How The Economist misrepresented India’s Waqf Act reform as anti-Muslim propaganda

In early March 2025, The Economist published an article titled “A new law targets India’s third-biggest landowner: Allah”, which offered a sensational, fear-driven narrative of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. In the article, the media outlet portrayed it as a Hindu nationalist ploy to seize land pockets belonging to Muslims. The language employed was full of misleading claims and selective framing, and fit neatly into a global trend of foreign media being alarmist about India’s internal legislative matters.

When the Bill was tabled in Parliament, Union Home Minister Amit Shah provided a detailed analysis of the amendments. A closer look at his speech and evidence from prior Waqf abuse cases shows that The Economist article distorted reality to peddle a baseless Muslim victimhood narrative.

From charity to cartel: How Waqf was misused

The Waqf system was intended to act as a charitable endowment to help the Muslim community, especially the poor, widowed, orphaned and unemployed. However, over the decades, the Waqf Act in India was transformed into a political real estate racket. As HM Shah stated in his Lok Sabha speech, the original concept of Waqf, rooted in Hadith and intended as personal property donations for religious and social good, had been corrupted to the point where properties were being arbitrarily claimed.

The claims were laid on lands where no proof of it being Waqf property at any time in the past was available. So much so, government land and buildings, private properties of Hindus and other non-Muslim communities, and even temples were claimed by State Waqf Boards across the country.

“From 1913 to 2013, Waqf land was 18 lakh acres. But in the last 10 years, 21 lakh more acres were added, often by misuse of unchecked authority,” Shah said. The explosion of Waqf claims was largely enabled by the changes in the Waqf Act brought by Congress-led governments.

In a detailed report, OpIndia highlighted how the 1995 amendment to the Waqf Act removed crucial safeguards in place from the original 1953 law. It allowed Waqf Boards to declare any land as Waqf, including government, temple, church, and private lands, without any transparent procedure.

Then in 2013, before being voted out of power, the Congress-led UPA further entrenched the power of Waqf Boards, granting them virtual immunity from legal challenge. It paved the way for mass land appropriation.

The scale of misuse is massive

In Vijaypur, Karnataka, a ₹500 crore property was leased to a five-star hotel for ₹12,000 a month. In Himachal Pradesh, Northern Railways’ land was handed over. In Maharashtra, claims were made on Mahadev temples; in Haryana, on Gurudwara lands; and in Tamil Nadu, 400 acres belonging to the 1,500-year-old Tiruchendur temple were declared Waqf. These cases are just the tip of the iceberg.

In his speech, Shah pointed out that by 2025, although 20,000 properties had earlier been registered as leased, official records now show zero. It means that they had been sold off. Meanwhile, the annual income from Waqf properties is only ₹126 crores despite landholdings worth lakhs of crores.

He said, “This money was meant for poor Muslims, not elite deals with five-star hotels. The Waqf Boards should be throwing out those who sold these properties, not protecting them.”

A law for accountability, not religious interference

Despite the evident misuse, The Economist painted the reform as an anti-Muslim act of state aggression. The article claimed that the Bill “could destroy properties” and allow Hindu nationalists to reclaim land. It framed the amendment as part of a larger RSS-BJP plot to dismantle Muslim identity.

However, it failed to point out that the government explicitly retained Muslim control over all religious aspects of Waqf. Shah categorically stated, “Mutawalli, Waqif, Waqf—everything remains under Muslim control. Non-Muslim members on boards will have no say in religious functions.”

He further clarified that the inclusion of a Charity Commissioner, who may belong to any religion, is purely administrative. It is similar to Hindu trusts and Christian churches. Likewise, requiring district collectors to verify Waqf land titles will bring Waqf procedures in line with how temple lands are treated in the country. “If temple land requires verification, why should Waqf land be exempt?” Shah asked. “This is not about religion, but about legal ownership and public interest.”

Safeguards, consultations, and transparency

Notably, it has been repeatedly claimed that the Bill was rushed or authoritarian. In reality, it underwent rigorous debate. Shah highlighted that the Bill was deliberated for 16 hours in both Houses. It was examined in over 38 committee meetings, which included 284 stakeholders. The committee received around 1 crore public suggestions. Interestingly, the 2013 amendment was discussed for only 5.5 hours, and once it was passed, 123 Lutyens Zone properties were arbitrarily handed over to the Delhi Waqf Board.

Opposition claims of community exclusion fall flat, as Christian organisations have supported the Bill and recognised the risks posed to their properties by the previous unchecked Waqf powers. Even some within the Muslim community have acknowledged the need for reform to include neglected sects like Shias and Sufis and to ensure fairer distribution of funds.

International fear-mongering vs Indian reform

In the end, The Economist’s narrative is no different from the fear-mongering deployed during the CAA, Article 370 and Triple Talaq reforms. As HM Shah said, “They said Muslims will lose citizenship with CAA. Show one such case… It has become fashionable to scare Muslims for votes.”

The Waqf Amendment Act is far from being a Hindu nationalist weapon. It is a long-overdue act of legal clarity and fiscal justice. The amendments now in place stop illegal land usurpation and bring parity in land donation laws across religions. Furthermore, the amendments seek to benefit the very community that Waqf was meant to serve—that is, the Muslim community.

Those who see it otherwise, like The Economist, should ask why the poorest Muslims remained poor despite the Waqf owning 39 lakh acres of land across the country. The answer cannot be found in Hindu nationalism. It lies in decades of elite misappropriation under the guise of “secular” protection. The time for accountability has arrived—instilling fear among those who were sitting on Waqf lands as owners without any proof.

News