WAQF, an Arabic word, refers to the creation of a property for religious and charitable purposes. When a converted Jew offered a piece of land to Hazrat Mohammad, he advised that the land be donated in the name of Allah as a Waqf. The proceeds from this Waqf were to be used for the benefit of poor Muslim widows, students, or for mosques, madrasas, and orphanages. As a result, lakhs of Waqf properties were established in various countries. Once a Waqf is created, it becomes the property of Allah; it cannot be taken back, donated, acquired, or sold by anyone.

The RSS, known as an anti-minority organisation, has been working against the interests of minorities in various ways. In one instance, a person posted on WhatsApp claiming that the Catholic Church owned crores of acres of land. When Christians raised concerns, the post was deleted – but the message was clear: minority religious properties were being targeted.

It was reported that across the country, there are approximately 8.7 lakh Waqf properties covering about 9.4 lakh acres of land. Waqf holds the second-largest amount of land in India after the Indian Railways. This sparked discussions and planning around how this vast and valuable land could be captured. Much of this land is located in urban areas and is highly valuable. Corporate interests and land-hungry individuals began eyeing these properties.

One such example is the alleged illegal purchase of prime Waqf land in Mumbai by Ambani, where he built a lavish mansion – referred to as the "Raj Mahal" for his wife – at a cost of Rs 16,000 crores. The case is currently in court, and he may lose it.

To protect the interests of corporations and create avenues for further acquisition of such minority-owned properties, the Modi government began strategising ways to gain control over Waqf land. It is in this context that the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025 must be viewed.

Minorities began to suffer under the Modi government, facing widespread lynchings, loss of livelihoods, and increasing unemployment. Their democratic rights were systematically undermined through measures like the CAA. Their dietary practices were targeted, places of worship attacked, and even the Religious Places Act came under scrutiny. Discrimination seeped into every aspect of their lives. Communal divisions were stoked with terms like "love jihad" and "land jihad," while their businesses were boycotted through organised campaigns discouraging people from buying from their shops. Hate speech by BJP/RSS leaders became a regular affair. There has been a deliberate effort to reduce their representation in Parliament and state assemblies, target their daughters under the pretext of the hijab, erase their historical contributions, and suppress secular and rational voices in society.

In this context, when the government claims to be amending the Waqf Act for the benefit of Muslim women, it seems not only insincere but utterly absurd.

Waqf in India originated during the era of the Sultanate and Mughal rule. These Waqf properties were established in accordance with Islamic practices for the benefit of the Muslim community, supporting the construction and maintenance of madrasas, mosques, educational institutions, graveyards, health centres, and more. Traditionally, these Waqf properties were managed by Muslims in line with their religious customs. In 1932, the British government consolidated these practices under a formal legal framework by enacting the Waqf Act. After Independence, the Act was amended in 1954 and again in 1995 to address emerging needs and based on the guidance of Islamic scholars and organisations.

The Act was amended in 1959, 1964, 1969, and 1984 with minor changes. Subsequently, a Joint Parliamentary Committee conducted a detailed study of the Act, and based on its recommendations, the comprehensive Waqf Act of 1995 was enacted. Under this Act, Waqf Boards were established to manage and oversee Waqf affairs. Each Waqf is administered by a Muttawalli or a Mutawalli Committee, typically comprising the donor and other Muslim members, who manage the Waqf in accordance with Islamic laws and practices. The income generated from Waqf properties is used for charitable purposes such as supporting poor widows or deserted Muslim women, assisting underprivileged students, and funding the construction and maintenance of mosques, madrasas, orphanages, and health centres.

Each state has its own Waqf Board to supervise and guide these activities. The Board is headed by a Chief Executive Officer, who is a senior officer from the state government. All Waqfs must be registered and are required to submit annual accounts to the Board. In case of any dispute, the Board intervenes to resolve the issue according to Waqf laws. If the matter remains unresolved, it is referred to the courts for final settlement.

Several weaknesses have been observed in the implementation of the Waqf Act. For instance, while the 1995 Act empowered state governments to frame rules, many states have yet to do so even today. The Act also provided for the appointment of a Central Waqf Commissioner, but the central government has, at times, failed to fulfill this mandate. These lapses on the part of the government have contributed to numerous issues.

Can the Muslim community or the Waqf institutions alone be blamed for the complaints of corruption, mismanagement, or the forcible acquisition of Waqf properties? These problems largely stem from systemic failures and lack of enforcement. What is needed is the strict and effective implementation of the existing Act. However, instead of addressing these governance gaps, the central government has chosen to amend the Waqf Act under the pretext of such complaints – an approach that could ultimately prove detrimental to the very existence and purpose of Waqf.

The central government introduced more than 40 proposed amendments to the Waqf Act, 1995. The Bill was referred to a Parliamentary Committee, which hastily issued its recommendations. Suggestions from opposition members were not recorded, and eventually, they were expelled from the committee. The recommendations – widely seen as anti-minority – were passed solely by members of the ruling party. The Speaker quickly approved the report, and the Bill was rushed through both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha at lightning speed, with the President's assent following soon after.

The government has announced plans for the immediate implementation of the amended Act, raising concerns that it is paving the way for large-scale land grabs. This has sparked fear and unrest among minority communities, with hundreds of thousands taking to the streets across India to protest. All democratic opposition parties have expressed solidarity with the minority community, supporting their legitimate demand for the withdrawal of the amended Act.

