Baijayant Panda at Idea Exchange: ‘Some protests are happening but a much wider section of society is convinced by Waqf reform’

It was a tough fight but my role can be summed up very simply as keeping the team focussed. It took a lot more than just my effort. The role of the Prabhari (election in-charge) tends to get overblown. It was the involvement of Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself that helped change the narrative. We were facing an incumbent party that had won three times, making many kinds of promises which they weren’t fulfilling. And then they had started this calumny against us that we were going to do away with all the social welfare programmes of the Delhi government. And no matter what I or any of the Delhi leadership did to counter that argument, it wasn’t getting traction until the PM himself picked up the reins. The support of Amit Shah ji, who has been our great strategist, our national president and the team mattered a lot. We hadn’t been in government for a generation, the demographics of Delhi had changed dramatically in 30 years and there were local issues too.

Liz Mathew: The BJP has spoken about “triple engine ki sarkar” (Centre, state, local body) in Delhi. Would you say this approach in BJP-ruled states is weakening state units and eroding the power of the chief minister?

First, I disagree with that description. BJP is the only party in India where any party worker can aspire to rise to the top. The PM himself is an example but I can give you many other examples of our strong chief ministers who are connected to the ground. Take Assam for instance.

We are an ideological party and our state governments also adhere to our ‘Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas’ ideology. We have certain nationalistic objectives which we’ve demonstrated by bringing about changes in national laws. So that coordination is between our national and state leadership, not just in government.

‘We are an ideological party and our state governments also adhere to our ‘Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas’ ideology’

Second, Delhi is a special case. Unlike states where the Governor’s post is usually ceremonial except when there is a lack of majority in the Assembly, the Lieutenant-Governor of Delhi, by Constitution, has executive powers. He is the representative of the Union government. The elected state government poses its own challenges. For example, the funding of the municipal corporation, which is dependent on the state government, was not happening.

That’s why our promise in the election was to ensure a conflict-free governance. I think the people of Delhi agreed clearly that all these different layers of government, be it the Centre, state or local, have to work hand-in-hand.

Liz Mathew: Since you mentioned Assam and said the state would also follow PM Modi’s vision of ‘Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas,’ what do you make of Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma’s remark that the BJP was formed to eliminate people like journalist Dilwar Hussain Mozumder, who exposed a scam in the state’s Apex Bank? He even accused a Muslim-owned university of “flood jihad.”

We have demonstrated ‘Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas, Sabka Vishwas, Sabka Prayas,’ in a decade of governance. Lakhs of crores of rupees have been spent on government programmes without discrimination.

Liz Mathew: But the government is not doing a favour to any citizen…

No, we are not doing a favour but you are accusing us of discrimination and I am refuting that. There is no intent to shortchange any section of society. More accusations have been made against us, which are, in my opinion, bizarre. For example, Article 370 was the only article in the Constitution of India that had the word temporary in front of it. Yet, everybody made it such a big deal, rivers of blood were threatened by certain leaders in the lead-up to that change. When the triple talaq law was changed, people who call themselves secular were against it. The term secularism has been twisted out of context in India. Now, I don’t know about the specifics of this case but there are several examples of people misusing journalism and indulging in fixing, illegal scams and money laundering. Entities operating as NGOs have not used funds for charity or social reform but purely political agenda.

I would urge you to look at similar cases in states not governed by the BJP. But they didn’t get media coverage because it was not a BJP government doing midnight knocks. I take great umbrage at India’s rating in the global Press freedom index, where we have been rated lower than Libya, Syria and Afghanistan. I dare you to go there and prove that to be the case. Fake narratives always grab eyeballs.

Jatin Anand: Since you mentioned that the Centre doesn’t discriminate, how is it that once the BJP was elected to power, the Delhi government presented a Rs 1 lakh-crore budget, of which around Rs 27,000 crore would be from Central funds? Why didn’t this happen over the last 10 years of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government?

