Values and Minority Rights
By Shabanam Rather, District President, Mahila Congress Shopian
The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, recently passed by the Indian Parliament, has ignited a firestorm
of controversy, with critics arguing that it represents a direct assault on the constitutional rights of
India’s Muslim community, undermines federalism, and threatens the secular fabric of the nation.
While the government touts the legislation as a reform aimed at improving transparency and
efficiency in the management of waqf properties, a closer examination reveals a troubling agenda
that prioritizes centralized control over community autonomy, potentially disenfranchising millions
and setting a dangerous precedent for religious interference. In this article, I, Shabanam Rather,
District President of Mahila Congress Shopian, outline the key reasons why the Waqf (Amendment)
Bill should be opposed and reconsidered.
Erosion of Religious Autonomy
At its core, the Waqf Act, 1995, was designed to empower Muslim communities to manage their
religious and charitable properties—known as waqf—under Islamic law. These properties, dedicated
for pious, religious, or charitable purposes, are a cornerstone of Muslim socio-religious life in India.
The new amendment, however, fundamentally alters this framework by shifting significant authority
from community-led Waqf Boards to government officials, notably district collectors, who are now
empowered to determine the status of disputed waqf properties. This move not only undermines
the autonomy of Waqf Boards but also violates Article 26 of the Indian Constitution, which
guarantees religious communities the right to manage their own affairs.
The inclusion of non-Muslim members in the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards further
exacerbates this concern. While the government claims this promotes inclusivity, critics argue it
dilutes the community’s control over its own religious institutions. Imagine a parallel scenario where
non-Hindus are mandated to oversee Hindu temple boards—such a proposal would likely be met
with fierce resistance. The selective targeting of Muslim institutions raises questions about fairness
and equality under the law, potentially breaching Article 14, which ensures equal protection for all
citizens.
Centralization Over Federalism
India’s federal structure thrives on the delicate balance between central and state powers. The Waqf
(Amendment) Bill disrupts this equilibrium by granting the central government unprecedented authority over waqf properties, traditionally managed at the state level through Waqf Boards. By
empowering district collectors—agents of the state but often aligned with central directives—to
adjudicate property disputes, the bill effectively sidelines state governments and local Muslim
bodies. This centralization not only weakens federalism but also risks creating a one-size-fits-all
approach to a diverse nation’s religious and cultural practices, ignoring regional nuances and
community needs.
Opposition leaders, including Congress MP Gaurav Gogoi and DMK’s Kanimozhi Karunanidhi, have
highlighted this as a power grab that shuns justice and disregards the principles of cooperative
federalism. The bill’s provision allowing the central government to order audits and regulate waqf
registration further entrenches this overreach, reducing Waqf Boards to mere administrative
puppets rather than independent stewards of community assets.
A Threat to Property Rights and Heritage
One of the most contentious aspects of the bill is the removal of Section 107 of the Waqf Act, 1995,
which previously exempted waqf properties from the Limitation Act, 1963. This exemption allowed
Waqf Boards to reclaim encroached properties without being bound by the standard 12-year
limitation period. By scrapping this provision, the amendment opens the door for encroachers to
claim legal ownership through adverse possession, jeopardizing centuries-old waqf properties,
including mosques, dargahs, and charitable institutions. AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi has warned
that this change could embolden divisive elements who challenge the status of historic Muslim sites,
weakening the community’s ability to defend its heritage.
Additionally, the bill’s stipulation that only individuals practicing Islam for at least five years can
dedicate property to waqf introduces an arbitrary and discriminatory criterion. Who determines
what constitutes a “practicing Muslim”? This vague requirement risks excluding legitimate donors
and invites bureaucratic overreach into personal faith—a clear violation of Article 25, which
guarantees freedom of religion. Historically, even non-Muslims could contribute to waqf, a practice
upheld by courts and Islamic law. By reversing this inclusivity, the bill not only narrows the scope of
waqf but also alienates potential benefactors.
Polarization and Political Motives
The timing and rhetoric surrounding the Waqf (Amendment) Bill suggest a deeper political agenda.
Critics, including Rahul Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge, have labeled it a “weapon aimed at
marginalizing Muslims” and a tool for communal polarization. The government’s narrative—
exemplified by Union Minister Kiren Rijiju’s claim that the bill prevents waqf from claiming public
properties like the Parliament building—relies on exaggerated scenarios to justify sweeping changes.
Such statements fuel mistrust and portray waqf as a predatory entity, rather than a system rooted in
charity and community welfare. e opposition’s allegations are bolstered by the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) process,
which reportedly ignored dissenting notes and amendments proposed by opposition members. This
lack of consensus and transparency undermines the democratic legitimacy of the bill, suggesting it
was rammed through to serve partisan interests rather than public good. The government’s
insistence on passing the bill despite widespread protests from Muslim organizations and INDIA bloc
parties further hints at an intent to divide rather than unite.
Socio-Economic Fallout
Waqf properties—spanning 9.4 lakh acres and numbering 8.7 lakh across India—support schools,
hospitals, and welfare programs that benefit not just Muslims but society at large. By destabilizing
their governance, the bill risks disrupting these services, disproportionately harming marginalized
groups like widows, orphans, and the poor, whom waqf traditionally supports. The government
claims the amendment will empower Muslim women by ensuring inheritance rights before property
is dedicated to waqf, but this provision rings hollow when paired with measures that weaken the
very institutions meant to uplift the community.
Conclusion: A Call for Reconsideration
As Shabanam Rather, District President of Mahila Congress Shopian, I firmly believe that the Waqf
(Amendment) Bill, 2025, cloaked as a reform, is a regressive step that threatens India’s secular
ethos, constitutional values, and social harmony. It erodes religious autonomy, centralizes power at
the expense of federalism, endangers historic properties, and risks deepening communal divides—all
under the guise of efficiency and transparency. Rather than bulldozing through such a contentious
law, the government must engage in genuine dialogue with stakeholders, respect constitutional
safeguards, and prioritize unity over division. The bill, in its current form, is not a solution but a
problem—one that India cannot afford to ignore. It must be withdrawn or radically revised to reflect
the nation’s pluralistic spirit and commitment to justice for all.
