Kiren Rijiju at Idea Exchange: ‘Those opposing Waqf are the powerful voices among the Muslims… We are not bothered about them’

Liz Mathew: You mentioned a proper response from the government. But was there fear that it could create divisions in society?

The kind of composition we have in India, a country with such diverse communities, religious groups and ideologies, there will be different reactions. But when it comes to terror, then there has to be one voice. I am quite satisfied that in the all-party meeting, all the political parties gave unconditional support on any action the government takes. That was a good message. Of course, I have seen some stray comments coming from Congress leaders and some other parties. I hope the Congress leadership will understand that demoralising statements from responsible people holding important positions are not doing anything good for the country. We are in unison. There is no second voice. In the all party meeting, the voice was quite unified.

 

Liz Mathew: You are at the helm of the Ministry of Minority Affairs at a very critical juncture. How do you think your term will go down in history after the Pahalgam attack and the Waqf Amendment Bill?

If you see any proceedings during the last one year, when I have held the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs portfolio, the debates and discussions have been taking place and they have been quite effective. Initially, in the first session of the 18th Lok Sabha, there were certain incidents which were uncalled for. Like the Opposition party not allowing the PM to speak. That is unprecedented because you don’t prevent the PM from speaking in a parliamentary democracy. He is the leader of the House, the country. His voice is the voice of the country. If you try to prevent him from speaking, it is strangulating the voice of the people. We had expressed our displeasure and I had personally told the Opposition leaders that this should be avoided in the future because it is not a good precedent.

Our parliamentary democracy is a bit messy, a bit noisy, but then it has its own charm. So I don’t mind the House getting disrupted once or twice during the entire proceedings, but it should not lead to a washout of the entire session. We want to listen to the Opposition, and we will take care of their voice, their concern, but they have to speak on the floor and not create any kind of disturbances which prevent debate and discussion. Running parliamentary affairs in this situation is a challenge.

‘I can list out a longer list of what we are not happy with in the ways that the Congress party is conducting themselves. But everything cannot repeat itself’ (Express/Abhinav Saha)

Liz Mathew: The 18th Lok Sabha was unprecedented. The Speaker, not the government, made statements about the Emergency. The Opposition said its voice was being muzzled. You still have a rapport with the Opposition. What is your challenge as a Parliamentary Affairs Minister?

I can list out a longer list of what we are not happy with in the ways that the Congress party is conducting themselves. But everything cannot repeat itself. There are momentous occasions where things happen. When the Speaker was making a statement on Emergency, it was 58 years after the incident. So these are some of the milestones where the people concerned do make remarks. They were unhappy with the Speaker because they could not enforce the Speaker according to their will. The Speaker, after all, has to run the House, and if the Opposition tries to derail the functioning of the Parliament, then the Speaker will have to ensure that it doesn’t happen. I do not have much to offer here, except to expect good behaviour from the Opposition leaders in future.

On the pahalgam incident | The instant reaction is of safety and unity. We have to be careful to take precautions, not let the incident affect the society or create any further division… It is important how maturely we handle the situation

Liz Mathew: As the Law Minister, you had spoken about the Supreme Court’s Collegium system of appointing judges being opaque, which is being echoed by many constitutional experts. Do you think that the whole debate has opened up again?

I’m not the Law Minister now. But I had said at the time that the reflection of the will of the Parliament, not the government alone, was there when the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was passed unanimously. I will not say that now. I would not want to comment on the judiciary.

Coomi Kapoor: Liberal legacy media in Britain and the US often does not give a very sympathetic portrayal of incidents such as Pahalgam. Why do you think India has not been able to change the narrative after so many decades?

I think it is otherwise. It is them who are not changing their perception. They have put India in a category of those nations which are still, according to them, intolerant. It is to do with what happened in 1946-47. They also think that India is still a third world country. They try to make it as a viewpoint from a superior place and look down upon India. We don’t give much importance to their viewpoint, even the minority commissions, the US or the liberal so-called media there. First of all, they are not liberal at all. Liberal people listen to others. They don’t. They have fixed ideologies. So they are illiberal and don’t really understand the ground reality. However, the time has changed. India is not an emerging nation. India has already emerged. We have a position in the Committee of Nations. Our voice is powerful. Our leader, our PM, is one of the most popular elected leaders in the world and in fact the senior most elected leader in the world. So our credibility is not dependent on this kind of reporting that tried to portray India negatively.

‘The kind of composition we have in India, a country with such diverse communities, religious groups and ideologies, there will be different reactions. But when it comes to terror, then there has to be one voice’ (Express/Abhinav Saha)

Coomi Kapoor: But why would they want to take the side of a military dictatorship?

It has been a case not only in the Western media but in India too. Some people have directly and indirectly taken the side of the militants in a soft way. They are sympathetic towards militant organisations. They are a set of people deeply embedded in our society but they are a minuscule minority.

Manoj CG: Since there seems to be a trust deficit on both sides, what is stopping the government from offering the Deputy Speaker post of Lok Sabha to the Opposition as a confidence-building measure?

It may not be a case of trust deficit. It is taking too rigid a stand. On one’s own fixed interest or the party’s interest. On the Speaker’s post, there’s no formal request from the Congress leadership. Of course, many other Congress leaders speak about it, but there’s no formal discussion, so I cannot comment. As far as the role of Parliamentary Affairs minister is concerned, I have left no stone unturned to reach out to them and to make them feel comfortable, whether it’s a business advisory committee or any other negotiation which takes place day to day. The Parliament is not about the Parliament House alone but also many other things. We are in touch with the Opposition all the time. I invite them to my house, and whenever necessary, I visit. It’s not as bad as it is maybe being painted or perceived from outside.

