Why Did Opposition Mention Vaishno Devi & Ayodhya Ram Mandir In Waqf Bill Debate?
During the Lok Sabha debate on the Waqf Amendment Bill, MPs questioned its focus on Muslims, citing separate laws for Hindu sites. The BJP defended the bill, stating it aims to protect Muslim women and children
The mentions of Mata Vaishno Devi and Ayodhya Ram Mandir during the discussion on the Waqf Amendment Bill sparked a heated debate in the Lok Sabha on Wednesday.
Samajwadi Party MP from Kairana, Iqra Hasan, and Congress MP KC Venugopal, while questionioning why the Waqf Bill specifically targets Muslims, noted that separate laws exist for Mata Vaishno Devi and Ayodhya Ram Mandir.
related stories
- News18 Evening Digest: China Slaps US With 34% Tariffs In Retaliation To Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ & Other Top Stories
- Waqf Amendment Bill Highlights: Rajya Sabha Clears Waqf Bill In 128-95 Vote After 12 Hours Of Prolonged Debate
- ‘Attack On Muslims’: Asaduddin Owaisi Tears Copy Of Waqf Bill In Lok Sabha | Watch
- 'You'll Break The Nation…': Amit Shah Hits Out At Opposition's 'Appeasement' In Waqf Bill Debate
Reacting to the allegations, BJP MPs said the Vaishno Devi shrine and Ram Mandir are centres of faith for millions of Hindus and it is inappropriate to associate them with Waqf properties. Some BJP MPs also accused the Opposition of religious polarisation by making such comparisons.
During the discussion, Hasan questioned whether properties of Vaishno Devi and Ram Mandir would also be investigated if the government can investigate Waqf properties. She pointed out that the same government stipulated in the Ram Janmabhoomi Trust that the District Magistrate should be a Hindu, questioning why secularism wasn’t applied there. She argued that the new law’s provisions do not apply to other religious trusts and asked why the Waqf Board is being treated differently.
Venugopal echoed these concerns, stating that transparency should be applied to all religious institutions. He called on the government to clarify whether the rules would be applied equally or focused solely on Waqf Board properties.
Citing the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, Venugopal highlighted that the Chairman of the Board must be the Lieutenant Governor of Jammu and Kashmir, or a prominent person who believes in Hinduism if the Lieutenant Governor is not Hindu. He pointed out similar provisions in the Devasthanam Board and questioned the perceived discrimination against the Waqf Board.
What Is The Law Of Limitation
The Opposition also argued that removing Section 107 of the Waqf Act will weaken the legal protection of Waqf properties. According to The Hindu, the new Bill aims to abolish Section 107 of the 1995 Act, which had made the Limitation Act, 1963 (1963 Act) non-applicable to waqf properties.
The 1963 Act sets a legal time limit for initiating actions after a specified period. Section 107 essentially allowed waqf boards to bypass the 12-year limitation period for recovering encroached properties.
What Did Kiren Rijiju Say
Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju responded to the concerns of the opposition leaders, explaining that the Bill aims to extend protections already in place for Hindu religious trusts to Muslim women and children.
Rijiju emphasised that the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Waqf Board is intended for administrative reform and does not constitute interference in religious matters. He reiterated that fears of non-Muslims disrupting the Waqf Board’s functioning are unfounded.
- Location :
- First Published: