The Parliament on Wednesday saw a heated debate on the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, tabled by Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju in the Lok Sabha. While the government defended the legislation as progressive, reformatory and empowering for Muslims, the Opposition vehemently opposed it, terming it to be an attack on the religious freedom of the minority community. Watch News Today with Rajdeep Sardesai for more.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Good evening, hello and welcome, you're with the news today.
00:06This is your primetime destination as always, news, newsmakers, talking points, a big talking
00:12point.
00:13The VAC bill is being debated in Parliament, will be voted on tonight, the government as
00:19the majority.
00:20The big question, are we seeing vote bank politics playing over the bill?
00:25Is this a case of genuine reform or is it simply a political weapon?
00:31That's the big question that we will raise, special guests as always will join me on our
00:36top focus tonight.
00:38First, the 9 headlines at 9.
00:43Home Minister Amit Shah leads the government's defence over the VAC bill in Parliament, accuses
00:49the opposition of fear mongering and appeasement politics.
00:57Centre and opposition square off in the Lok Sabha, Minorities Affairs Minister Kiran Bajuju
01:02assures that the VAC bill is legal and constitutional.
01:06Opposition says the bill is an attempt to interfere in personal laws, goes against the
01:11freedom of religion.
01:17Policy erupts over Anurag Thakur's comments during the VAC debate, the BJP MP claimed
01:23Congress Chief Kharge grabbed land in Karnataka, Congress up in arms, questions the minister,
01:29wants an apology.
01:30After a video of MNS workers assaulting a watchman goes viral on social media for allegedly
01:39not speaking in Marathi, Maharashtra Chief Minister talks stuff, says action will be
01:44taken if someone takes law into their hands.
01:50DMK's A Raja triggers another Sanatan Dharmarao, tells party carder to not wear Hindu religious
01:56symbols while wearing the DMK's dhoti.
02:01Hellingana High Court halts development working at HCU, Hyderabad Central University amidst
02:06environmental concerns, stays bulldozer action on campus, police arrest two people for rioting
02:12and an attack on officials.
02:14Karnataka High Court directs Rapido, Ola and Uber to stop bike taxi services in the state
02:21within six weeks.
02:22The court passed the order while dismissing pleas filed by the companies which sought
02:26legal recognition for bike taxis.
02:31And all eyes on Donald Trump and his tariff announcement late tonight.
02:37Ahead of that, he posts on Truth Social, says it's liberation day in America, puts
02:42the world on tenterhooks, Wall Street tumbles in opening trade.
02:48After a powerful earthquake joins South Asia, Prime Minister Narendra Modi to visit Thailand
02:53on Thursday to attend the BIMSTEC summit in Bangkok.
03:04But first, our top story tonight.
03:08The Lok Sabha, as we speak, is debating the contentious Waqf Amendment Bill that seeks
03:13to change the way Waqf properties are managed in India.
03:17The Narendra Modi government is calling it an essential reform that will ensure that
03:22the properties are put to better and more efficient use.
03:26The opposition is calling it an attempt to simply target the Muslim community and interfere
03:32in the freedom of religion.
03:34Before we get ahead, let's take a look at some of the key highlights of that big debate
03:39in the Lok Sabha, including a face-off between the minorities of Prime Minister Kiran Baijuju
03:44and opposition leader Gaurav Gogoi.
05:05Prime Minister Gaurav Gogoi, speaking in Hindi.
05:33Prime Minister Gaurav Gogoi, speaking in Hindi.
06:03Prime Minister Gaurav Gogoi, speaking in Hindi.
06:31Prime Minister Gaurav Gogoi, speaking in Hindi.
06:59Prime Minister Gaurav Gogoi, speaking in Hindi.
07:27Prime Minister Gaurav Gogoi, speaking in Hindi.
07:55Prime Minister Gaurav Gogoi, speaking in Hindi.
08:23Prime Minister Gaurav Gogoi, speaking in Hindi.
08:51Prime Minister Gaurav Gogoi, speaking in Hindi.
09:17Prime Minister Gaurav Gogoi, speaking in Hindi.
09:45Prime Minister Gaurav Gogoi, speaking in Hindi.
10:07The Waqf Amendment Bill.
10:09Why is this bill so contentious?
10:12First, let me bring you once again the highlights of this bill.
10:15What are the changes that are being proposed by the Modi government?
10:19The Waqf Amendment Bill now allows, or Umeed Bill as it is being called by the government,
10:25allows for a non-Muslim CEO, at least two non-Muslim members to be appointed by state governments.
10:32An officer above collector rank can decide if a disputed property is Waqf or belongs to the government.
10:39So, it's the government which now can decide on whether a particular property is Waqf or not.
10:46Existing Waqf by user properties remain Waqf unless disputed.
10:51But no new ones will get Waqf by user status simply because you are using a particular property,
10:57it will not be deemed to be a Waqf property.
11:00Every Waqf property, and just to tell you, a Waqf property is essentially a charitable endowment
11:06that is supposed to be made, or those who choose to make within the Muslim community,
11:11charitable endowments, they could be for a graveyard, they could be for a mosque.
11:15Different reasons may be attributed, you can do it through a Waqf.
11:19Every Waqf property will be registered now on a central portal within six months of the law being passed.
11:26Not registering on a portal would result in forfeiting the right to move court in case of a dispute.