Nothing could be further from the truth. While the previous Chief Minister was tom-tomming this narrative about interference and lack of support from the Centre, he was refusing to take a huge quantum of Central funds because it did not suit him politically. An offer of around Rs 70,000 crore was made under the Ayushman Bharat Health Infrastructure Mission, and he refused to sign the MoU, the format of which was the same as that offered to other state governments. This was even reported in certain papers and, in fact, the Delhi High Court asked the AAP government as to why it was not signing the MoU. So no government hospitals were built in Delhi over the last decade. You didn’t see any flyovers or major infrastructure projects either.

‘I’m not the Sangathan Prabhari of Delhi anymore. But I’m very passionate about UCC being implemented across the country’

Deeptiman Tiwary: Does it bother you that whatever great schemes you roll out, 14 per cent of India’s population sees you with suspicion? And this is not because of the Opposition’s narrative, because it cannot win by courting this minuscule section.

We are for all Indians. One thing that gets reiterated repeatedly in our internal party meetings is that whoever votes or doesn’t vote for us is a matter of elections. Between elections, it’s governance that we have to deliver, and it’s for everybody. That’s why people who never voted for us 10 years ago, like those in the Northeast, are voting for us now. In the East, we were told a year ago that we couldn’t form a government in Bengal and Odisha. We have one in Odisha. We have breached the South partially. People who don’t vote for us today will hopefully do so tomorrow.

Classical liberalism is about individual rights, not about group rights, and every individual is treated that way by our Constitution, with same rights and obligations, irrespective of religion or caste. Our party constitution mirrors these values.

Liz Mathew: So, when will BJP have a Muslim MLA, MP or Minister?

These are two different issues. We are quite clear that we don’t believe in the pandering that we saw over many decades or so-called group representative politics. We believe that you don’t have to necessarily be exactly like your constituents to represent them. So if you’re talking about Muslim representation, nobody seems to talk about the Pasmandas within that community, who were discriminated against severely for many decades.

On Press freedom | On the global Press freedom index, we have been rated lower than Libya, Syria and Afghanistan. I dare you to go there and prove that to be the case. Fake narratives grab eyeballs

Deeptiman Tiwary: Going by the Delhi election results, Dalits have stayed away from the BJP as the party performed poorly in reserved constituencies.

The answer is just the opposite. We got four of the 12 reserved seats, or one third. That’s a pretty big jump from zero.

Radhika Agarwal: Do you think the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) will be implemented in Delhi?

I’m not the Sangathan Prabhari of Delhi anymore. But I’m very passionate about UCC being implemented across the country. The reality is, it’s an unfinished part of our independence movement, an unfinished part of our Constitution. It’s in the Directive Principles of the Constitution. I can understand why our founding fathers and mothers put it off for a while as they were overwhelmed by the chaos of Partition, violence and mass disruption. If we call ourselves secular, we must have the UCC because every individual must be treated the same.

‘Dr Manmohan Singh. I cannot imagine any modern, secular democracy having a law like triple talaq, let alone that many Islamic countries have done away with it too’

Vikas Pathak: Be it the Ram temple, Article 370, triple talaq or illegal immigration, most of your core ideological issues have a Muslim subtext. Why this perception?

I acknowledge there is a perception but the facts are somewhat different. Today, those who call themselves liberals, at least in the West, don’t always stand for group rights. They don’t always stand for free speech. This new liberalism is far more to the left of what liberalism traditionally used to be. So instead of thinking through the principles of the issue, it often gets bogged down to the current emotions surrounding the issue.

When the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) was passed in 2019, the same allegation was made. Yet the commitment to the CAA was there from Gandhiji, Pandit Nehru and even former Prime Minister.

Dr Manmohan Singh. I cannot imagine any modern, secular democracy having a law like triple talaq, let alone that many Islamic countries have done away with it too. Today, we have seen an evolution where entities that used to stand for separatism are now abjuring that and are willing to work within the Indian Constitution. I think all Indians should be happy about that.

Liz Mathew: No one is opposing reforms but their selective pitching, the latest being the Waqf Bill. When it comes to temples, you don’t want to be secular. But when it comes to Muslims, you want to be secular. Why so?