On Minority affairs ministry | I am the first Buddhist to and first genuine minority to become a minority minister. There are six notified minority communities in India. I always felt that minority affairs was made Muslim affairs by Congress party

Ritika Chopra: Is the government working towards fixing accountability for the Pahalgam attack?

It’s better to not talk about the internal details. There is a sense that there has to be a collective response rather than getting into the minuscule incidents. We don’t give less importance to any part of the whole thing. But when the nation is facing a grave disturbance in terms of losing so many innocent lives in a place where it is unexpected to have this kind of incident, then of course the questions will come. But on how has this happened, what would the government do and detailing — these are security parameters which are to be handled or answered by the right people at the right time.

Ritika Chopra: What is the government’s response to the Opposition’s call for a special session?

We have received a letter of request from many members of Parliament, primarily from both the leaders of the Opposition from Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. We will give an appropriate response soon.

‘A parliamentary democracy will never have a unanimous voice on any matter. There will be opposition. We are not into a presidential form of government’ (Express/Abhinav Saha)

Asad Rahman: Despite opposition from various Muslim organisations and the Opposition members, the Waqf Amendment Bill was passed in Parliament because of the numbers. Did you not consider the opposition to the bill from different quarters?

A parliamentary democracy will never have a unanimous voice on any matter. There will be opposition. We are not into a presidential form of government. So when you have a substantial size of population who are in the opposition, they will have a voice. But then it is untenable that the majority people listen to the minority and put their agenda as part of governance. Whenever there is reform, you will see that reformists are in minority and those who oppose would always be a powerful voice. When Dayanand Saraswati started the social reforms or when Jesus Christ started reforms, look at the resistance they had to face. You are going to turn around the things which are already in practice. There are nearly 9.7 lakh Waqf properties in the country not being utilised for the welfare of the majority of the poor Muslims. And in this minority group, people are comfortably sitting on top of those huge properties. If you see these political parties, these so-called religious leaders among the Muslim community, they have huge interests in these Waqf properties. Do you think that they will just let those go quietly? They will resist it. But then we are committed and determined to bring in this reform. Powerful Muslim leaders and those political parties, who have treated Muslims as vote banks, are standing on one side. And those voiceless Muslims, the women, the poor, the neglected and the backward classes amongst the Muslims on the other. We are not bothered about those powerful voices which are not able to do anything for their community, despite claiming to be tall leaders. I am satisfied that the PM wanted these reforms to be done, and we did it in proper format of parliamentary democracy. In a couple of years, we will start to roll out the benefits.

Liz Mathew: But the Opposition as well as the Muslim organisations have accused the government of creating a fear psychosis where if one didn’t support the bill, the land was going to be taken.

This narrative was created from the other side. That if we pass this Waqf Amendment Bill, the government will take over all the mosques, dargahs and qabristans. These are just rumours. This is what they did during CAA; that if CAA is passed, Muslims will lose their citizenship and rights. Now the Muslims have calmed down. Soon, many prominent Muslims will also come out. I have talked to some and they are saying they had opposed this Bill but now after carefully going through the provisions, they are supporting it.

On his relationship with the opposition | I have left no stone unturned to reach out to them and to make them feel comfortable… It (the relationship) is not as bad as it is maybe being painted or perceived from the outside

Liz Mathew: In the last few days, people who are seeking citizenship in India have been asked to leave. So, will the government grant visa to these people under CAA?

No, these are two unconnected issues. CAA is for the minorities of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Liz Mathew: There are also Hindus who have come here.

Yes. And then the illegal migrants, their status is different. We cannot compare with the CAA provisions here. As for any other issues which are concerning the people, the government will declare if anything is to be declared. Otherwise, right now, government has already said what is to be done. So, it has to be enforced.

Nikhil Ghanekar: In the past, different conflicts have not really affected agreements like the Indus Water Treaty. What kind of precedence does it set? Let’s consider the impact on Arunachal Pradesh when it comes to China building the largest dam on Brahmaputra basin.

China and India never had a water treaty. Pakistan and India had a water treaty. All these are important and sensitive matters. Opinions should come at the right time from the right position.

Divya A: In the Pahalgam attack, people were singled out. Did you have any apprehensions about a backlash against the minorities? Did you have any conversations with state governments about this?

The instant reaction is of safety and unity. We have to be careful to take precautions, not let the incident affect the society or create any further division. I learned that out of 26 victims, one is a local Muslim. So, yes, it came to my mind. But if everybody understands that, then we will not have any kind of division. It is important how maturely we handle the situation.

Harikishan Sharma: This Minority Affairs ministry was created by the UPA in 2006. Has it served the purpose of development and welfare of minorities?

I am the first Buddhist to occupy this position and first genuine minority to become a minority minister. Secondly, there are six notified minority communities in India. I always felt that minority affairs was made Muslim affairs by the Congress Party. The National Commission for Minorities chairman has to be a Muslim. The Minister of Minorities Affairs has to be a Muslim. By that standard, the other communities are not minorities. During the parliamentary debates, they asked why a non-Muslim was presenting the Waqf Amendment Bill. How did Azam Khan become the management chairman of Kumbh? He was minister in charge, so he became the chairman. We don’t ask these petty questions. By that logic a Muslim judge has to handle Muslim cases. Is this the standard of the opposition parties? Could they not consider the repercussions of making such points? It is a good chance for me. I have launched the Jiyo Parsi scheme, which is to ensure that the Parsi population doesn’t get extinct. Similarly, I have made a Buddhist development plan, a Muslim plan, and plans for Christians, Jains and Sikhs.