As explained above, Waqf is an Arabic term rooted in Islamic tradition and practice. However, the amendment Bill seeks to redefine this concept by introducing new terms such as “Unified Management,” “Empowerment,” “Efficiency,” and “Development.” These additions raise serious concerns, as they appear to carry ulterior motives. What does “Unified Management” mean in the context of Waqf, which has always followed Islamic principles? Unified with whom – and at what cost to its religious autonomy? If the intention is to empower individuals outside the Muslim community to manage Waqf properties, one must ask: what track record of efficiency has the government demonstrated in managing such affairs in the past?

Moreover, all Waqf properties are meant for the benefit of the entire Muslim community, but the amendment introduces unnecessary divisions by categorising Muslims as Bohra or Bahan, raising concerns about an attempt to fragment the community. Waqf Boards are managed by state governments, yet in this case, the central government has ignored the role of the states and proceeded unilaterally. This is a direct violation of federal principles and undermines the authority of state governments, going against the very spirit of the Constitution.

Additionally, Clause 4 of the amendment distorts the original purpose of Waqf. It replaces the phrase “any person of any movable or immovable property” with “a practicing Muslim for at least five years.” Previously, even non-Muslims could create a Waqf in support of the minority community, but now only someone who has been a practicing Muslim for five years is eligible. This change not only goes against the interests of minorities but also infringes upon individual rights to create Waqf. It reflects a communal mindset, seemingly intended to prevent non-Muslims from contributing to Waqf in the inclusive spirit of the 1995 Act.

Previously, the Waqf Board had the authority to conduct inquiries into any Waqf property. However, under the new amendments, this power has been transferred to the District Collector. The authority of the Waqf Board, a Muslim-managed institution, has effectively been stripped and handed over to government officials. Even the process of Waqf registration is now to be carried out before the Collector, which goes against the traditional Islamic principles of managing Waqf properties.

Government land that had been under Waqf jurisdiction may also be at risk under the new amendments, as the power to decide such matters now lies with the District Collector. Similarly, the authority previously vested in the Waqf Commissioner – appointed by the Waqf Board to oversee all Waqf properties – has now been removed and reassigned to the Collector. This shift represents a serious infringement on the religious rights of the Waqf system.

The Bill also proposes that exactly two women be appointed to the Waqf Council, whereas the original Act allowed for at least two women. This change limits the scope for broader female representation.

Furthermore, the original Act mandated that the Central Waqf Council consist entirely of Muslim members. The amended version now permits the inclusion of two non-Muslim members. This move is seen as an intrusion into a religious institution and raises fears of an attempt to bring communal influences into Muslim organizations. It prompts a critical question: would the government ever consider appointing a Muslim member to manage Hindu temple affairs?

The original Act required that any Tribunal established by the Waqf Board include members with expertise in Islamic law. However, the amendment removes this requirement, allowing individuals without any such knowledge to serve on the Tribunal. This opens the door for non-Muslim members to be appointed, raising concerns about potential communal interference in matters that are inherently religious in nature.

Previously, the Act allowed for one Muslim Member of Parliament or Member of the Legislative Assembly to be part of the Waqf Board. This provision has now been abolished, increasing the risk of non-Muslim members dominating the Board. This change raises a serious question: would the government permit similar appointments in the management of other religious trusts or Hindu temples?

Moreover, the earlier Act allowed state governments to establish Waqf Tribunals, but this has now been scrapped. The power has instead been handed over to the District Collector, further eroding the autonomy of Waqf institutions and sidelining state-level oversight.

During British rule, some powers were given to District Collectors, but due to their heavy administrative workload, they were often unable to carry out Waqf-related duties effectively. As a result, a special Tribunal was later formed to handle such matters. However, the new amendments reverse this progress by once again assigning multiple responsibilities—including those previously managed by the Muslim Waqf Board and Muslim members of the Tribunal—to District Collectors. Most of these officials will be non-Muslim government officers, effectively dismantling Islamic management and replacing it with direct government control.

Under the original Act, the government could legislate procedures for auditing registered Waqf accounts, with state governments empowered to do so under the 1995 Act. The new amendment transfers this authority to the central government, further centralizing control.

These changes clearly suggest that the government's actions are driven more by a communal mindset than by a genuine administrative concern. They undermine the fundamental rights of minorities as guaranteed by Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Muslims are being systematically deprived of their right to manage their religious institutions in accordance with their faith. The justifications offered for these changes are deeply flawed and appear to be motivated by a communal agenda.

This anti-minority amendment threatens to destroy the true spirit of Waqf by turning it into a government-controlled body where non-Muslims may play a dominant role in its management. Such regressive changes have sparked fear and anxiety among minority communities. The government's broader push toward a “Hindu Rashtra” has already created a climate of panic. In this context, the communally motivated and unconstitutional amendment to the Waqf Act must be withdrawn.

So this anti minority amendment will destroy the real character of Waqf, and make it a Government controlled entity and non-Muslim will play major roles in their management. All these negative factors have created fear in the minds of minorities. The government's policies and attempt to create Hindu Rashtra already created panic among them. In this situation, the communally motivated, anti-Constitution amendment Act should be withdrawn.

Enable GingerCannot connect to Ginger Check your internet connection
or reload the browserDisable GingerRephraseRephrase with Ginger (Ctrl+Alt+E)