The difference is between religious practice, the place of religious practice which is to be managed and properties. Nobody is saying that mosques should be treated as secular or that non-Muslims should be managing the mosque. By the same logic, the idea of non-Hindus managing the Tirumala temple is abhorrent to pilgrims. Please differentiate between the two. This is about commercial properties that are owned by trusts and have been misused in the Waqf system. It was a bizarrely exploitative system where huge properties were yielding only a pittance as revenue. Which means there was massive corruption. More than 90 per cent of funds that were obviously being raised were being siphoned off by people who had no right to do that. So that had to change.

Aanchal Magazine: You are heading the committee on the proposed Income Tax Bill. Concerns have been flagged that it proposes to give income tax authorities the power to access digital platforms, which means breaking into your email, online accounts and even encrypted platforms like WhatsApp.

That’s not true. Since deliberations in the committee are confidential till we submit a report to Parliament, I won’t discuss details. This bill aims to simplify the tax code, make it easier. No income tax officer can wantonly conduct a raid. They have a court-mandated checklist. So when a raided person says he doesn’t have keys to the cupboard, the team breaks it. Similarly, if somebody refuses to share information stored in a laptop, the raiding officers are entitled to hack into it. But they don’t have a sweeping authorisation to get into your WhatsApp or Instagram.

On Muslim representation | We don’t believe in the pandering that we saw over many decades or so-called group representative politics. You don’t have to necessarily be exactly like your constituents to represent them

Apurva Vishwanath: How do you see individual rights when a comedian like Kunal Kamra is targetted and a mob vandalises the performance venue?

There is a distinction between sedition and free speech. Our own Constitution allows free speech with certain constraints. I’ve stood for having a different standard for sedition and free speech. In the US, for instance, protesters got arrested because they had been caught on camera damaging public property. That’s not free speech. As for individual cases in India, the facts will vary from case to case. Free speech cannot be used in a manner that will lead to incitement of violence. And free speech certainly cannot be extended to physically acting out your ideas or vandalism. At the lower levels, people do their own thing, which is not right and not what the party endorses.

Shalini Langer: What was the need to bring in the Manipur bill for ratification in the House at 3 am after the Waqf bill? Second, there was talk about an ‘advisor’ shifting the Biju Janata Dal (BJD)’s voting strategy on the Waqf Bill without its leader Naveen Patnaik’s knowledge. Your views.

The Manipur Bill was scheduled immediately after the Waqf Bill in the list of business. The Waqf Bill debate was supposed to end by 6 pm. But the Speaker decided to allow as many members to speak on such a serious subject. I don’t think there’s any harm in sitting up late to make up for all the days when Parliament doesn’t function. The current Speaker tries to make up for lost time and not defer Bills. The important thing is that even at 2 am, MPs spoke on the Manipur Bill, including those of Opposition parties. As for the BJD, it has been many years since I left that party. It’s up to them to decide.

Shahid Pervez: A large section of the Muslim community does not see the Waqf Bill as reformatory and believes it to be not only an assault on their endowment assets but also an attack on their identity and Constitutional rights. How are you planning to address this trust deficit?

Any thinking Indian who has studied the issue would agree that the Waqf system as it existed was grossly corrupt and cheating beneficiaries of the endowments. But votebank politics, ghettoisation and vested interests have built a perception that the BJP is out to get a section of society. Some protests are happening but a much wider section of society is convinced by the arguments for Waqf reform.

Vikas Pathak: The Sangh Parivar has been campaigning for freeing Hindu temples from government control. What’s the BJP’s position?

Secularism, as defined since 1857 by the British Raj, stipulated that only Hindu temples would be controlled by government trusts, not by the community. This would not be accepted as secular anywhere in the world. Yet we have accepted it as the norm for more than a century and a half. Why so? The leader of India needs at least 500 million people to agree with him to make any changes. So the BJP will take a stand on it as and when it is required.