(IANS interview) Efforts being made to interfere in institutions of minorities, says Salman Khurshid

New Delhi, Aug 9 (IANS) In an interview with IANS on Friday, former External Affairs Minister, Salman Khurshid stressed on the need for discussions on important issues like the Waqf Bill before making any changes that are said to be for public good.

Q: The Waqf Bill that was introduced in Parliament has now been referred to the Joint Parliamentary Committee. What are your views on this Bill?

A: There are two important things. First, when something is in Parliament, it will be examined thoroughly according to parliamentary procedures. Commenting on it from the outside is wrong. Now that the Waqf (Amendment) Bill will go to the Joint Parliamentary Committee, if anyone wants to say anything they can say it there. There valid points will be discussed and then presented back in Parliament. However, because this is a matter of public interest, I believe Parliament will carefully consider it. I want to highlight that there is a certain atmosphere in the country right now where it feels like efforts are being made to interfere in the institutions which are connected to minorities.

Whether it is the discussion on the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), madrasas, or any other issues related to minorities, such as scholarships from the Maulana Azad Foundation, many decisions are being made that indicates that the government wants to restrict the rights and institutions of minorities. This general impression is not good. The proposal related to the Waqf Board is also connected to this. Everyone knows what the Waqf is, it’s a very old law. Until now, it was the Waqf that decided which properties would be called as Waqf. But now, that decision will be made by a government official, a Collector, which is not right.

In Delhi, for example, there’s the issue of 123 Waqf properties right now. If the government says that now the Collector will take the decision and not a Waqf Tribunal, this will be wrong because tribunals were created specifically for this purpose. Taking away the tribunal‘s authority is wrong. Second, concepts like Waqf by user or Waqf-ul-Aulad have existed for a long time. Saying that these changes are being made to provide equal opportunity for women is completely wrong. A caretaker must give women their rights if it is desired by the person who gave their property as Waqf.

This is a very fundamental question. If someone says these changes are being made for public good, it should be discussed and it is important to discuss such things.

Q: The BJP is saying that in India the Waqf Board has been given more power than in any other country. Your comments on this?

A: Why are we talking about Pakistan? Should we learn everything from Pakistan? Pakistan should be learning from us! We should focus on what our elders considered right and did. Ultimately, the courts oversee everything, and a tribunal is also a type of court. If the government doesn’t trust the courts, then they should say this openly, instead of only trusting their Collectors.

Q: It is said that every time there have been amendments to this Bill, more power has been given. This leads to its misuse.

A: If these powers have been misused, then the government should provide data. I’ve been a Minority Affairs Minister, and I’ve also made amendments. My amendments were also opposed, and those oppositions were without any basis. The amendment made in 1995 lasted for many years and was successful. Now, if you want to make changes again, provide the data and explain why. Don’t just say that people are taking advantage of it. Let the tribunal say this. But why do you want to give these powers to the Collector? Today, you’re interfering with Waqf; tomorrow, you might interfere with temples, then trusts. The question is, how far will this interference go?

Q: Delhi’s former Deputy CM Manish Sisodia got bail today after 17 months. What’s your opinion on that?

A: The court grants bail after careful consideration. If the court granted bail after 17 months, it must have deemed that 17 months are more than enough. If the trial hasn’t progressed in such a long time, more time will just pass; it is the responsibility of the prosecution to expedite the case. As far as I understand, the court stated that the delay in this case was not Manish Sisodia’s fault, which is why he was granted bail. This bail doesn’t indicate that the charges against him were either correct or incorrect. Bail was granted so the case could proceed and evidence could be presented.

–IANS

gulisha/psd/rad