A Failing Vote Bank

THE RUMBLES CAUSED by the vote on the Waqf (Amendment) Bill passed by Parlia­ment on April 4 have not subsided. The after-effects were most visible in the Biju Janata Dal (BJD) where last-minute instructions to the party’s Rajya Sabha MPs to act in accordance with “conscience” resulted in one MP using the electronic voting button, five others choosing to submit paper slips, and one member abstaining. Sasmit Patra, BJD leader in the Upper House who posted the update on his X handle on April 3 evening, left for Uzbekistan as part of a parliamentary delegation led by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla soon after the vote. Since then, his Instagram posts offered engrossing details of the visit that included a dinner hosted by the Indian ambassador and an “in­spiring” speech by Birla at an Indian diaspora event in Tashkent.

While Patra remained out of reach in Tashkent, back home the vote caused a storm within BJD. BJD leaders like Pratap Jena, Prasanna Acharya and Rajya Sabha MP Debashish Samantaray—who abstained during the vote—were angry and critical. The debate in the House, they pointed out, saw BJD’s Muzibulla Khan opposing the Bill and demanded an explanation for the about turn. A Muslim delegation met Naveen Patnaik to register its protests and the leader, without exactly promising to make amends, said whatever needed to be done would be done. He said BJD had in the past broken with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) over the 2008 Kandhamal riots. “BJD has stood with the minority community,” he is understood to have told the delegation.

But matters did not die down. In the line of fire was former civil servant VK Pandian, seen to be close to Patnaik. While Pandian was accused of a sleight of hand, another section of BJD leaders rose to his defence, saying it was unfair to target Pandian who has distanced himself from politics after BJD lost the 2024 Assembly election. Adding to the intrigue was speculation that the decision to allow a ‘free’ vote had to do with influential Christian groups supporting the Waqf Bill. Was the divergence between Muslim opinion and a section of Christians the reason for the conscience vote? The conspiracy theories deepened as Patra is a Christian and has shed no light on the party’s U-turn. According to Census 2011, Muslims constitute 2.17 per cent of Odisha’s population while Christians are 2.77 per cent. The difference isn’t much but Christians are more numerous. The killing of Hindu leader Lakshmanananda Saraswati in August 2008, allegedly by Mao­ists—the Kandhamal violence Patnaik referred to—was the trig­ger for violent retaliation against Christians by incensed tribals. Could it be that BJD’s decision on the vote in Rajya Sabha was a way to court Christian opinion?

Those familiar with BJD’s func­tioning say a scapegoat may well be found, but not a leaf moves on its own accord in the party. Wheth­er the free vote will backfire on Patnaik is not clear. The incident raises the possibility that the BJD boss weighed the risk of annoying Muslim voters but went ahead any­way. The episode is instructive and provides a peep into how even par­ties that profess ‘secular’ moorings are viewing India’s largest minority. On the face of it, Muslims in Odisha could consider Congress as an op­tion instead of BJD. Yet, as of now the contest is between BJD and BJP and voting Congress is not a winning proposition. There were reports that the YSR Congress Party (YSRCP) of former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister YS Jagan Mohan Reddy also considered a similar course of action, but a party statement said a whip was issued directing MPs to oppose the Bill. The decision of BJP allies Janata Dal (United), the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) and the JanaSena Party to vote for the Bill is grounded in similar calcula­tions. Though media reports and commentators discussed the “backlash” against these parties, their leaderships are unmoved by such arguments and remain convinced about the validity and political benefits of supporting the Waqf Bill.

In their bid to counter the charge that they have forsaken ‘secular’ agendas, TDP and JD(U) leaders listed a host of welfare measures they have implemented for the benefit of the Muslim community during the debate on the Waqf Bill in Parliament. But the view in JD(U) is that strenuous efforts to woo Muslim opinion failed to deliver any dividends and the community continues to back the rival Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) instead. “MPs and MLAs point out that JD(U) gets a smattering of Muslim votes, maybe around 10 per cent or so,” said a leader. The party denied any sig­nificant exits despite reports of about a half-dozen departures of Muslim functionaries. But quibbling over the significance of the exits apart, JD(U) is not too troubled by either criticism that it betrayed the ‘secular’ cause or that it might pay a political cost. The party has, like other BJP allies, argued that the amended Waqf law will help backward or Pasmanda Muslims and women from the community. They have endorsed BJP’s argument that the Waqf Boards functioned as unaccountable gravy trains delivering goodies for a select few while the professed aim of serving the community was mere lip service.