11:34If not registered on a portal within six months, lawsuits can be filed only if the court allows.
11:41The Waqf tribunal decision, and this is important, can be challenged in a high court within 90 days.
11:47Requirement of a Muslim law expert in the tribunal has been removed.
11:52Creator of Waqf can only be a person practicing Islam for at least five years.
11:58Earlier, everyone was allowed.
12:01Provision for separate Waqf boards for Boras and Agha Khanis.
12:06These are some of the issues which have proven to be contentious,
12:10where one side believes they are an interference with religion,
12:13the other side believes that this is much needed reform.
12:16Does the truth as it often does lie somewhere in between?
12:19Joining me now, Shadan Farasad, Advocate Supreme Court,
12:23Gopal Shankar Narayanan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court.
12:27Appreciate you all joining us.
12:29First you, Shadan, I've listed out 10 of the major amendments or 10 new facts
12:35that this bill seems to bring in to the Waqf Property Act.
12:40Your view, how do you see these amendments?
12:43Do these amendments bring, as the government is claiming,
12:46greater transparency and accountability in the functioning of the Waqf?
12:50So, my view is, see, it's common knowledge that the way Waqfs have functioned so far,
12:56it's not ideal, right?
12:58So, there is, I think everybody recognizes that there is a need for some improvement or change in that respect.
13:04And I think the Muslim community per se has also not been able to get the kind of benefits,
13:09which the idea of a charitable trust like this envisages.
13:13But you've asked the right question, that do these amendments help in that process?
13:18And I'm not so sure.
13:19I think it will have to be seen whether it first gets passed and then how it works out.
13:23But to be honest, I am a little skeptical today for two or three reasons.
13:28One is that what you are changing really is who controls the Waqf institutions.
13:35So, you are introducing what, through introduction of non-Muslims, etc., you are trying to secularize it.
13:41But I think there's a fundamental problem in secularizing a religious trust, correct?
13:46I think that, I mean, there is an element of secularization needed in a lot of things, maybe even personal laws.
13:52But when you are secularizing a religious trust, in my view, that is straight in the face of Article 26 of the Constitution.
13:59Article 26 of the Constitution says that subject to public order, morality and health,
14:04every religious denomination or any action thereof shall have the right to maintain,
14:08to establish and maintain institutions of religious and charitable purpose, correct?
14:12Now, therefore, the Muslim community has a right under the Constitution, under Article 26,
14:17to maintain what is a dedication to Allah, as it were, and to run it through in the manner in which it wishes.
14:24The state cannot intervene.
14:25Now, somebody is going to ask the question, but listen, there was already an act which was there, so didn't the state already intervene?
14:30And the answer to that is that, yes, there was an act, but that was primarily or fundamentally a facilitative act for self-regulation.
14:37It did not take it away from the community.
14:39The nature, some of the amendments which have been made here, effectively by introducing a secularizing project into this,
14:47have taken it away from the community and that is in the teeth of Article 26, number one.
14:52Number two, I think some aspects, some aspects such as registering and then losing a right over non-registration,
14:58there are thousands and thousands of work properties being maintained in this country, right?
15:02Now, if in six months you don't register, you lose that right.
15:05I think it's a bit of a draconian provision.
15:07I find that a bit of a draconian provision.
15:09And also, vis-a-vis government properties, I think the government now gets more,
15:13where there's a dispute between a government, that it's a government property and a work property.
15:17I think if government is effectively or government officer is deciding,
15:21I think that change also tilts the balance in favor of the government
15:25and takes it away from what could be otherwise a more balanced adjudication process.
15:29So, I think those are some of the questions which arise,
15:31whether it will actually, I don't see any obvious thing of better management of work.
15:35I think potential amendments could have been done with keeping the existing composition,
15:39but requiring better management, that would have been possibly a better route to amendment
15:43than what has been adopted presently.
15:45You know, I just want to once again understand from you, Shadan,
15:50that there were concerns that the work board was opaque,
15:56that decisions could be taken by them without sufficient external regulation.
16:01A decision taken by a work tribunal could not even be challenged in the courts.
16:06This amendment is making it very clear that those decisions will be now challenged in a court,
16:11if, as you said, there is a dispute involving government land, the district collector,
16:16and the officer above that, will then be able to have a say in the matter.
16:20Are we fear mongering when we say all of this will result in some way in an interference in
16:26religious practices at the end of the day?
16:28Should it be treated as a religious practice or a property?
16:33Or a property that therefore needs some kind of oversight?
16:38See, it is an Islamic religion, the basis of it is an Islamic religious trust,
16:44which is a trust in favor of Allah for a certain purpose. You can have waqf even for horses,
16:50you can have waqf for animals, purpose is this thing, but the dedication is to God, right?
16:54It's a concept in Islam. Now, you will dedicate your property for A, B, or C purpose.
16:59Muslims have been doing it for decades and centuries, correct?
17:02Now, today, if it is fundamentally a religious thing, of course, it relates to property.
17:07If the state were to intervene and take it away from the community, of course, there are serious constitutional questions which arise.
17:13And yes, you are right that there is a requirement for improvement.
17:17But like I said, that could have been done by making the existing mechanisms more transparent.
17:21I mean, there are so many things in this country which require better transparency, including the collegium of the Supreme Court.
17:26But you don't do away with it. You can improve it, right?
17:29So there could have been requirements of making decisions public.
