggered controversies. The amendments gave more powers to the Waqf Boards, including the power to remove encroachments. Critics and multiple organisations argued that this could lead to misuse of power and harassment of individuals who might be wrongly accused of encroachment.
The establishment of Waqf Tribunals was intended to provide a specialised forum for resolving disputes related to Waqf properties. However, there were concerns about the efficiency and impartiality of these tribunals.
Later, over 10 years and through different governments and handling of the board, a major bone of contention emerged — the amendment concerning the appointment process for Waqf Board positions.
Another controversy involved accusations of mismanagement and corruption within the Waqf boards. The BJP has demanded a CBI investigation into an alleged Rs 2.3 lakh crore Waqf board scandal, highlighting issues of potential financial irregularities and misuse of Waqf properties. This demand for an investigation has added to the political tensions surrounding the Bill.
