India’s Lok Sabha, the lower house of the Parliament, passed the Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2025, a law ostensibly designed to ‘modernise’ the functioning of the Waqf boards across the country. Waqf, a term derived from Islamic law, refers to a charitable endowment where properties are dedicated for religious or social purposes, usually for the benefit of the poor, or for educational, religious, or welfare activities.
Initially passed in 1995, the Waqf Act has been criticised over the years for its lack of clarity and inefficiencies in managing the vast network of Waqf properties spread across India. The amendment was intended to address these challenges, but its passage sparked intense debate, particularly within the Muslim community, as the implications of the bill were viewed through multiple lenses of governance, religious rights, and community welfare.
The Waqf Act, as it stood before the amendment, laid down the framework for administering Waqf properties by state-level Waqf boards. These boards were empowered to manage the properties and ensure they were used for their charitable purposes. However, over time, allegations of corruption, mismanagement, and encroachments on Waqf properties have been widespread.
The administration of these lands was perceived to lack accountability and transparency, which led to numerous Waqf properties being either illegally occupied or underutilised. The amendment ostensibly sought to address these concerns by introducing measures to streamline the management of these properties, focusing on ensuring better governance, preventing misuse, and facilitating the more efficient use of assets.
However, many in the Muslim community raised concerns about its potential to undermine their autonomy. The debate, therefore, is not just about the technicalities of governance and administrative improvements but about the broader political and social implications for India’s Muslim citizens, who make up around fourteen per cent of the country’s population. For many Muslims, the Waqf Bill is seen as a reflection of the Indian government’s approach to handling minority rights, and the apprehension stems from a history of community distrust in the political landscape.
One of the key provisions of the bill is the creation of a central Waqf council with powers to oversee and guide the functioning of state-level Waqf boards. Although aimed at making the system more uniform and practical, the centralisation of power has been viewed as a move that could curtail the autonomy of state-level boards.
Critics argue that this could lead to the central government having more control over the religious and charitable assets that are supposed to remain under the community’s purview. The concern is that this centralisation could be used to further the agenda of the ruling party, especially in a country where religious minorities have sometimes felt marginalised.
Another key aspect of the amendment is the provision for the digitisation of Waqf records and the establishment of a national database of Waqf properties. On the surface, this seems like a progressive move to ensure transparency and prevent illegal encroachments on Waqf lands.
However, the digitalisation initiative has been met with scepticism, particularly because there is a fear that the new system could be manipulated to further undermine Muslim communities’ ownership and control over their own religious assets. In particular, there is concern that the digitised records could be used as a tool for future legal disputes that might favour larger political or economic forces rather than the original custodians of the properties.
For Muslims, the Waqf system holds a sacred place. These properties are meant to serve the community’s needs—whether it’s by providing educational scholarships, supporting mosques, or financing medical services for the underprivileged.
Waqf lands have historically been a critical source of economic and social support. The worry is that by centralising control, the government might make decisions that do not reflect the community’s needs.
These assets could be reallocated or redeployed for purposes that don’t serve their original religious or social goals. For instance, the concern is that the state might, over time, repurpose these properties for purposes beyond their original intent, including economic development schemes that might lead to land dispossession.
Additionally, there is also the question of representation. The boards that manage Waqf properties are typically made up of community representatives, and some fear that the new law might alter the composition of these boards, giving disproportionate influence to non-Muslim members or politically aligned individuals.
This could weaken the board’s ability to act in the community’s best interests and result in the mismanagement or underutilisation of essential community assets. The issue is especially sensitive because many Muslims have long-standing grievances regarding the marginalisation of their community in India’s political and social structures.
Further complicating the situation is the relationship between state and religion in India. India has a secular constitution, which theoretically guarantees religious freedom for all communities, but there are continuous debates about how secularism should be interpreted.
Some Muslim leaders feel that this bill undermines the nation’s secular framework by giving the government too much control over religious affairs, thereby violating the spirit of religious autonomy that is supposed to be enshrined in the constitution. At the same time, proponents of the bill argue that better governance and more efficient management of Waqf properties will help prevent corruption and ensure that these lands are used effectively for charitable purposes.
For ordinary Muslims, the Waqf Bill is emblematic of their broader concerns in India. For decades, they have argued that their religious rights and cultural heritage are often overlooked in policy-making, whether it concerns land, education, or employment. Many see the bill as yet another step in a series of policies that diminish the role of Muslim institutions and reinforce state control over religious properties.
On the other hand, supporters of the bill, including some within the Muslim community, argue that the lack of proper management and oversight of Waqf properties has harmed the community. They argue that it is in the best interest of Muslims to have a more transparent and organised system in place where resources can be allocated more effectively for community development.
The ongoing debate over the Waqf Bill reflects larger political and social tensions within India. It underscores the need for a nuanced understanding of the relationship between governance and religious autonomy.
As India becomes increasingly diverse and its minority communities feel more insecure about their place in the national fabric, issues like the Waqf Bill are a reminder of how policies are interpreted not just as legal reforms but as markers of the state’s attitude towards its minority populations. Whether the bill will lead to better management of Waqf properties or exacerbate existing tensions remains to be seen. However, it will undoubtedly continue to be a flashpoint in the discussion about religious freedom, minority rights, and the role of government in managing community resources.
The Waqf Bill has, in many ways, opened up a conversation about the larger question of how India navigates its pluralistic society. Can a modernising approach to governance respect the deep cultural and religious values of its communities? Or does it risk encroaching on their rights and identities?
As the story of the Waqf Bill unfolds, it will continue to serve as a litmus test for India’s commitment to religious freedom and minority rights. The final chapter is still being written, and only time will tell how this bill and the debate surrounding it will ultimately shape the future of India’s Muslim citizens.
-30-
Copyright©Madras Courier, All Rights Reserved.
You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from madrascourier.com and redistribute by email, post to the web, mobile phone or social media.
Please send in your feed back and comments to editor@madrascourier.com