17:32And it is not entirely correct to say that any statutory body in this, including Waqf-e-Jabbar decision,
17:37will be challenging in a red court and in the Supreme Court.
17:39So it's not as if it is something which was completely unchallengeable.
17:42It was just that the disputes will not go in a regular suit to begin with.
17:46The beginning point was not a court, but of course, it was subject to confirmation by the constitutional courts,
17:50namely the High Court in the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court thereafter.
17:53You know, there is no sense, Shadan, as you said, that there is a need for reform.
18:02I agree with that. And I absolutely agree.
18:05So let's be very clear that what were the reforms that you believe are needed to make the Waqf Board properties more transparent
18:15and importantly serve the purposes of charity which they are meant for?
18:19Correct. So I think a regular audit, a mandatory audit of each of the Waqfs,
18:24mandatory disclosure of the salaries of the Muttawallis, what were the amounts being used?
18:29Basically, accountability, financial accountability of the people who were in charge
18:33was what would have brought a lot more transparency and a much-needed reform,
18:40which is audit and what is happening.
18:43Like any institution, some people capture it, then they misuse it for their personal purpose,
18:46they make money out of it. These are the kind of things which happen in Waqf Board and Waqf properties.
18:50Now, you have to remove that. Now, I don't know how the existing amendments really address that.
18:54There's no provision for audit. There's no provision for accountability.
18:57There's no provision for transparency on salaries.
18:59There's no provision for declaring to public as to which money is being used,
19:02where there is no efficiency, although the title is efficiency in terms of the bill.
19:06It's titled as, you know, like so many things, the government has titled it something.
19:10But the contents of that title, the effective mechanisms of the title and the statute are missing.
19:14You know, Amit Shah has clarified, saying no non-Muslim would come into the Waqf.
19:21There is no provision to include any non-Muslim in managing religious institutions.
19:26He is trying to address the question that there will be an interference in religious institutions by non-Muslims.
19:33Is that sufficient clarification? This apparently is one of the amendments particularly brought under pressure
19:39from some of the coalition allies.
19:41So, I will, I mean, let's see what the, I have seen the existing bill as it was introduced in the morning today in Lok Sabha.
19:47I don't know if there is any further change to it which will be proposed by the government.
19:50If there is and some provisions are modulated, amended, some concerns are taken on board by the government, that's a welcome step.
19:56So, I mean, I don't know what the Home Minister is referring to, which exact provision.
20:00But we'll have to see if there is any provision which is further modulated and that's a welcome step by the government.
20:06Overall though, when it is suggested that this is anti-constitution, do you believe it's anti-constitution?
20:14Is that being, is that stretching it to suggest that this is against the constitution of the country?
20:20See, my understanding it, I have prima facie examined it. My sense is some provisions there could certainly have, be constitutionally very questionable.
20:29Will the entire bill, every provision is constitutionally untenable? I don't think so.
20:34But I think there are certain provisions there which are certainly constitutionally quite questionable.
20:39But not that everything which is done there is necessarily has a constitutional question attached to it.
20:44Shadan Farazad, for giving us your legal expert view as someone who has tracked this issue for a long time, I appreciate you joining me, Shadan.
20:54Thank you so much. Okay, let's raise the big questions at this moment.
20:58Consensus on the Waqf Bill, is it now achievable? Remember, voting will take place a short while from now.
21:05The government has the clear majority. Is this importantly a genuine reform or is it actually just a political weapon?
21:13Is the Waqf Bill a weapon of mass distraction? Is it an attempt to distract from some of the real issues of our times?
21:22For example, the Trump tariffs that come into force in a few hours from now.
21:27Are we seeing vote bank politics being played by every side over the Waqf Bill?
21:32One side trying to appease Muslim votes, the other side trying to whip a sense of Hindu consolidation.
21:39Those are some of the questions I want to pose. Time for our political face-off today.
21:44I don't usually get spokespersons and politicians on the show, but today is a major debate in Parliament.
21:52Syed Nasir Hussain is Member of Parliament and Senior National Spokesperson of the Congress.
21:58Nalin Kohli, National Spokesperson, BJP Advocate, Supreme Court.
22:02Chuhi Singh is Spokesperson, Samajwadi Party.
22:05Deepak Reddy, Gunapathi is National Spokesperson of the TDP.
22:10Let's come to each of you first. I want to come to Nalin Kohli first because
22:15the BJP is facing the charge from the opposition right through this day
22:19that all your bill is seeking to do is interfere in the religious affairs of Muslims
22:26and therefore acts against the constitution of the country.
22:30You won't intervene when it comes to Hindu religious affairs now,
22:34but you will certainly intervene when it comes to the minority community. Your response.
22:41Mr. Kohli.
22:45Nalin Kohli, can you hear me?
22:49Nalin Kohli, can you hear me?
22:53Mr. Kohli, can you hear me?
22:54I can now hear you. I'm sorry, so if you've asked something, I have no clue because I've just been patched up.
22:59Okay, I'm just asking you the question. Mr. Kohli, right through this day on the debate,
23:03the big question that the opposition has been raising is that the Vakht bill is essentially an intervention
23:10in the religious affairs of a community and therefore ultra-virus article 26 of the constitution,
23:15freedom to practice your religion the way you wish. Your response.
