{"id":3743,"date":"2025-04-09T11:50:49","date_gmt":"2025-04-09T06:20:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/belgaumnow.com\/?p=3743"},"modified":"2025-04-09T11:51:11","modified_gmt":"2025-04-09T06:21:11","slug":"a-draconian-law-by-bjp-govt-to-seize-waqf-and-its-management-from-muslims-shiv-sundar","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/belgaumnow.com\/?p=3743","title":{"rendered":"“A Draconian Law by BJP Govt to Seize Waqf and Its Management from Muslims” – Shiv Sundar"},"content":{"rendered":"

Waqf Amendment Act 2025 Sparks Outcry Over Muslim Representation<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n

Critics allege the new law undermines Muslim control over Waqf institutions, calling it a continuation of majoritarian encroachment on minority religious affairs.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

New Delhi<\/strong> \u2013 The passage of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025<\/strong> has ignited a storm of protest across India\u2019s Muslim community and civil society organizations. Approved hastily by both houses of Parliament and signed into law by the President, the legislation is being condemned as a direct attack on the constitutional rights of Muslims and a fundamental reshaping of Waqf governance in India.<\/p>\n

Opposition leaders, minority rights advocates, and legal experts claim the amendments strip Muslims of majority control over Waqf institutions, despite these being community-endowed religious assets managed traditionally by Muslims.<\/p>\n

\n

A Blow to Muslim Autonomy?<\/h3>\n

According to Article 26<\/strong> of the Indian Constitution, every religious group has the right to establish and manage its own religious affairs and institutions. Historically, the administration of Waqf properties\u2014charitable endowments in Islamic tradition\u2014has been governed by Muslims themselves. This principle was legally upheld in the Waqf Act of 1995<\/strong>, which required that nearly all members of the Central Waqf Council (CWC) be Muslims.<\/p>\n

\"Prof.
Prof. Shiv Sundar<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

However, the 2025 amendments<\/strong> significantly alter this composition. While the total number of council members increases to 22<\/strong>, only 10 members are now mandated to be Muslims<\/strong>, effectively reducing them to a minority within their own religious institution. The government has made it obligatory for at least two non-Muslim members<\/strong> to be appointed, and it has removed the requirement for the Council\u2019s Chief Executive Officer (CEO)<\/strong> to be Muslim\u2014another break from the 1995 structure.<\/p>\n

\n

Critics Say “Secularism for Muslims Only”<\/h3>\n

Commentators argue that this restructuring is discriminatory and hypocritical. \u201cIf the government believes that religious councils should be secular in composition, why are similar mandates not applied to Hindu, Sikh, Jain, or Christian religious trusts?\u201d asked a legal scholar speaking to this outlet. “This is selective secularism\u2014meant only for Muslims.”<\/p>\n

Further compounding the controversy is a new clause requiring anyone wishing to make a Waqf donation to prove they have been Muslim for at least five years<\/strong>, a stipulation that critics say is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violates Article 300A<\/strong> of the Constitution, which protects the right to property.<\/p>\n

\n

State Waqf Boards Also Affected<\/h3>\n

The amendments have also overhauled the structure of State Waqf Boards<\/strong>, reducing Muslim representation here as well. Under the 1995 Act<\/strong>, seven of the board members were required to be Muslims. The new law requires only four Muslims out of eleven members<\/strong>, while mandating two non-Muslim members<\/strong>, with the remaining five open to government appointment.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis is not about administrative reform. It is about control,\u201d said one activist. \u201cWhen you reduce Muslims to a minority in managing their own religious institutions, you’re not reforming the system\u2014you\u2019re replacing it.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

Legal Challenge and Historical Parallels<\/h3>\n

Multiple petitions have already been filed with the Supreme Court<\/strong> challenging the constitutional validity of the amendments. The court has agreed to hear the matter, though similar high-profile cases like the CAA\/NRC<\/strong> remain pending without interim relief.<\/p>\n

Legal experts point to Babri Masjid<\/strong>, CAA<\/strong>, and the now-repealed farm laws<\/strong> as examples of how aggressive legislative changes can deeply impact marginalized groups. They warn that the Waqf Amendment Act<\/strong> is the latest in a pattern of legislation pushed through Parliament with limited debate and little regard for community consultation.<\/p>\n

\n

Communal Bias in Implementation?<\/h3>\n

Several analysts have noted a double standard in how the current government has treated religious institutions. In recent years, laws governing the Kashi Vishwanath Temple<\/strong>, Ayodhya\u2019s Ram Temple<\/strong>, and even the Tirupati Devasthanam Trust<\/strong> have ensured that only Hindus<\/strong> occupy administrative roles. Meanwhile, the Waqf law now opens doors for non-Muslims to manage Islamic endowments.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe BJP government is not secularizing religious administration\u2014it\u2019s selectively targeting Muslims for disenfranchisement,\u201d argued one columnist in a national daily. \u201cThis isn\u2019t reform; it\u2019s an ideological project.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

Path Ahead: A Call for Mass Mobilization<\/h3>\n

Given the limited legal remedies and the political majority supporting the law, critics are calling for a broad-based, interfaith movement<\/strong>\u2014similar to the anti-CAA and farmers\u2019 protests\u2014to demand its repeal.<\/p>\n

\u201cFor this movement to succeed, awareness is key,\u201d wrote a community leader. \u201cPeople must understand what Waqf is, why it matters, and how this law threatens its very existence.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

Official Texts and Further Reading<\/h3>\n