Why the Waqf Amendment Bill Should Concern All of Us
The Waqf Amendment Bill, just passed in Parliament and has raised serious questions about the future of religious freedom, minority rights, and community autonomy in India. Though it’s easy to dismiss this as an internal matter affecting only Muslim institutions, we believe the bill deserves wider attention—from all Indians, and particularly from those of us who care about secularism and pluralism in India.
Waqf properties—charitable trusts for religious, educational, or social welfare purposes—have historically been managed by Muslim communities themselves. The new bill makes it easier for the government to override decisions made by Waqf Boards, curbing their independence and leaving these properties more vulnerable to state intervention.
A Good-Faith Argument?: What the Bill’s Supporters Say
Supporters of the amendment argue that increased central oversight is necessary to prevent corruption and mismanagement within Waqf Boards. They claim that better regulation will help protect the intended purposes of Waqf properties and ensure they are used responsibly.
Why That Argument Doesn’t Hold
Concerns about transparency are valid—but the solution cannot be to undermine autonomy entirely. Most religious institutions in India—including Hindu trusts—are self-managed, and problems of mismanagement are addressed without dissolving their governance structures. Targeting Waqf Boards alone suggests a discriminatory double standard that reinforces the marginalization of Muslims.
Furthermore, rather than creating mechanisms for accountability within communities, the bill opens the door to top-down control. This is especially worrying given the recent patterns of state encroachment on minority institutions and the politicization of religious identity in India.
Why This Matters for All of Us
The Waqf Amendment Bill doesn’t just affect Muslim rights and communities in India—it reshapes how the Indian state engages with all religious and charitable institutions. By centralizing power over Waqf properties and weakening community-led governance, it sets a dangerous precedent: that minority institutions can be regulated differently, with fewer rights and less autonomy.
This has specific policy consequences:
It creates a legal basis for disproportionate surveillance and interference in Muslim communal life.
It opens the door to state acquisition of Waqf lands, many of which serve vital roles in education, health, and welfare for poor and marginalized populations.
It undermines institutional parity between religious communities, eroding the constitutional commitment to equal treatment under the law.
In a democracy, laws like this can be used—now or in the future—to weaken dissent, disempower communities, and concentrate authority. If we allow one community’s institutions to be treated as exceptions, we normalize a governance model that is less participatory, less just, and less democratic for all.
This isn’t only about religious rights and Muslim rights in India. It’s about what kind of public institutions, land governance, and civil society space we are willing to defend—for all citizens and comunities in a democracy.
KEEP UP WITH ALL THE HfHR NEWS