23:24So, thank you. In fact, I'm grateful that you've asked me that question, Rajdeep,
23:27because I was following what my colleague in the Supreme Court, Shahdan, was also speaking
23:32and he also raised the argument. Two arguments which I'll address them, it applies to everything.
23:37Article 26 and then of course about the government's interference in terms of the collector looking at land.
23:44And this requires some explanation. First is article 26, certainly 25, 26, 29 are special rights
23:51given to the minority communities under the constitution. But these cannot be in effect to the derogation of the rights of those who are not minorities.
24:00Because after all, you have article 14 of the constitution, which is equality before law.
24:06So you cannot have a situation where in the name of or on the tenet of minority rights and minority protection,
24:14the rights of any other minority being Christians or Buddhists or any Sikhs or the majority community being Hindus can be affected.
24:22And to bring it into perspective, currently under the 2013 Act, any land can be claimed as a vakav land,
24:30including temple lands, which is happening in Tamil Nadu, including farmer's lands in the Congress ruled Karnataka,
24:37including lands of Christian families, 400 of them, 200 Hindu families in Kerala.
24:43And that's also brought the bishops out, the Christian community. Now, the vakav land, as Shahdan correctly said,
24:50is a pious land meant for the purpose of Allah. So, therefore, that contribution also has to be from a practicing Muslim,
24:57not anyone, which was what the 2013 amendment is, which leads to the third question.
25:04Why should the collector be looking at it? So let's pause for a minute. Prior to the British rule in India,
25:09land belonged to the community or the temples. I mean, I'm talking historically for thousands of years.
25:16The British came and organized land rights. That whole thing was in a system of administration eventually,
25:22in which the district administration or the district magistrate is also a collector in the capacity of collecting revenue from land.
25:30He is also the custodian of all land records in the district. So, ultimately, it's the collector who has the complete chain
25:38and information from the patwari right up to the kanungo to the tehsildar and finally the district magistrate,
25:44which is where also when anyone like you or me buys land, we register it there. It gets recorded in the record of rights.
25:51And thereafter, if it's mutation, if there is a challenge, it is a quasi-judicial process at the DM's office.
25:58So, he is the right person to know about lands. Now, someone says, this is my vakav land, say, a temple in Tamil Nadu.
26:06You will have a record of the land. So, either you have to come with the record. It can't be a declaration,
26:11which will take away the rights of other communities. That's the core part to it. It's not about the takeover of anything at all.
26:19You are saying it leads to greater regulation. You are claiming that this will lead to greater, more efficient regulation.
26:27I had Professor Faizan Mustafa, who said, vakav property is already highly regulated.
26:32So, in many of the instances that you have cited, even if I claim it to be a vakav land, there is a strong element of regulation,
26:39even now. The question, though, Nasir Hussain, is, as you are seeing, the BJP is claiming that you needed reform.
26:46The Vak Board is not above reform, Nasir Hussain. Your response, that the general belief is,
26:52that this is, at one level, an important reform. Go ahead, Nasir Hussain.
26:59Even I believe that no institution in this country is above reforms.
27:11Every institution needs reforms. Every board needs reforms. I don't have a problem in it.
27:18But the problem is, the BJP, since morning, in their interventions in Loktaba, has not been able to tell the people of the country,
27:27or convince the people of the country, especially the Muslims, or convince the members that were there in JPC or in Lok Sabha,
27:37as to what are the reforms that they have brought. And, they say that conveniently quoting Constitution is not enough.
27:49Who says that Vak Board is infringing upon the rights of other minorities or other communities in our country?
27:59What is it that Vak Board has done to snatch away the rights of other minorities or the majority community?
28:05In fact, I am saying that there should be equality before law.
28:08When you are putting two non-Muslims or four non-Muslims in Vak Board, can you put a Muslim, a Sikh or a Christian in the endowment board?
28:18Can you put them in temple trust? Can you accommodate them in the religious Hindu endowment and religious act of different states in this country?
28:27Can you do that? So, I want equality before law. If you can't do that, you cannot do it here also.
28:32That is as simple as that. Now, you say that collector is the one who knows everything about land. I agree on that.
28:40Can the collector have the authority to divide the title of any land?
28:46Sachar committee, they are quoting Sachar committee since morning. They have rejected Sachar committee when it was actually tabled in the parliament.
28:54In total, they have rejected. Now, they are conveniently quoting Sachar committee. I want to quote from Sachar committee.
28:59Sachar committee said that majority of the dispute of the lands of Vak Board is with the government.
29:06Who is the district collector representing? He is representing the government.
29:10How can one can be a judge in his own case? Vak Board versus government, the district collector represents the government.
29:19So, how can he decide on the case? Even the high court has said that judge collector cannot decide on the land.
29:27He can only register the land. Only the title of the land can be decided by the court. This is point number two.
29:35Point number three. Mr. Kohli, I have been debating with him for a long long time but of late we have not come on television channel for past few occasions.
29:47I want to tell him the specific cases. He spoke about the temple land in Tamil Nadu.
29:52Let me put it straight. Today our opposition members have made it very clear in Lok Sabha.
29:58This Tamil Nadu issue, 1954, this particular village, 30-40% of the property of that village was in Vaf.
30:091954, it was in Vaf. Later on, the survey numbers changed and Vak property became separate and there were separate numbers for different properties in that village.
30:19So, very recently when the revenue records in Tamil Nadu were being digitized,
30:26it was the revenue official who made an entry saying that it is Vaf property.
30:30Tamil Nadu work board didn't claim it as Vaf property. In fact, the tribunal which they are disempowering now,
30:37the tribunal in Tamil Nadu said that it is not Vaf property. Work board didn't claim it as Vaf property.
30:44When the JPC went to Chennai, the chief secretary, the district collector and the revenue secretary came in front of JPC.
30:51They said that it was a mistake of the revenue official and not of the work board.
30:54Now, he spoke about the Kerala issue. I have the complete papers in my hand sitting right away here.
31:00Even in Kerala issue, work board didn't claim that it is Vaf land.
31:05Court decisions at three different locations, two times the court decision and once a judicial commission declared it as Vaf property.
31:15And they sent directions to the work board to register it as Vaf property when the work board was not registering it as Vaf property.
31:23After all this process that has gone in the tribunal now, my sympathies are there with the people who are staying in that area with all those Christian families.
31:32Some of them had actually purchased the land. Some of them were staying there for long long time.
31:37My sympathies are there. I wish there is some resolution for that.
31:40But the problem is the court has said that it is Vaf land, not once, twice and a judicial commission has said it is Vaf land.
31:48I have heard you very patiently, Mr. Hussain.
31:54Mr. Hussain, I have heard both.
31:57Karnataka issue, my state. My issue, Karnataka.
32:02Again, the work board had not given notices to the people, those who were staying in those villages.
32:08It was the DC of Bijapur who had issued notices because their names were not reflecting in the revenue lines.
32:16See, these kind of issues they are raking up, building up in the media and social media and they are claiming that the work boards are claiming this land.
32:26This is completely wrong.
32:28Mr. Hussain, I have given you lots of time because I believe…
32:33Mr. Hussain, I gave you adequate time to explain and you have given us a very strong explanation of why you believe there are myths surrounding the alleged land grabbing.
32:43Nalin Kohli had raised his hand. I will give him a quick response and then go to my other guest.
32:48Yes, Mr. Kohli. You see, there are lots of myths being spread. There is also WhatsApp University.
32:52No, I think my learned friend…
32:53No, no, one minute, sir. I heard the minister today saying that even parliament building is being claimed by the Vaf.
33:00I mean, where is this coming from? There is a lot of fear mongering also going on on both sides.
33:06Respond, Nalin Kohli.
33:10So, first, when the minister speaks on the floor of the house of parliament, he is subject to a privilege motion if he gives an incorrect statement.
33:21That's basic parliamentary democracy. So, he understands after taking the oath of the constitution, being a member of parliament,
33:31what his responsibilities are and his statement is not a loose statement. As you call it the WhatsApp University, it does not function there.
33:39And nor does a TV debate standard function there either. So, I mean, in fairness, we have to give credence to what he says on the floor of the house.
33:47Number one. Number two, my learned friend, Senji made some very, very valid points.
33:52And I actually must thank him. He has just now built a fabulous case in support of the district administration.
34:00And actually, there should be no fear. Because what he has just now made a case on is the courts are functioning beautifully
34:06when the courts are invoked and the district administration, the mistakes are corrected by that.
34:11The Waqf boards are doing no wrong. So, let's not go back to the top.
34:15But now the district administration will have huge power. No, no, no, but Mr Kohli, now the district collector will have the powers.
34:23No, I haven't finished my point. No, no, you must listen to my point. You must listen to my point before you ask me for counter question.
34:30Why was the jurisdiction of the courts are removed? And why was the word of the Waqf tribunal to be then only the final word?
34:37Now, that brings the exact thing that under the secular law that we are finally, even which the constitution gives you rights for specific rights for the minorities.
34:48It does not oust the fact that India as a secular democracy, not run on religion, the primacy of the courts and the legal system cannot be ousted.
34:59By any organization, least of all a religious organization, because this is not running on religion.
35:06And let me put a counter argument if it is running on religion, if that is the argument to be taken from someone in the Muslim community,
35:13then with due respect, then why wouldn't it run on Hindu religion, which is the majority and in 47.
35:18So, therefore, it can't be in a way that you have a situation that a minority community will say that the secular fabric of the rule of law
35:27will be discarded in front of the religious fabric or the religious law.
35:32Nalin Kohli, a point was made by Nasir Hussain.
35:39No, no point was made by Nasir Hussain, for example, that why should two non-Muslims,
35:45why should two non-Muslims be on the mandate really on a Waqf board when that won't happen with the temple trust?
35:55He says have equality before the law. Quick response.
36:00No, that's also easy to say. Basically, in this country and actually across the world, the majority of disputes relate to land.
36:09In some states, I won't name them, you know, a one foot change in the boundary between two neighboring lands can lead to bloodshed also.
36:18Land is a very, very, very precious commodity and is passed down by generations through succession.
36:25So, when it comes to land rights, ultimately it has to go by the land records. If there is an error, that can be corrected as Mr. Hussain was trying to point out.
36:34But at the end of the day, the custodian of those land records is the government, point number one.
36:39Point number two, if it involves a non-Muslim's land, then again the same argument would be used.
36:45How can all the Muslims sitting there do justice then to a non-Muslim because they are functioning under their religious objective?
36:52So, therefore, it is not about interference in the functioning of the Waqf board or getting involved in the religious part of it.
37:01But as and when such situations come, you have somebody to give a basic fair representation.
