As the country continues to grapple with the aftermath of high-profile land disputes, such as those at Ayodhya and the ongoing battles in Mathura and Varanasi, a new legislative development threatens to reignite communal tensions.
The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 8, seeks to overhaul the management and regulation of Waqf properties across the country. (Waqf properties are, in Islamic tradition, charitable endowments made for religious, educational, or social purposes. The concept of Waqf dates back to the medieval period, where it played a crucial role in supporting mosques, madrasas, and community services.)
The Bill has become controversial, drawing fierce criticism from community leaders, activists, opposition figures, and legal experts, who claim that it poses the risk of misuse, escalates communal tensions, and undermines minority rights.
The Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute, which has long been a flashpoint of religious tension in the country, now serves as a backdrop for the proposed amendments. Many critics fear that the law, if amended, could further marginalise the Muslim community by altering the framework governing Waqf properties.
Contentious Bill
Over the centuries Waqf properties became integral to the socio-religious fabric of Muslim communities, evolving under various rulers, including the Mughals. After Independence, the Waqf Act of 1954 and subsequent amendments to it aimed to regulate these properties. However, issues such as mismanagement, encroachment, and legal disputes have persisted.
The proposed Bill, introduced in the Lok Sabha by Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju, seeks to amend the Waqf Act of 1995 and rename it the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995. Key provisions include the requirement that two non-Muslims and at least two women be included in the newly constituted Central Waqf Council, which will advise the Central and State governments and Waqf boards.
Also Read | Have courts forgotten the Places of Worship Act, 1991?
After an intense debate, the Bill was referred to a 31-member Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) consisting of 21 Lok Sabha and 10 Rajya Sabha members. The BJP-led National Democratic Alliance coalition dominates the committee, whose report is expected before the next parliamentary session in December.
Some of the key figures in the committee are Asaduddin Owaisi of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen, Gaurav Gogoi and Imran Masood of the Congress, and Jagdambika Pal and Nishikant Dubey of the BJP. The JPC will scrutinise the Bill and ensure that all concerns are adequately addressed.
Sparring over proposed changes
The Bill’s timing and content have led to questions about the true motivation behind it since Assembly elections are due in Haryana and Maharashtra later this year and in Jharkhand and Delhi in early 2025. Its implications are being scrutinised not just for legal ramifications but for the potential to inflame social tensions and increase localised conflicts stemming from Waqf properties. Senior Aam Aadmi Party leader Sanjay Singh accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his government of using the Bill to benefit close allies by facilitating the transfer of valuable Waqf board land.
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) too has strongly opposed the proposed amendments. S.Q.R. Ilyas, a spokesperson, expressed concern that the Bill could make Waqf properties more susceptible to government control and encroachments. “Such changes could set a precedent for similar actions against endowments of other religious communities,” he warned, adding that all legal and democratic measures should be used to oppose it.
Owaisi described the proposed amendments as a “direct attack” on the religious rights of Muslims. He argued that the Bill undermined the autonomy of Waqf institutions and aimed to marginalise the Muslim community further.
Akhilesh Yadav of the Samajwadi Party said the Bill was politically motivated and could exacerbate communal tensions. “This Bill is not about improving the management of Waqf properties; it is about weakening the Muslim community’s control over their assets. With elections approaching, it seems to be a strategic play to consolidate votes rather than to address genuine issues relating to Waqf governance,” he said.
Waqf challenges
There are thousands of legal challenges relating to Waqf properties that are yet to be resolved, underscoring the delicate nature of these issues. For instance, in the Teele Wali Masjid case in Lucknow, the legal struggle revolves around the ownership and management of a Waqf property: a mosque and its surrounding land. The Muslim community contested a civil judge’s order on a suit regarding this property, but its appeal, on the grounds of non-maintainability, was rejected by the district court. This led to the case being referred back to the civil court for further examination.
“The introduction of the Bill has raised concerns about how future disputes will be handled and the potential impact on the protection of Waqf properties.”
Similarly, the Karbala Amethi issue involves a dispute over the sale of a Waqf property, in this case, a piece of land designated for religious purposes. Despite the Muslim community’s efforts to challenge the sale, the case remains entangled in legalities. The purchaser has managed to secure a stay from the civil court, which temporarily halts any legal action against the sale. Such cases underscore the broader challenges associated with Waqf properties, with legal battles over their ownership and management common. The introduction of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill brings these challenges into sharper focus, raising concerns about how future disputes will be handled and the potential impact on the protection of Waqf properties.
