Need for amendment after consensus: Tahaffuz-e-Bunyad-Islam Bill stopped in its tracks

LAHORE: The Punjab Assembly members across the divide rejected the Tahaffuz-e-Bunyad-e-Islam Bill and demanded the government make amendments and hold a fresh debate over it.

The PA members pertaining to the ruling PTI as well as PML-N and PPP have also demanded formation of a committee comprising members of the House and Ulema to review the bill before it becomes an Act.

Punjab Law Minister Raja Basharat has assured the PA the government wouldn't proceed over the Bill unless consensus is evolved. At the very outset of the PA session on Friday that started with Deputy Speaker Mir Dost Muhammad Mazari in chair, members from both sides, including Provincial Minister Hussein Jehanian Gardezi, Chairman Public Accounts Committee Syed Yawar Abbas Bukhari, PPP-P Parliamentary leader Syed Hassan Murtaza, PML-N MPAs Kazim Pirzada, Agha Ali Hyder and many others stood on their seats and expressed serious dismay over the passage of the bill, which according to them could lead to a serious religious groups divide in the country. Hussein Jehanian Gardezi, a provincial minister in the cabinet of Chief Minister Usman Buzdar while expressing concern over the Bill stated, “We don’t know how this bill got passed all of a sudden”.

Gardezi, who hails from Multan and has been a very senior parliamentarian, stated that any legislation over Shariah related issues should exhibit unanimity. He said if it was the government’s legislation, it should have been approved fromthe cabinet and if it was a Private Members Bill, it should have been dealt as Private Members legislation but nothing was done. He also stated that the Bill was related to 'Bunyaadi Aqaaid' (basic creed), so the Punjab Information Department had nothing to do with it. He demanded the government come up with amendment to the Bill and address the people’s reservations.

Syed Yawar Bukhari, the PTI legislator who also heads Public Accounts Committee-2, speaking on the floor of the House, sought apology from the nation for supporting this Bill. He said the way we were kept in the dark over this Bill and the way the basic philosophy of a sect had been challenged in this legislation was a cruel joke.

“We reject this Bill, if they want to create a divide in the House, they can, but we will not side with this and go to any extent, whether we have to stage sit-ins or take to the streets” said Yawar Bukhari while categorically rejecting the Bill.

Yawar Bukhari, who hails from Attock, demanded the government come up with fresh legislation in which people from all schools of thought, not a handful of people had their say.

Expressing similar views, Syed Hassan Murtaza, the PPP Punjab Parliamentary leader, in his speech stated that a lot of false information regarding his role as the committee member had been spread. He said he never had been the part of any committee that drafted this Bill and demanded the government provide minutes of the Standing Committee meetings if this Bill had been the part of the government legislation or as the Private Members Legislation. He said he never received a phone call to attend the meeting but he had been mentioned as the committee member, which was highly condemnable.

Moreover, he said that he held people from all religious schools of thought in esteem and respected their creed but no one had the right to tell him what he should practice or what he should not.

"Will an 18 grade officer of DGPR teach us religion, will he interpret my beliefs” asked Syed Hassan Murtaza while rejecting the role of the Punjab Information Department in this legislation. He said any DGPR official had no right to interpret his religion adding that consensus must be evolved on this Bill and fresh legislation process should be initiated over it.

Kazim Pirzada, the PML-N legislator from Bahawalpur, while speaking on the floor of the House, stated that the government must find a committee comprising Ulema as well as members of the House and fresh debate should start over this Bill. He said under the parliamentary norms, the House members should know whether it was a government legislation or Private Members Bill and which committee discussed it. He warned that this Bill would destroy the peace of the country and give rise to a new conflict. Kazim Pirzada asserted that all schools of thought had objection to this Bill.

Agha Ali Haider, the PML-N legislator who hails from Nankana, while speaking on the occasion, said it was the unanimous voice of the House that the government should withdraw the Bill and come up with fresh amendments to it.

Ashraf Rasool, the PML-N MPA, who hails from Sheikhupura, said the Bill was the brainchild of Prime Minister's adviser Shehzad Akber and stated it was a conspiracy against the government.

Law Minister Raja Basharat, while responding to the concerns shown by the members over this Bill, stated that the Bill was yet to be sent to the governor. He said that when the Bill was passed, objections were raised to it after which the government decided not to send it for further process. Raja Basharat also stated that the views expressed by the members of the House were significant and said that it would have been appropriate if the MPAs had studied the Bill before it was passed. Some of the members of the House expressed displeasure over the statement of Law Minister and a member said after showing trust in him, the members had supported the Bill.

This is noteworthy that the PA passed Tahaffuz-e-Bunyad-e-Islam Bill on 22 July and Punjab Assembly Speaker Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi remained a key player behind this legislation. His party stalwart, MPA from Chakwal Hafiz Ammar Yasir was the mover of the Bill. Ammar is also the Provincial Minister for Mines and Minerals. After the passage of the Bill, Majlis Wahdatul Muslimeen (MWM) raised objections to it and Punjab Governor Chaudhry Sarwar also came up with a clear stance that he wouldn't sign the Bill unless consensus was developed.

Later, dissenting voices also started appearing from the PTI ranks after which the government decided not to send the Bill to the governor because under the Law, the governor has to return the Bill to PA within 10 days. The Bill is again sent to the governor for the second time and even if the governor raises objection and returns the Bill to PA, it turns into Act.

||