One institution after another has been silenced or put on a leash during the Modi decade.The Reserve Bank of India, Election Commission, Central Information Commission and the National Statistical Organisation were among the first. Next came bodies such as the Sahitya Akademi, Sangeet Kala Akademi and the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library. The Enforcement Directorate, Central Bureau of Investigation and the Narcotics Control Bureau have cracked down on the regime’s political rivals. The last of the watchdogs to fall in line was the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), which had initially brought out a few reports critical of the government).
The Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the chairman of the Rajya Sabha have faced allegations of bias, and the incumbent chairman loses no opportunity to assail the opposition. Governors come across as the Centre’s storm-troopers in opposition-ruled states.
Now, the latest target is the parliamentary committee, where the strategy appears to be to silence the opposition, bulldoze dissent and impose the government version. A brute majority before 2024 had enabled the Modi regime in its first term to ignore the Opposition and avoid debate in Parliament. Just 16% of the bills introduced were sent to parliamentary committees for scrutiny in the 17th Lok Sabha, as against 28% in the 16th Lok Sabha and 71% in the 15th during the UPA years.)
But the 18th general election changed it all. The government was forced to refer the Waqf Board Bill to a joint parliamentary committee. The 31-member JPC is chaired by BJP leader Jagadambika Pal. At its first meeting in August, the opposition members took exception to the proposal in the bill to induct non-Muslim members into the state waqf boards and the Central Waqf Council. They argued that this was like including a Muslim or a Christian member in a Hindu religious trust.
After that meeting, the JPC chairperson has been summoning pro-government witnesses in what is being seen as a calculated move to manipulate the findings and submit a report favourable to the regime. Many of them are non-Muslims, and it is unclear how they qualify as stakeholders in a debate on waqf.
Consider some of the witnesses invited to appear before the JPC. On this list is Goa’s Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, whose declared aim is to establish a Hindu Rashtra; the Sanatan Sanstha, which was named in the chargesheet in the Gauri Lankesh murder case; the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, described as the lawyers’ wing of the RSS; a minority outfit led by RSS leader Indresh Kumar; Supreme Court lawyer Vishnu Shankar Jain who represented the Hindu litigants in the Gyanvapi case; and former Delhi BJP spokesman Ashwini Upadhyaya.
The JPC chairman has been taking decisions on calling witnesses and fixing dates for sittings without consulting them, the Opposition members said.
In October, the opposition members walked out of a JPC meeting in protest against the choice of witnesses. When the Delhi Waqf Board administrator was summoned, they pointed out that the administrator’s report did not have the state government’s authorisation. Later, chief minister Atishi wrote to the JPC chairman, saying the administrator’s report was ‘null and void’. The Opposition walked out and met separately to discuss their next step.
Opposition members also protested when the chairman called the former head of the Karnataka Minorities Commission, Anwar Manipaddy, a BJP leader who used the JPC hearing to attack Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge.
The Opposition wrote to the Speaker and sought his intervention. In their letter to Om Birla, the Opposition members said the JPC chairman had fixed meetings in such a way that members did not get enough time to study the papers. He was rushing to submit the report before the next Parliament session beginning November 25, they said.
The waqf bill debate has a subtext. It will force BJP allies like the TDP, Nitish Kumar and Chirag Paswan to take a clear position. Will they shed their secular garb and merrily climb on to the BJP’s communalism bandwagon so that they can continue to enjoy the spoils of power?
The allies have so far carefully avoided displeasing the BJP. The panel has received 1.20 crore submissions, indicating how disturbed the minorities are. If the allies tamely side with the BJP, there is bound to be desertion of minorities from their ranks.
PAC summons to Buch
The Public Accounts Committee is the only parliamentary panel whose chairman must be an opposition member. The Narendra Modi regime has not so far demolished this healthy tradition, heralded in 1967-68. Problems cropped up when the new chairman, K.C. Venugopal, summoned SEBI chairperson Madhabi Puri Buch to appear before the PAC.
A darling of the Modi establishment, Buch first agreed to give evidence before the PAC along with her senior staff but said at the last minute that she could not come because of ‘personal exigencies’. Subsequently, the chairman postponed the sitting to give another chance to the SEBI chief.
This was the cue for the BJP members to demand voting on the chairman’s decision to summon Buch. The PAC normally takes decisions by consensus and avoids voting. Flouting this tradition and taking advantage of its brute majority within the panel, the BJP side repeatedly insisted on voting to spare Buch from appearing before the PAC.
Thus, for the first time, the PAC faces a procedural deadlock. It was apparent from its very first sitting that the BJP members would not allow any action even remotely critical of the government. The prime reason for them repeatedly obstructing proceedings is to shield the Modi government from taint. Rescuing Buch from questioning is the other reason.
When the PAC chairman had announced this year’s agenda of 161 items on the opening day, no one had objected to it. Not even Nishikant Dubey, who is now protesting loudly. Performance of regulatory bodies was one of the items on the approved agenda. Perhaps the BJP members did not anticipate that the regulatory bodies would include the SEBI. In line with this agenda, Buch was summoned in the morning. The same afternoon, the telecom authority chairman gave evidence in a separate matter.
Why did the BJP single out Buch and object to her summoning? What is so special about her? See the alacrity with which Dubey moved a motion to drop five of the 161 subjects endorsed unanimously by the PAC, and then insisted on voting. At this stage, the chairman called off the meeting. All this happened the same afternoon that Buch failed to appear.
Apart from institutional subversion, the Buch incident raises many more questions. Why is she refusing to face the PAC on her role in SEBI? Why is the BJP so keen to prevent the questioning of Buch? Is there really a nexus among the Adani group, key regulatory bodies and the Modi establishment as alleged by Opposition leader Rahul Gandhi? Or is she blackmailing the prime minister?
Answers to such riddles apart, Madhabi Buch’s appointment as SEBI chairman is also shrouded in mystery. Has she submitted full details about her financial commitments and conflicts of interest? Rejecting all speculation in the media, SEBI had in an official statement on August 11 said: “It is emphasised that SEBI has an adequate internal mechanism for addressing issues relating to conflict of interest that include disclosure framework and provision for recusal. It is noted that relevant disclosures required in terms of holdings and securities and their transfers have been made by the chairperson from time.”
However, later in an RTI reply, the same SEBI had said no information other than Madhabi Puri Buch’s date of appointment was ‘readily available’. The RTI applicant had asked for details of her application for the post, declaration of assets and the cases where she had recused herself due to conflict of interest.
P. Raman is a veteran journalist.
This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire & Galileo Ideas – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here.