How new Waqf law undermines Muslim rights

The awqaf (plural of Waqf) represent endowments made by individual Muslims of private land for public, religious and charitable purposes. Waqf in India has a chequered history dating back to the Sultanate period, though its modern legal framework is more closely rooted in the colonial era. The British feared that any kind of economic autonomy could make Muslims dangerous. There are, generally, two kinds of awqaf — one for the upkeep of relatives and children (Waqf alal-Aulad) and the other in the names of god (Waqf alal-Allah) — though both are, ultimately, for public, religious and charitable works.

Once a Waqf is declared, it cannot be alienated in any form. The British thought that Waqf, particularly for children, was a ‘a perpetuity of the worst and the most pernicious kind’ in order to circumvent property laws, while forgetting the old adage that charity begins at home.

However, the Mussalman Waqf Validating Act of 1913 enshrined the Waqf law recognising Waqf alal-Aulad. The management of awqaf should be an internal matter for the Muslim community as long as it does not violate the law of the land. But like the British, the Government of India also sought to regulate the awqaf through the 1954 Act and subsequent central and state acts and amendments, including the current and most pernicious one.

Section 2 of the Waqf Amendment Bill, 2025 has substituted the word ‘Waqf’ from the 1995 Act with the phrase ‘Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development’. The acronym is almost UwMEED, which means hope in Urdu, and therein lies the sadistic rub. Kiren Rijiju, who tabled the Bill, claimed that it represents “a new hope, a new dawn.”

But who is this UwMEED for? For a community that has been the target of vigilantism and mob lynchings? For those who have remained silent despite provocations, while prominent BJP members spew hatred? For those whose homes are bulldozed without due process and whose mosques are covered in funereal shrouds during Hindu religious festivals? For those journalists, students, lawyers, doctors and others who dare to question the government? For those shopkeepers and small businessmen who have to change their shop’s location or its name if it is not clearly written that it’s a ‘Muslim-owned’ business? For those who wore black bands during prayers to protest the amended Act and were subsequently arrested while Rs 2-lakh bonds were demanded from them?

The amended Act is nothing less than a cruel legal axe — no, a bulldozer — to demolish any remaining hope that Muslims have in the courts, laws and institutions of India.

Perhaps, due to the BJP’s relatively weaker mandate, The Waqf Amendment Bill was put through a joint parliamentary committee. However, most of the counterpoints given by the opposition and Muslim individuals and organisations were ignored. The marathon sessions in both Houses of Parliament were nothing more than illusions of due process.

Leading up to the tabling of the Bill and in its aftermath, people have been debating the sublime to the absurd. Is this a masterstroke of coalition politics? Is the Bill a much-needed correction to massive corruption in the awqaf? Does the Waqf find precedent in the Quran and are those ahadith or statements of the Prophet that support the creation of awqaf reliable or weak narrations? Are awqaf religious in their nature? Are the main waqifs — those who endow the trusts — mostly elite ‘ashraf’ male Muslims and, so, is this a much-needed corrective to restore balance to women and OBC and SC Muslims? Should the post of mutawwalis or managers of the trusts be abolished and does endowing a Waqf for relatives and family constitute charity?

In any other circumstances, these would be important questions, but they all detract from and obscure fundamental issues. They assume that the BJP’s intent is to uplift the lot of Muslims. As a number of MPs pointed out, the fact that the BJP does not have even a single Muslim MP speaks volumes about its intention. Sections 10 and 12 of the new Act which amend Sections 9 and 14 of the 1995 Act illustrate the BJP’s mala fides and hypocrisy.

The unamended Act stipulated that four people of national eminence in the fields of administration and management, financial management, engineering or architecture or medicine, two members of the Lower House of Parliament and one member of the Upper House, retired judges of the Supreme Court or high courts and an advocate of national eminence all be Muslim in order to be members of the Central Waqf Council and also the board. In other words, it was assumed that Muslims would be well represented in all of these spheres of life.

In the amended Act, the only Muslims who are included in the council are representatives of Muslim organisations, chairpersons of boards — though CEOs can now be non-Muslims — a person to represent high value awqaf with an income of over Rs 5 lakh per annum and three scholars of Muslim personal law and theology. That is, the BJP has even done away with representation in organisations that fall under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, which permit communities to set up and administer their own religious and educational organisations.

Does the BJP envisage a future where there will be no highly qualified Muslims or Muslim specialists in various fields, including politics? Or, does it think that even they cannot be trusted to administer awqaf by the mere fact of their being Muslim?

Of the more absurd amendments is the requirement in Section 4 sub-clause ix that only those Muslims who have been practising for over five years can endow a Waqf. Earlier, any person, irrespective of religion, could endow one.

The question of what constitutes a practising Muslim has not been resolved amongst Muslims for over a millennia. Almost 1,200 years ago, for example, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal disagreed with Imam Abu Hanifa about whether lapsed prayers, for instance, make a person non-Muslim or not. Imam Abu Hanifa’s jurisprudence is followed by the majority of Muslims in South Asia, who call themselves Hanafi Sunnis. Now, this question will be decided by the district collector with inputs from police, local intelligence units, politicians and perhaps nosy neighbours.

During the parliamentary debates, Anurag Thakur bellowed: “We will not allow a second partition in the name of land jihad. India needs freedom from the fear of the Waqf board.” Online and in the media, the BJP has been promoting the Waqf Bill as saving India from land-grabbing Muslims and not as a move for the uplift of the community.

The reality is that the paternalistic and frankly humiliating amendments made by the government point to the simple reality that Muslims must not be allowed autonomy in any aspect of their private or public. The amended Waqf Act is yet another instance of the shift from marginalisation to the exclusion of Muslims that is taking place in the political, legal, economic, cultural and social spheres.

Munhasir marne pe ho jis ki umiid

Na-umidi us ki dekhni chahiye

(He whose hope depends on dying

His hopelessness must be seen).

Comments