The preparedness to act on the evidence, however, marks an inflection point. In the past, pursuit of the Muslim vote has prompted JD(U) and TDP to exercise a veto on BJP’s core Hindutva agenda. The deliberate decision to vote for the Waqf Bill in full knowledge of the sentiments it has stirred within the Muslim community indicates that BJP’s partners believe ‘secular’ politics, at least as it has been practised for long, has lost its sheen.

A REDUCTION IN THE arbitrary powers of Waqf Boards, making them financially accountable, allowing review of decisions of Waqf tribunals by civil courts, protection offered to government properties and tribal properties, as well as securing of inheritance rights of Muslim women were long overdue. Though the joint parliamentary committee (JPC) that examined the Bill received several dissent notes, its proceedings were thorough and examined the legislation in detail. Despite political grandstanding, Opposition members participated in the proceedings and engaged representatives of government, religious organisations and legal experts in detailed discus­sions. BJP MP Jagdambika Pal, an experienced politician who headed the JPC, was methodical in collating and summing up the evidence. He did not wait till the conclusion of proceedings to finalise his report. As each section of the Bill was discussed and evidence tendered, he instructed the Lok Sabha secretariat to sum up the arguments and write the draft conclusions. This meant it did not take the committee long to organise its findings once sittings and deliberations were over.

A key amendment is the scrapping of the sweeping powers given to Waqf Boards to declare properties as Waqf as per Section 40 of the 1995 Act. The section gave almost boundless powers to Waqf Boards. “The Board may itself collect informa­tion regarding any property which it has reason to believe to be waqf property and if any question arises whether a particular property is waqf property or not or whether a waqf is a Sunni waqf or a Shia waqf, it may, after making such inquiry as it may deem fit, decide the question,” Section 40 stated. The decision of the boards was final unless overturned by a tribunal. The boards could also investigate if a property under a trust or society was a Waqf and recommend its registration as such. “Clause 20 of the Bill seeks to omit Section 40 of the Principal Act to rationalize the powers of the Board to ensure that Wakf are declared after following due process as per the provisions of the Act,” the JPC report said, endorsing a primary aspect of the Bill.

Speaking at a programme hosted by a media channel on April 8, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said the core issue in discussions on the Waqf Bill was appeasement politics. The 2013 amendment to the Waqf Act, the prime minister said, was intended to appease extremist elements and land mafias. “This created an illusion of being above the Constitution, restricting the very pathways to justice that the Constitution had opened,” he said, in an apparent reference to the bar on appealing tribunal decisions before civil courts and the impact of mala fide land transfers on legitimate property owners and inheritors.

The JPC noted that the 2013 amendments gave rise to “com­plaints regarding the appointment of mutawalli or management committees, encroachment, mismanagement, misuse of power, and poor record-keeping.” The report emphasised the need to rationalise state Waqf Boards as well as broader, nomination-based membership, including non-Muslim members. Reform was needed to improve incomes from Waqf properties, reduce extensive litigation—particularly regarding land ownership— create a more effective tribunal system while manual and paper-based registration needs to be replaced by full computerisation. It is astonishing that the 1995 Act and the 2013 changes that made the system even more opaque took so long to redress.

The prime minister’s observation about the previous Waqf law being seen as “above the Constitution” sums up the clash of views and ideologies over the legislation. Opponents of the law lost no time in moving the Supreme Court after failing to halt its passage in Parliament. The power of Parliament to legislate the functioning of Waqf Boards is not in doubt and the legal battle will be an extension of the political battle. The argumentation over the scrapping of Article 370 in Jammu & Kashmir, the out­lawing of Triple Talaq, and the ongoing push for a Uniform Civil Code run along similar lines. The Constitution as envisaged by the founding fathers nudges the Indian republic to reduce and eliminate special dispensations. The failure to do so decades ago bred a misplaced sense of permanence and entitlement. Dis­mantling an entrenched belief system that endorses a definition of diversity but which promotes separateness is akin to shock therapy. The 2025 Waqf vote in Parliament might well be what the doctor ordered.

Amit Shahappeasement politicsAsaduddin OwaisiBJP-BJD allianceIndian MuslimsIndian politicsKC VenugopalKiren RijijuWaqf ActWaqf JPC