37:07Okay, you know, Nasir Hussain, we were just listing what is the rules across the world.
37:14In many Islamic countries, it's the government which is the final arbiter.
37:19Now, in this case, you are saying, why is the district collector intervening its intervention in religious affairs?
37:25The courts are being given a greater role now under the new act. What's wrong with that?
37:30The fact is, those are not ultra-violence, the constitution.
37:38Rajdeep, see, let me not bother about what is happening in different countries. The point here is very simple.
37:46I said equality before law. Mr. Kohli didn't address the question. This under the query which I raised.
37:55I said you want to have non-Muslims in a Waqf board. Can you have non-Hindus in endowment boards,
38:04in Muzrai department, in Hindu religious acts? And it is very very clearly mentioned there.
38:11No, no, what's wrong with diversity? No, no, one minute, no, no, Mr. Syed, Nasir Hussain, if the land which is being claimed is that of non-Muslims…
38:19Rajdeep, hold on. You allow me to speak. No, no, you allow me to finish.
38:26See, Mathas in Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, they have lands. Temples have lands. Gurudwaras have lands. Churches have lands.
38:34All religious institutions in this country have lands. Large tracts of land. So, land is involved everywhere.
38:39When the endowment acts clearly say only Hindus can be there, when other community laws can clearly say only that community people can be there,
38:48how can you bring someone from other community only in Waqf? Then please allow other communities to be there in different boards of different communities.
38:56That's the point I am making. Why there is no equality? No, no, one minute, one minute. Let's avoid the cross talk.
39:02We are discussing very very rationally. I am very happy to see two guests discussing it.
39:08Sir, just a minute. There are two other guests that are joining and the reason I have got them, I will explain in a moment.
39:14Because the Telugu Desam was the one party many thought might have reservations about these Waqf amendments.
39:19They are voting with the government. Deepak Reddy, Gunapathi, what are the reservations you still have?
39:25Or what has the government done to allay your reservation that you are now voting with the government?
39:29A very good evening, Rajdeepji. Good evening. Before I start, let me put one thing on record.
39:36Congress party is the reason behind this entire mess. In fact, if you see Mallikarjun Kargeji, a few, some time ago,
39:46he clearly said that in Karnataka, the Waqf lands are being illegally occupied.
39:54And several Congress leaders have given similar statements on the state level.
39:58But the stand what they are taking in the national level is what we can see.
40:03And what's surprising is they are trying to get TDP in and trying to cast questions on us.
40:11But to be frank, we were the ones who actually asked for the JPC.
40:16And we have suggested four amendments. Out of the four, three crucial amendments have already been accepted.
40:24Which are those? Can you explain which are the key ones that you have got, which the government has agreed to?
40:31Yeah, the first one was Waqf by user. We're saying that whatever is already registered, you cannot do away with that.
40:39So it can't operate introspectively.
40:42Yes. And the second one, what we have asked for is a higher level officer than the collector.
40:49Because the collector works under the government. Even that kind of a baiyash should not be there.
40:53An officer which is of a higher level should be given the powers.
40:57And the third one is the timeline. We have to give a reasonable timeline, which we suggested six months.
41:03And the fourth one is what the other gentleman was saying.
41:09That a non-Muslim should not be there. That is what we are now fighting hard.
41:15Because Chandrababu Naiduji has clearly said on Tirupati issue also that a non-Hindu will not be there.
41:21Similarly, every religion, institution, people belonging to the same religion should be there.
41:27If at all it is not accepted, the fourth amendment, we are exploring avenues where we implement that at least in the state of Andhra Pradesh.
41:35So Chandrababu Naiduji is a true champion of Muslim rights.
41:40But the Congress has questioned.
41:42No, let me get this very clear. You are saying there can be no mandatory inclusion of non-Muslims is the amendment you have put forward.
41:50That seems to fit in with what Amit Shah has also said in Parliament.
41:55You are saying it is for the state governments to decide who will be in the Vak Board. Am I correct?
42:00No, we are trying to get the fourth amendment passed in the centre itself.
42:07If at all it doesn't get accepted, as far as the state is concerned, Chandrababu Naiduji is looking at avenues to protect the rights of the Muslims.
42:17So in each of these four, the decision is at the state level.
42:21And we will make sure that the rights of the Muslims are protected.
42:25One last thing I would like to put it forward.
42:28The Congress and especially the MIM has been casting aspersions on us.
42:33They have no representation in Andhra Pradesh especially.
42:36MIM has not even a single seat and Congress party is long dead.
42:40So, I mean, we don't really appreciate the false information which is being given.
42:46And one straight question I would like to ask before I close.
42:50If everything was so perfect, in Andhra Pradesh there are 65,783 acres registered under Vaft.
42:57Out of that in the last five years, 31,594, almost half the lands have been encroached.
43:03If the Vaft Board activities previously were good, why did this happen?
43:08So Chandrababu Naiduji has now vowed to protect the rights of the Muslims and the lands of the Muslims.
43:14So this is something what we want to make it absolutely clear because truth has become a casualty.
43:20With all the false information what the Indy ecosystem has been peddling in the last few days.
43:25And they have miserably failed in public opinion. And they have to pay people.
43:30There is a lot of myth making. Sir, there is a lot of myth making on both sides.
43:35Particularly when it also comes to land grabs which are being also mentioned in some instances.
