EDITORIAL: India’s Waqf (Amendment) Bill, passed swiftly through parliament under the Modi government, is being hailed by its proponents as a long-overdue step towards transparency.
In reality, it reads less like reform and more like another calculated encroachment on the rights of an already marginalised community. Critics are right to see this as part of a sustained pattern – a creeping institutional takeover of minority-administered assets under the guise of governance improvements.
The bill introduces over 40 amendments to the Waqf Act, including the unprecedented appointment of non-Muslim members to Waqf boards, as well as new criteria for eligibility, decision-making, and internal functioning. Government narratives frame these changes as efforts to stem corruption and mismanagement, but the reformist veneer collapses under scrutiny.
Structural oversight mechanisms can be strengthened without displacing the community’s custodianship. When a religious minority’s institutions are forcibly altered by a Hindu nationalist-majority government, suspicion isn’t just warranted – it’s inevitable.
Waqf properties have served as the socio-economic backbone for India’s Muslim population. They fund schools, hospitals, mosques, orphanages, and other charitable endeavours.
The state’s intrusion into this space isn’t happening in a vacuum. It comes after years of anti-Muslim rhetoric and policies – ranging from the discriminatory Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), to the abrogation of Article 370 in Muslim-majority Kashmir, to bulldozer demolitions of Muslim-owned properties without due process. In this context, the Waqf amendments cannot be isolated from the broader climate of majoritarian assertiveness.
The inclusion of non-Muslim officials on Waqf boards is framed as a measure of transparency, but in practical terms, it enables state control over assets whose very definition and management are deeply embedded in Islamic jurisprudence. It is difficult to imagine the same logic applied to Hindu temple trusts.
One cannot help but see the double standard. Likewise, the mandatory inclusion of Muslim women – already enabled under existing law – appears as a tokenistic insertion meant to give the bill a progressive spin, while doing little to assuage the core concern: loss of autonomy.
By stripping decision-making power from the community itself, the state redefines what a Waqf is, not just administratively, but theologically. It transforms a religious trust into a quasi-public asset – one that can be more easily regulated, or worse, expropriated. In a country where land is deeply political and often communally contested, that’s not a neutral move; it’s a provocation.
If the government’s aim were truly reformist, it would have engaged meaningfully with stakeholders within the Muslim community, including scholars, jurists, and existing Waqf administrators. Instead, the amendments were rushed through parliament with little consultation and even less debate. The haste betrays intent.
India’s diversity has historically been one of its greatest strengths. But diversity without equality becomes a tool of division.
The Waqf amendments, far from being a stride toward institutional improvement, represent yet another attempt to consolidate control by eroding the space for minority self-governance. What is at stake here is not just property – it is the principle of pluralism in the world’s largest democracy. And that principle, once hollowed out, is not easily restored.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025