New Delhi: Union Minister Kiren Rijiju has ignited a political controversy by accusing the previous United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government of treating the Parliament as if it were “waqf property,” a term referring to land or property dedicated to Islamic religious or charitable purposes. His explosive remarks, made during a recent public address, have triggered a fierce backlash from opposition parties, who have demanded an apology and retraction.
Rijiju’s comments, delivered amidst a charged political atmosphere, center around allegations of the UPA’s alleged disregard for parliamentary procedures and norms. He claimed that during their tenure, the UPA government frequently bypassed established protocols, undermined the sanctity of the House, and treated it as a personal fiefdom, rather than a sacred institution of democracy.
“The Parliament of India is not anyone’s personal property,” Rijiju asserted. “It is the temple of our democracy. During the UPA regime, it was being claimed as waqf. This is a serious insult to the people of India and the democratic spirit of our nation.”
While Rijiju did not provide specific instances to substantiate his claims during the initial address, his aides later clarified that he was referring to the perceived arrogance and high-handedness of the UPA government in pushing through legislation without adequate debate or scrutiny. They cited examples of ordinances being promulgated frequently, and the alleged lack of respect for the opposition’s voice.
The term “waqf,” deeply rooted in Islamic law, carries significant religious and legal connotations. Its use in this context, therefore, has been interpreted by many as a deliberate attempt to add a communal dimension to the political discourse. Critics argue that it is a divisive and inflammatory analogy, designed to polarize public opinion.
The Congress party, the principal constituent of the UPA, has vehemently condemned Rijiju’s remarks, calling them “outrageous and unacceptable.” Senior Congress leaders have accused the Union Minister of resorting to cheap political tactics and distorting historical facts. They have demanded an unconditional apology and urged the Prime Minister to intervene and censure Rijiju.
“This is a desperate attempt to divert attention from the government’s failures,” a Congress spokesperson stated. “The UPA government functioned within the framework of the Constitution and upheld the dignity of Parliament. Rijiju’s baseless allegations are nothing but a malicious campaign of disinformation.”
Other opposition parties have also joined the chorus of condemnation, accusing the government of attempting to erode democratic institutions and suppress dissent. They have called for a thorough investigation into Rijiju’s claims and demanded that he provide concrete evidence to support his allegations.
The controversy has also sparked a debate among legal experts and political analysts. Some have argued that while Rijiju’s choice of words may be controversial, his underlying concern about the erosion of parliamentary norms is valid. Others, however, have criticized the use of religious terminology in a political context, warning that it could have far-reaching consequences for social harmony.
The BJP, meanwhile, has defended Rijiju’s remarks, stating that he was merely expressing the sentiments of the people who felt that the UPA government had abused its power and undermined the democratic process. They have accused the opposition of deliberately misinterpreting his words and politicizing the issue.
The incident underscores the deep political polarization that currently prevails in India. It also highlights the sensitivity surrounding religious and communal issues, which continue to be a potent force in Indian politics. As the controversy unfolds, it remains to be seen how it will impact the political landscape and the upcoming elections.
In the midst of the uproar, many voices are calling for a return to constructive dialogue and a renewed commitment to upholding the sanctity of Parliament. They emphasize that the institution is meant to be a forum for debate and deliberation, where the voices of all citizens are heard and respected. The need to maintain the dignity and integrity of the Parliament, as a cornerstone of Indian democracy, has been underscored by many analysts. The hope is that the political discourse will return to focusing on substantive policy debates and addressing the pressing issues facing the nation.