43:40But I want to come to you, Juhi Singh. As has been just said by my TDP guest, he is giving a very persuasive argument for reform.
43:48The general sense one gets in the parliament debate is the opposition is wondering,
43:55is not able to give a strong reason why they don't want this reform.
44:01In many state governments I have heard opposition leaders say they want reform in work land.
44:06So why not when you come to parliament how can you change the goalposts. Suddenly you say no no we don't want it.
44:12Is this also you playing, the opposition playing vote bank politics trying to appease a segment of the Muslim community.
44:18Rajdeep, thank you for calling me. But the Samajwadi party opposes the work amendment bill and we are going to vote against it.
44:31Mainly because the arguments being put on this panel itself. I am telling you, give me a chance.
44:38It's dangerous, it's disempowering, it's disenfranchising and the government of the day and all the people who are supporting it
44:46are just glossing over the red flags being planted. The TDP friend just said that their amendment has been accepted regarding the work user.
44:55Now this is a provision which I think has a qualifying clause also that if there is a dispute then the land devolves to the government.
45:04Then the second thing is again a practicing Muslim for 5 years who is going to and by what conditions are we going to
45:13and what terms and conditions are we going to judge who is a practicing Muslim who can actually do work.
45:19Of course you are trying to centralize it, you are trying to control it. I think the Home Minister has said no non-Islamic member will come in.
45:28He has not said that, I really do not understand that where do these terms come in when you have clearly said that you are going to put non-Muslim members in the board.
45:39You talk about women. So that provision was already there and many parties who are now voting with the government
45:47I think you supported the last amendment also. We have also talked, I think the government of the day has also talked
45:54that these are vast lands and they could lead to economic transformation, profit making.
45:59While I think your own data shows that the majority of this land is burial grounds, schools, madrasas, homes, shops.
46:09I will put up that graphic, let me put up that graphic.
46:12Sure, let us put up that graphic as to what are these work property lands.
46:17You see there is a lot of myth making as to whether these lands are only being used for profit or what.
46:2317% are graveyards as you can see. A large percentage of them are also used for mosques.
46:29So there are a few contentious like in every such land endowments there are cases where clearly
46:37there are serious question marks whether the land has been misused.
46:41There is a challenge of encroachments also Nasir Hussain which was raised by Nalin Kohli and by my TDP guest.
46:46You cannot deny that. You cannot deny that all is well with the work. That is the problem.
46:52You need reform. The moment the government then comes with some kind of reform,
46:56maybe they have not been able to deliver on all the issues that you are raising.
47:00Maybe some of your concerns are genuine but you cannot deny the need for reform.
47:05You could suggest to me a better reform. If you are saying what the Modi government is doing wrong,
47:10tell me a better reform to ensure transparency and accountability.
47:14I understand and I do believe that there is no institution in this country which doesn't need reform.
47:31There is no institution in this country which doesn't need reform.
47:35There is something or the other wrong with every institution in this country. I understand that.
47:39But the point is reforms for better, reforms for strengthening, reforms for giving teeth to that organisation and department
47:47and reforms for the better welfare of the people or the stakeholders that are concerned.
47:53Give me one reform that you would have brought that they have not.
47:56Let's come to specifics. Give me one reform that you would have brought that this government has not done.
48:01I would say the entire debate around the work bill is that the poor should be helped.
48:15The entire Muslim community should be helped.
48:20You tell me one thing, you ask Mr Kohli and the BJP people, what is their road map to help the poor out of the work properties?
48:29See, as you told, there are Khabarostans, there are Eidgars, there are Masjids.
48:33You cannot do anything out of it. Where will the revenue come from?
48:35Do you want to charge the people who will go to Namaz?
48:38Do you want to charge the dead bodies that will be buried in the Khabarostans?
48:42Or do you want to charge the people who go to Dargahs?
48:46It is not about that.
48:49There is land apart from these religious activity centres which need to be converted into revenue generating units.
48:57And for that, the Sachar Committee had said that there should be a NAMADCO, National Work Development Corporation.
49:042013 Act said that. A seat capital of 500 crores was kept separately for that.
49:09Modi government came in 2014. They did away with the NAMADCO.
49:13What has happened to the 500 crores seat capital?
49:17So you need to develop these properties into revenue generating units.
49:22When the revenue comes, only then you will be able to help the poor among the Muslims or poor among anybody else in the country.
49:28So what is the road map of this country to develop these properties into revenue generating units?
49:34So that it can generate revenues.
49:38And I would ask my TDP friend, he was mentioning in the last 5 years, 33,000 acres of land has been encroached.
49:45Please, if you are so much worried about the Waf and the Muslims, go ahead, tell Chanda Babu Naidu ji, let him recover all those encroached land.
49:53The government is saying that there is so much of encroachment in the entire country.
49:57What is Modi government doing for the past 11 years?
50:00They have state governments in so many states.
50:03Why didn't they constitute National Waf Council?
50:06Why didn't they constitute Waf Board in many of the states where BJP is ruling?
50:10What were they doing? They should have done all this in the last 11 years.
50:14I want to get Naleen Kohli to respond to what has been just said by Nasir Hussain.
50:21In terms of the fact that the government is claiming, A, this will end corruption.
50:25And B, this will benefit the poor.
50:28I don't know whether the government getting greater intervention in Waf Board will actually end corruption.
50:33As we have seen in the past, government discretion often doesn't actually end corruption.
