||Black and White Digital News||

||Parvinder Singh April 04,2025 ||

New Delhi: In a historic and heated session that extended past 2:30 a.m., the Rajya Sabha passed the controversial Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025 after an intense 14-hour-long debate that exposed the deep ideological fault lines in India’s polity. With 128 votes in favour and 95 against, the ruling NDA government successfully pushed the legislation through, but not without a political storm that echoed far beyond the Parliament’s walls.

The Parliament’s approval in the early hours of Friday came after an emotionally charged debate marked by black-clad opposition MPs, allegations of communal targeting, and raucous exchanges between treasury and opposition benches. While the Lok Sabha had cleared the Bill on Thursday with a margin of 56 votes, the Rajya Sabha witnessed a narrower divide, reflecting growing unease even among fence-sitters.

Opposition’s Fire: “Turning Muslims into Second-Class Citizens”

Opening the attack, Congress MP Syed Naseer Hussain labelled the Bill a “targeted legislation against the Muslim community,” accusing the ruling party of exploiting religious sentiment to consolidate its slipping voter base. “This Bill is a tool for communal polarisation,” he thundered, blaming the BJP for attempting to reduce Muslims to second-class citizens.

He took sharp aim at the controversial clause permitting non-Muslim members in Waqf Boards and the Central Waqf Council. “Will you allow me to be part of a Hindu temple trust?” he asked, triggering an uproar. He also questioned the removal of the Waqf by User clause, wondering why only Muslim institutions were being asked to provide historical ownership proofs while temples, churches, and gurudwaras were exempt.

Government’s Defence: “Statutory, Not Religious – A Move for Transparency”

Union Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju, who concluded the debate at 12:55 a.m., was firm in defending the Bill. He emphasised that the Waqf Boards are statutory bodies, unlike religious boards like those governing Hindu temples. “A statutory body should be secular,” he asserted. “Non-Muslim members cannot dictate decisions; they are only there to contribute.”

Rijiju claimed the opposition’s outrage was baseless, highlighting that only four non-Muslim members can be included in the 22-member Central Waqf Council, and that the final version of the Bill had incorporated changes reflecting the feedback received during discussions.

Nadda’s Sharp Counter: “Congress Made Muslim Women Second-Grade Citizens”

Taking the debate further, Leader of the House J.P. Nadda lashed out at the Congress, accusing them of paying lip service to Muslim causes while neglecting genuine reforms. He cited Triple Talaq, which remained legal in India long after it was banned in many Muslim-majority nations, as an example of the Congress’s neglect.

“You made Indian Muslim ladies second-grade citizens,” Nadda stated bluntly, countering Hussain’s claims with a gender justice narrative. He said the government believes in real service, not tokenism.

Opposition’s United Front: A Diverse Chorus of Dissent:

Across party lines, opposition MPs were vocal and varied in their concerns:

●RJD MP Manoj K. Jha called both the content and intent of the Bill questionable and accused the government of masking communalism in the name of secularism.

●Congress MP Abhishek Manu Singhvi questioned the double standards: “If a non-Hindu cannot be in the Tirupati Board, how can non-Muslims be in Waqf Boards?”

●Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut launched a barbed attack, saying the BJP’s sudden concern for Muslims would “put Jinnah to shame.”

●SP MP Javed Ali Khan mocked the monetisation debate, noting that 60% of Waqf land is graveyards. “The only business transacted in graveyards is of the dead,” he quipped.

●Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi pointed out that while the Waqf Bill was being hurriedly passed, US President Donald Trump slapped 26% tariffs on India. “The government must decide its priorities,” he said.

●AAP MP Sanjay Singh stoked a firestorm by alleging selective protection of religious lands, referring to a 13,000-acre scam in Ayodhya temple lands. His remarks drew angry protests and aisle-walking BJP MPs, temporarily bringing the House to a standstill.

DMK’s Failed Push and Bill’s Final Shape:

A notable effort to amend the clause on non-Muslim inclusion in the Waqf Board was made by DMK MP Tiruchi Siva, but it was defeated with 125 voting against and 92 in favour. This showed that even within the opposition, unanimity was elusive, but dissent significant.

Despite the stormy arguments, the government stood its ground, insisting the amendments are meant to enhance transparency, reduce misuse, and ensure that Waqf lands are administered effectively, not with religious bias but administrative diligence.

As dawn broke over New Delhi, the passage of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill left the nation grappling with profound questions of secularism, religious autonomy, and representation. While the government hails it as a move toward reform, the opposition sees it as a strategic flashpoint in the run-up to future electoral battles—setting the stage for more fractious, high-voltage confrontations in the days to come.