Tensions flared during a recent Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) meeting on the Waqf Board Bill, highlighting the contentious nature of land ownership and regulation in India. The meeting, which took place in Ahmedabad, was marked by a heated exchange between Asaduddin Owaisi, the chief of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), and Minister of State for Home Harsh Sanghvi.
Owaisi raised concerns regarding a property claimed by the Surat Municipal Corporation, which had been in their possession since 1867 but was also claimed as Waqf land.
The JPC meeting, attended by a 20-member delegation including the Chairman of the Gujarat Wakf Board, aimed to discuss the potential implications of the Waqf Board Bill.
This bill is intended to reform the management of Waqf properties, which are properties held in trust for religious or charitable purposes. The discussion took a heated turn when Owaisi pointed out that a particular site, which houses offices for the Surat Municipal Corporation, had been registered with the Waqf Board.
This registration was under scrutiny as the Tribunal had initially ruled in favour of the Waqf claim but later set aside the judgement, leading to confusion and dispute over the property's status.
During the meeting, Sanghvi provided insights into suggestions made by the Gujarat government regarding the bill. However, he declined to share specifics, citing JPC rules.
His comments came in the wake of the verbal clash with Owaisi, which he downplayed, stating that discussions within the committee were not meant for public disclosure. This reluctance to share information has further fueled concerns about transparency in the legislative process.
Congress MLA Imran Khedawala, who was present at the meeting, echoed Owaisi's concerns and called for the withdrawal of the Waqf Board Bill. Khedawala emphasised the need for clear evidence regarding the properties currently registered with the Waqf Board and questioned the circumstances surrounding the handover of the contested site to the Municipal Corporation.
His stance reflects a broader unease within the opposition regarding the handling of Waqf properties and the potential implications of the bill on the Muslim community in Gujarat.
The bill, if passed, could significantly impact how Waqf properties are managed and regulated in the state. Currently, the Gujarat Waqf Board oversees more than 45,000 properties, including graveyards, mosques, madrasas, and various immovable assets.
The complexity of these land disputes is exacerbated by the lack of comprehensive records and historical claims, as seen in the ongoing issues surrounding the Mughalsarai property in Surat.
Khedawala stressed his opposition to the bill, articulating that as a Muslim MLA, he has a responsibility to advocate for the interests of his constituents. He presented 14 key suggestions to the JPC, urging that these be considered in the ongoing discussions. This push for transparency and accountability is crucial as the JPC prepares to finalise its recommendations on the bill.
The clash between Owaisi and Sanghvi serves as a reminder of the contentious nature of land ownership in India, particularly concerning properties claimed under religious trusts.
With the stakes high, the JPC's recommendations on the Waqf Board Bill will be closely watched, as they could set a precedent for how similar disputes are handled in the future.
Follow us