50:37A, B, how will it help the poor, more specifically?
50:41Naleen.
50:44So, first of all, to answer to the political part of what Nasir Hussain ji said,
50:51what has the Modi government done in the last 11 years?
50:55Lots more than what the Congress has done in the last 55. I have no hesitation saying it.
51:00Pick up anything, railways, highways, anything. The record is far, far, far more
51:06than the Congress could have even dreamed of. Forget about performing.
51:08No, no, come to the question I asked. No, no, come to the question I asked.
51:13Sir, sir, we are running out of time. Come to the question. That's a critical question.
51:17How is this going to curb corruption and help the poor?
51:20Sir, you have spoken as much.
51:30So, I was giving you a cross spectrum. Now, let's come to backwardness of Muslims.
51:34Why is it from 70? I mean, ever since we are a republic, the only thing I hear from the Congress side is the Muslims are backward.
51:42Who has kept them backward? Why are they not equal partners?
51:45Everybody talks of the special rights of Muslims under 25, 26 or the minorities.
51:50Article 14 is far more powerful, equal rights. How is it that they are so backward?
51:55In 55 years, what was this road map of gareebi, hatao, everything? The vakav has suffered because of exactly this mindset.
52:01Keep everybody as poor as you want. You kept half the country or the majority part as poor as you could forever.
52:07And the same thing was with the vakav. Why couldn't you reform it? Why did these encroachments take place over 55 years?
52:14Why after 55 years somebody has to wake up and say that this is my land without any revenue records?
52:20So, the point I am making, that was the political point, now to the absolute logical point, this is a bill.
52:27To use technology, to make the records come online, to make sure everything is transparently available to the last person in the mile.
52:37Somebody who can pick up a smart phone like yours and mine, go on to a website and check which is a vakav property
52:43and which is not a vakav property. Unlike the opacity that existed and the lack of knowledge that even the vakav seems to have on its own land.
52:51Okay, I, so therefore…
52:53I have just a minute, my TDP guest…
52:56No, no, no, sir, the TDP guest also deserves a line in. Yes, sir, go ahead.
53:01Rajiv, five seconds.
53:03Rajivji…
53:04I'll come to you, Nasir, I'll come to you also.
53:07Yeah, the Congress representative claimed to be from Karnataka.
53:12And I've actually said about Mallikarjun Kargeji coming on air in the media saying that Vaft lands are being, you know, stolen and misappropriated.
53:24So, the president of their own party has commented and several other Congress leaders from different states have said that earlier.
53:31So, today, what they are doing is playing a game to the audience and trying to instigate Muslims from across the country by false information.
53:41Okay.
53:42This is the divisive politics of what the Congress is playing.
53:46Okay.
53:47And in Andhra Pradesh, specifically for this…
53:49Sir, I've run out of time.
53:50Specifically for this reason, the Congress party has been buried in Andhra Pradesh for this kind of wrong.
53:58Okay.
53:59You're saying it's divisive politics.
54:00I want to give Juhi Singh, who's been very patient.
54:03Juhi Singh, are you guilty of vote bank politics?
54:06This point is being made again and again.
54:08The opposition is playing vote bank politics to consolidate a Muslim vote.
54:13Rajdeep, we are going to oppose this bill because it is unfair to the Muslims.
54:21It is taking away the right to equality.
54:23And all the people here who are saying that we are supporting the bill because some of our amendments have been accepted are actually letting down the Muslims of India.
54:33And the word secularism has been mentioned, which is very interesting.
54:38And the point has also been made that these properties cannot be turned into profit-churning properties because religious and charitable lands are not meant for that.
54:48The government wants to increase its control over the WACC properties.
54:52And you've clearly said that if any of these WACC properties are disputed, then the government has the upper hand.
55:01Of course, the ideal situation…
55:02Sure, there is a huge question mark over government control.
55:05Madam, government control, as we've seen in this country, is often a recipe to allow even more corruption at times to take place.
55:15To believe that with government control, properties will actually… the corruption, that's the question.
55:20The government is playing this card saying corruption will be reduced.
55:23We don't know.
55:24The proof in this country over the last 75 years is that's where the corruption starts, in government discretion.
55:30But Nasir Hussain, 10 seconds and I have no more.
55:33You want to make a point, 10 seconds.
55:36One quick point. Mr. Kohli said they want to bring in transparency.
55:41They want to see that everything is registered.
55:45I just want to tell my friend from the BJP that the former Union Minister, Mr. Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi,
55:52said, made a very clear statement that 100% WACC properties have been digitalized on WAMC portal of the central government.
56:00If you are denying that it has not been digitized and if you are denying that you cannot see it on the website,
56:05God only can save the BJP and the government. Thank you so much.
56:08Okay, let me leave it there. I've heard all four sides and clearly there are strong arguments on either side.
56:14It's been in many ways a contentious debate but hopefully a debate that will lead to genuine reform.
56:20The point is one side is accused of using it as a political weapon.
56:25The other side is accused of playing the victimhood card.
56:29And often the truth lies somewhere in between.
56:33Are we willing to discover that truth or get carried away by the myth-making on both sides?
56:39One side claims it's all about land grab. The other side claims it's an interference with religion and personal matters.
56:47I hope we will find some sense in that middle ground.
56:51Thanks for watching. Stay well, stay safe. Good night. Shubhrati. Jai Hind. Namaskar.