Last Updated:
Economic anxieties, minority rights, and institutional reforms took centre stage as Sudhanshu Trivedi, Priyanka Chaturvedi, and Imran Masood debated India’s future at the Rising Bharat Summit 2025
Sudhanshu Trivedi, Priyanka Chaturvedi, and Imran Masood (L-R) at Rising Bharat Summit 2025. (Image: News18)
At the CNN-News18 Rising Bharat Summit 2025, the panel discussion ‘Siyasat Ka Dharmsankat’ featuring BJP Rajya Sabha MP Sudhanshu Trivedi, Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Priyanka Chaturvedi, and Congress MP Imran Masood saw a heated exchange on the economy, minority rights, and the contentious Waqf reforms.
ECONOMY: BJP DEFENDS, OPPOSITION QUESTIONS
Sudhanshu Trivedi defended the government’s economic performance amid global headwinds, citing international stock market crashes and looming recession risks as factors beyond India’s control. “If there is a storm in the global sea and other ships are sinking, you cannot blame the captain if our ship faces turbulence,” he said.
Imran Masood stressed that India should reduce dependence on global markets and strengthen its internal economy. “Rahul Gandhi has long spoken of building a production-based economy. We must rely less on others,” he said, adding that he had yet to see major benefits like pharmaceutical tariff relief materialising on the ground.
Priyanka Chaturvedi argued that the real worry was the impact on India’s exports. Referring to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s interaction with Donald Trump, she said, “It’s not just about being offered a chair next to global leaders. It’s about what happens to our economy in real terms. Are we getting any real benefits from these high-profile global interactions?” She warned that a decline in exports would directly affect India’s economy.
WAQF REFORMS: CALLS FOR CHANGE, BUT DISAGREEMENT ON APPROACH
On the contentious Waqf reforms passed in Parliament, BJP’s Trivedi maintained that the changes were aimed purely at better land management, not at interfering with religious sites. “The mosque committees, dargahs, and graveyards are untouched. Only the land management has been restructured to bring transparency,” he said.
Masood countered that while reforms were needed, the current amendments risked legitimising encroachments. “You have removed safeguards by changing the Limitation Act, making it easier for land grabbers to claim ownership of Waqf land,” he warned.
Chaturvedi supported the idea of reforms but criticised the government’s selective approach. “If we insist that non-Hindus cannot manage temple trusts, why is it fine to bring non-Muslims into Waqf land management? Reforms should uplift the community, not create new insecurities,” she said. She added that while some of Shiv Sena UBT’s suggested amendments were accepted, many were ignored.
MINORITY WELFARE: WORDS VS ACTIONS
On minority welfare, Masood questioned whether the government’s actions matched its earlier promises, recalling Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s statement about empowering Muslim youth with “a Quran in one hand and a computer in the other.” He pointed to the reduction in scholarships, limited support for madrasas, and funding cuts at Aligarh Muslim University (AMU). “There is a gap between the commitment and the current situation,” he said.
Trivedi responded that India’s Waqf Board was the richest in the world, with 39 lakh acres of land, but questioned why it had failed to create significant educational or social infrastructure for the poor. “Why are there no big universities or hospitals for Muslims funded by this massive land wealth?” he asked.
FLASHPOINTS
Throughout the session, several clear fault lines emerged between the BJP and the Opposition. On Waqf reforms, the BJP defended the changes as necessary to improve transparency, while the Opposition demanded stronger safeguards to protect minority rights and prevent political misuse. On the economy, the BJP cited global recession risks to explain economic turbulence, while the Opposition raised concerns over declining exports and the need for stronger domestic resilience. On minority welfare, the Opposition alleged a mismatch between the government’s promises and actions, pointing to cuts in scholarships and funding for key institutions.