Waqf Amendment Bill: A new chapter in undermining minority rights in India

Despite fierce resistance from opposition leaders and prominent Muslim voices, the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, was passed in both houses of Parliament. Photo: Collected

Last week, the Modi government in India pushed through a controversial bill that could dramatically reshape the control and character of Waqf properties — religious and charitable endowments that have sustained Muslim life in India for centuries.

Despite fierce resistance from opposition leaders, including Rahul Gandhi, Mallikarjun Kharge, Supriya Sule, AAP's Sanjay Singh, and several prominent Muslim voices who called it "unconstitutional", the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, was passed in both houses of Parliament.

The bill introduces several changes that have raised concerns among many in the Muslim community. It allows non-Muslims to be appointed to Waqf boards, gives district collectors authority over disputed Waqf properties, and removes protections for properties that have been used for years but do not have official documentation. 

It also places new restrictions on Muslims who have recently converted and want to make religious endowments.

While the Modi administration has justified the amendments in the name of transparency and anti-corruption, there is little reason to take these claims at face value. Instead, this legislation looks not merely a bureaucratic change but a worrying sign of a more coordinated effort to undermine minority rights in India.

Indian Muslims, who make up 14% of the country's 1.4 billion population, are the largest minority group in a Hindu-majority nation. Yet, they are also among the poorest, as highlighted by a 2013 government survey. 

Many people worry that this bill is part of a larger trend of Muslim marginalisation under the Modi government — one that has encouraged anti-Muslim vigilante groups, made interfaith marriages and religious conversions more difficult and led to Muslims being harassed over what they eat, wear, or believe in.

This sidelining isn't just social — it's institutional too. You can see it in the renaming of cities and landmarks, the slow erasure of Muslim cultural identity, and their dwindling presence in key spaces of power. 

Today, Muslims make up just 5% of the Indian Parliament, hold only 16 out of 265 Supreme Court seats, and occupy fewer than 250 of the country's 11,500 administrative officer roles.

As recently as last month, the US Commission on International Religious Freedom reported that religious freedom in India continues to decline, pointing out that Prime Minister Modi and his party have been spreading hateful rhetoric and misinformation targeting Muslims and other minority communities.

In light of these developments, it is only natural to anticipate that the Waqf (Amendment) Bill could lay the legal groundwork for a new phase — an outright campaign of dispossession. 

What's wrong with the bill

The Waqf properties include tens of thousands of mosques, madrasas, shrines, orphanages, and graveyards, managed by Muslims in India for generations. According to the Indian government, there are at least 872,351 Waqf properties in India, with an estimated total value of 1.2 trillion rupees (around $14.22 billion). 

There are 32 state Waqf boards that together run over 2,000 educational institutions and hundreds of health clinics, primarily serving the poor. Yet, the passing of the new bill casts doubt on the future of these institutions.

One of the most contentious aspects of the bill is the inclusion of non-Muslim members in the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards. Traditionally, these bodies have been exclusively managed by Muslims, following Islamic principles governing Waqf properties. 

So the new move departs from the established norms governing other religious boards in India, such as those managing Hindu, Jain and Sikh endowments, which mandate that only members of the respective faiths can serve on their boards. 

The unprecedented inclusion of non-Muslim members in the Waqf boards not only challenges this precedent but also raises concerns about potential external influences that may not align with the religious and charitable objectives of these Islamic institutions, sparking fears of a hostile takeover.

The bill also grants district collectors the authority to determine the status of disputed Waqf properties, significantly reducing the decision-making powers of Waqf Boards and encroaching on their autonomy. 

This centralisation of control also raises concerns that it could sideline the Muslim community's role in managing their religious endowments and pave the way for increased governmental overreach, particularly under a regime often accused of hostility towards minorities.

Another major point of contention is the abolition of the "Waqf by user" provision. 

Historically, many mosques, graveyards, shrines, and other religious sites were founded based on oral declarations or community traditions, with their status as Waqf confirmed through continuous public use over generations.

Now the removal of this provision could jeopardise numerous properties that have been utilised by the Muslim community for religious purposes over centuries but may lack formal deeds. 

The Modi-led Indian government has already used the lack of formal title as a pretext to destroy hundreds of Muslim-owned properties, deploying a brand of so-called "bulldozer justice" condemned by India's Supreme Court and human rights organisations all over the world.

Considering this previous use of state violence, it would not be surprising if the elimination of the "Waqf by user" provision could be used to legally expand this persecutory campaign. 

For example, in February 2023, the Union Ministry of Urban Affairs announced its decision to take over 123 properties, after an order from a two-member commission "absolved" the Delhi Waqf Board from all matters related to them.

So, the proposed amendment could be a way to appropriate such Waqf properties, while it also increases the risk of Muslim religious sites being targeted by Hindutva groups, who might claim that these structures are on government land and declare them as disputed sites.

The proposed law includes another peculiar clause stating that individuals who convert to Islam must wait five years before making an endowment. 

It effectively forces new converts to prove their commitment over a set period — a requirement that has no basis in traditional Islamic jurisprudence. In Islam, the acceptance of the Kalma (the declaration of faith) is all that is required to be considered a Muslim — no third party or cleric plays a role in the conversion. 

So, to suddenly impose a five-year waiting period before a convert can make an endowment hardly makes any sense, other than the scepticism that such a rule might not only discourage genuine converts from contributing but could also be perceived as a politically motivated measure to control religious endowments. 

Thus, despite the government's portrayal of the Waqf Amendment Bill as a step towards greater transparency, its broader implications could severely undermine the autonomy and rights of the Muslim community in India.