Waqf Bill: Politics and Opportunism

The passage of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, was expected to be a challenge for the BJP-led government, given the sensitivities surrounding the issue. However, the ease with which it sailed through both houses of Parliament underscored not only the BJP’s numerical advantage but also the opportunistic politics of several regional parties. The debate and voting process laid bare the deep political fault lines and the shifting priorities of parties that have traditionally built their support on minority vote banks.

Far from being a debate on principle, the Waqf Bill exposed how political parties navigate the tricky terrain of minority appeasement or antagonism based on electoral calculations. Some parties opposed the bill as a symbolic stand to retain Muslim support, while others found themselves in awkward positions due to their shifting alliances and internal divisions. The Janata Dal (United) [JD(U)] faced significant turmoil, with at least two members resigning in protest. JD(U) spokesperson Rajiv Ranjan Prasad, however, dismissed these resignations as theatrics, stating that neither individual was a core member of the party. Yet, the visible dissent within JD(U) reflects deeper discomfort among its minority leaders, particularly Ghulam Rasool Baliyawi, who openly criticized the party’s support for the bill.

The Biju Janata Dal (BJD) found itself in an equally uncomfortable position. Despite being a party known for its secular stance, its support for the Waqf Bill created internal fractures. BJD has seven members in the Rajya Sabha, three voted in support of the Bill, signalling an erosion of party discipline under Naveen Patnaik’s leadership. The party’s official stance was to oppose the bill. This has led to speculation about a growing rift within the party and the possibility of members switching sides in the near future. Having failed to win a single Lok Sabha seat in the last general elections, the BJD now faces the additional challenge of maintaining its hold over its Rajya Sabha members, some of whom may be re-evaluating their political affiliations.

Meanwhile, the bill sparked protests in West Bengal, with Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee positioning herself as the strongest critic of the legislation. She pledged that any future government under her influence would amend or repeal the bill, a clear indication of her attempt to consolidate Muslim support in the state. The political ramifications of the Waqf Bill have thus extended beyond Parliament, with street protests and internal party frictions.

In essence, the Waqf Bill’s passage has proven to be less about ideological conviction and more about the calculations of political survival. The strains within JD(U), BJD, and other parties highlight the shifting ground in Indian politics, where minority vote banks remain a crucial yet contested battleground.

 Transparency Test: Evaluating Odisha’s DMF Funds

The District Mineral Foundation (DMF) funds in Odisha, meant to uplift mining-affected regions, have long been mired in controversy. While the previous government launched numerous high-profile projects, allegations of mismanagement and incomplete work have cast a shadow over their utilisation. The recent decision by the new administration to involve a third-party auditor, Grant Thornton, to evaluate DMF projects is a step in the right direction, but questions linger about the independence and effectiveness of such an exercise.

Mineral-rich districts like Keonjhar and Anugul have seen massive spending under DMF, with thousands of crores allocated to infrastructure, beautification, and welfare schemes. However, reports suggest that nearly 20% of projects in Anugul alone remain unfinished, raising concerns about accountability. Media investigations and civil society groups have flagged irregularities, including hurried spending without proper outcomes. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has even sought action from the state chief secretary over underutilization, underscoring the gravity of the issue.

The new government’s amendments to DMF rules, imposing stricter controls on fund transfers, are welcome. Earlier, district collectors had considerable discretion in spending, which led to allegations of favouritism and inefficiency. The revised guidelines aim to ensure funds are used purposefully, with greater oversight. However, the real test lies in enforcement. Past experiences show that well-intentioned policies often falter in implementation, especially when political and bureaucratic interests collide.

The appointment of Grant Thornton to audit DMF projects is a positive signal, but scepticism remains. The firm’s findings will only inspire confidence if the process is transparent and free from government interference. Unfortunately, the track record of state-commissioned audits in India is mixed, with many reports either watered down or shelved. If this evaluation is to have any impact, its methodology and findings must be made public, and corrective action must follow. Moreover, past evaluations of government schemes have often been reduced to mere formalities, with critical findings ignored. To break this pattern, the audit report must be made binding, with clear consequences for mismanagement and delays.

Beyond audits, Odisha needs a robust mechanism for community participation in DMF planning and monitoring. Local residents, who are the intended beneficiaries, often have little say in how funds are used. Greater involvement of gram sabhas and civil society would not only improve accountability but also ensure that spending aligns with grassroots needs rather than political vanity projects.

The DMF funds represent a golden opportunity to transform mining-affected areas, but only if used wisely. The new government’s efforts to tighten norms and evaluate past spending are commendable, but they must be followed by tangible action. Without genuine transparency and accountability, even the best policies will fail to deliver justice to the people these funds are meant to serve.

 

 Tariff Turmoil: Global Trade Shifts

Donald Trump’s recent announcement of sweeping tariffs has sent ripples through the global economy. Dubbed "Liberation Day," the policy imposes a baseline 10% tariff on all imports into the U.S., with India facing a specific 26% levy. This move, aimed at addressing trade imbalances, has sparked concerns about its implications for international trade dynamics.

For India, the tariffs pose a dual challenge. On one hand, they threaten to disrupt key export sectors like pharmaceuticals, textiles, and auto parts. On the other hand, they compel India to reassess its trade strategies. Historically, India has responded to such measures with a mix of adaptation and strategic countermeasures. For instance, when the U.S. imposed tariffs on steel and aluminium in 2018, India retaliated by raising duties on select American goods, including agricultural products and motorcycles. However, rather than engaging in a full-scale trade war, India also sought to strengthen trade ties with other nations to mitigate economic fallout.

In the current scenario, India might adopt a similar approach. Retaliatory tariffs on U.S. imports could be one option, targeting sectors where American exports are vulnerable. Alternatively, India could focus on strengthening trade ties with other nations, particularly in Asia and Europe, to offset the impact of reduced access to the U.S. market. Additionally, India could leverage this opportunity to push for domestic reforms that enhance its global competitiveness, such as reducing its own tariff barriers and improving the ease of doing business. Expanding trade agreements with emerging economies and deepening engagement with BRICS nations could also serve as a buffer against the adverse effects of U.S. tariffs.

The broader implications of Trump’s tariffs extend beyond India. Countries like China, the European Union, and Japan are also grappling with significant levies, ranging from 20% to 34%. This has the potential to trigger a global trade war, reminiscent of historical instances like the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. That policy led to retaliatory tariffs from other nations, a collapse in global trade, and a deepening of the Great Depression.

Trump’s tariffs risk inflating consumer prices, disrupting supply chains, and straining diplomatic relations. For developing nations like India, the challenge lies in navigating these turbulent waters without compromising economic growth. By adopting a balanced strategy that combines retaliation with proactive reforms, India can not only mitigate the immediate impact but also position itself as a resilient player in the evolving global trade landscape.

While Trump’s tariffs underscore the fragility of the current trade order, they also present an opportunity for nations like India to recalibrate their strategies and emerge stronger. The road ahead is fraught with challenges, but with due care, India can turn this crisis into an opportunity for growth and transformation.