Atif Rasheed, former Vice Chairman of the National Commission for Minorities, defended the proposed amendments, framing them as a routine evolution of legislation. He pointed out that the Waqf Act of 1954 was amended significantly in 1995 and 2013, suggesting that revisions were simply part of its natural progression. However, various stakeholders argued that these amendments could undermine the very essence of Waqf governance. While Rasheed claimed that the proposed amendments, such as the inclusion of registration with the Collector or judicial inquiry, did not interfere with Shariat law or reduce the power of Waqf boards, many viewed these changes as potentially compromising the autonomy of Waqf institutions.
Management issues
So, what does this Bill mean for the millions of people connected to Waqfs across the country? The real issue lies in whether these amendments genuinely address mismanagement and encroachment or if they are merely a means to exert more control over religious assets.
Maulana Mahmood Madani, president of the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, a leading organisation of Islamic scholars, strongly criticised the proposed amendments, stating that they could jeopardise the protection of Waqf properties, which enabled millions of Muslims to utilise those spaces. He also said that the Jamiat would not allow undue government interference to undermine the sacred nature of Waqf as a “divine trust”. He specifically opposed the removal of Section 40 of the Act, which would replace Waqf tribunals with District Collectors for handling property disputes, saying this move was akin to abolishing Waqf boards.
Madani urged the government to withdraw the amendments and seek comprehensive consultations with all stakeholders. He also called on political parties and citizens to oppose the proposed changes and advocate for preserving religious rights and freedoms. “It is crucial that the management of Waqf properties remains with the Waqf boards, with representation from Muslim scholars.” Syed Sadatullah Husaini, president of Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, an Islamic organisation, said that the Bill was unacceptable to the Muslim community. He particularly condemned the introduction of what he termed “Collector Raj”, the provision granting District Collectors authority over Waqf properties.
Tension prevailed at the Kazimar big mosque in Madurai after the Waqf board tried to take possession of it on the basis of a Madras High Court order, on February 11, 2021. The proposed changes to the Waqf law aim to resolve such issues and others relating to mismanagement. | Photo Credit: R. ASHOK
Husaini argued that these changes would undermine the autonomy of Waqf institutions, dismantle established legal structures, and ignore the foundational principles of Waqf jurisprudence. “The Bill was created without any consultation with the Muslim community,” he said. “No Muslim parliamentarian was consulted. No stakeholders were involved in the discussions. The proposed changes are harmful, not beneficial. The government should withdraw the Bill.” Husaini also said that, if necessary, Jamaat-e-Islami Hind would challenge the amendments in the Supreme Court.
Highlights
- The Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2024 has set off alarm bells among Muslim leaders, who fear it could strip their community of control over valuable religious properties.
- Critics slam the Bill as a power grab, while supporters tout increased transparency and women’s representation in Waqf governance.
- With elections on the horizon, the proposed changes to centuries-old Islamic endowment laws threaten to reignite simmering communal tensions across India.
Proponents of the Bill argue that the inclusion of women in the Waqf council represents a significant step towards modernising and democratising the governance of Waqf properties. Kausar Jahan, Chairperson of the Delhi State Haj Committee, said the Bill was a major step towards making an impactful law for transparent, accountable, and equal representation. She said: “Under this amendment, a provision has been made for the participation of all sections of the Muslim community. The most important demand of the 21st century is the inclusion of women. This Bill addresses that need and aims to ensure fair representation. It will bring accountability and transparency to Waqf boards and help reduce corruption.”
Gender provisions
Critics, however, pointed out that the Bill’s gender provisions were tokenistic rather than transformative. They argued that while the inclusion of women in the council was a positive step, the Bill did not address deeper issues relating to the autonomy and powers of Waqf institutions.
Ilyas of the AIMPLB said that the broader implications of the amendments might overshadow the benefits of increased female representation. “While the inclusion of women is commendable, it cannot compensate for the potential erosion of Waqf autonomy and the risk of increased government interference. The focus should be on ensuring that all aspects of the Bill support the genuine needs of the Waqf community.”
Also Read | What about Ayodhya’s mosque?
Shabnam Hashmi, a social activist, said that large swathes of Waqf lands have been occupied illegally by government departments, industrialists, and others, across the country. “If all Waqf properties are returned and utilised for the upliftment of the community, they would probably not need anything else. This step by the government is one more in usurping minority rights. It has nothing to do with gender equality. This is another jumla [empty promise] to fool women.”
The debate continues as stakeholders weigh the significance of gender-focussed changes against the broader context of the Bill’s impact on Waqf governance and community rights.
In the foreseeable future, there is likely to be a tug of war between efforts to modernise and regulate Waqf properties and address issues of mismanagement and encroachment on one side and attempts to preserve their traditional management and religious significance on the other, even as the anti-minority tenor of politics initiated by the BJP continues.
The outcome of this legislative battle is likely to shape not only the management of Waqf properties but also the future of intercommunity relations in the country.
