India’s Waqf Bill 2025: India’s proposed changes to the governance of Muslim endowments, known as waqf properties, have sparked a significant backlash from the Muslim community. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has argued that the amendments aim to root out corruption in the administration of waqf assets, thereby improving efficiency. However, many critics view the move as an infringement on the religious and cultural rights of Muslims and a potential threat to centuries-old properties that hold significant value both spiritually and economically.
Waqf properties, which include mosques, schools, graveyards, and thousands of acres of land, are assets donated by Muslims for religious or charitable purposes. This practice has been a part of Islamic tradition for over 1,400 years and holds deep cultural significance, especially in a country like India, where it has been a cornerstone of the Muslim community’s religious, social, and economic life since the 12th century.
India has a legal framework for managing waqf properties that dates back to the colonial era, with the Waqf Act of 1995 serving as the cornerstone of the governance system. The act ensures the protection of waqf properties and outlines a system for their administration. Under the current law, waqf properties are governed by independent waqf boards that are established by both state and central governments. These boards are responsible for managing properties and ensuring they are used for their intended charitable or religious purposes.
The proposed amendments, however, introduce significant changes that raise concerns among Muslims. One of the most controversial aspects is the shift in governance from the existing waqf boards to state governments. This could make waqf properties more vulnerable to external influence and could further complicate the already difficult task of protecting these properties from encroachment, mismanagement, and legal disputes. Critics argue that local politicians may exploit this shift to gain control over valuable properties, especially in areas where land values have skyrocketed in recent years.
For instance, waqf properties in urban centers, particularly in states like Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, and Kerala, are highly valuable. A 2006 report by the Sachar Committee revealed that the value of waqf properties in New Delhi alone exceeded $720 million, yet the income generated from them was a mere fraction of this value. As land values have increased since the report, the potential worth of waqf properties today is even higher. The proposed changes, by removing the protection offered by independent waqf boards, may make these properties easier targets for commercial development, putting their religious and cultural significance at risk.
Another major concern is the proposed removal of waqf by user properties. Many waqf properties, including mosques, graveyards, and schools, have been in use for centuries without formal documentation. These properties, which make up up to 60 percent of waqf assets, could now be subject to legal challenges. For the Muslim community, this is not just a legal issue—it is a matter of preserving religious heritage. The removal of waqf by user could lead to lengthy disputes over the ownership of mosques and graveyards, potentially resulting in the demolition of religious structures that have stood for centuries.
The amendments also propose changes to the composition of waqf boards. Currently, waqf boards are required to have Muslim members, ensuring that the interests of the community are adequately represented. However, the new bill seeks to allow non-Muslims to be members of the boards, raising concerns about the potential for conflicts of interest. Critics argue that allowing non-Muslims to control waqf assets could lead to the undermining of Muslim religious rights, particularly in regions where the Muslim population is already a minority and has been facing increasing marginalization.
Moreover, the new bill suggests that decisions made by waqf tribunals could be challenged in higher courts, a significant departure from the current system where tribunal decisions are final. The tribunals were designed to handle waqf-related disputes efficiently, providing a specialized platform for resolving issues without burdening regular courts. Critics argue that the proposed changes would slow down the process, leading to more prolonged legal battles and creating further uncertainty for Muslim communities relying on the tribunal system.
The most troubling aspect of the proposed amendments, however, is the perception that they are part of a broader agenda to diminish the rights of religious minorities in India. Some critics argue that the changes are designed not to reform the waqf system, but to undermine it and strip the Muslim community of its ability to manage its own religious and charitable institutions. The timing of these amendments, coming at a time of growing political polarization in India, has raised suspicions that the government may be attempting to weaken Muslim institutions to appeal to its majority Hindu voter base.
In Uttar Pradesh, for example, which has the largest concentration of waqf properties in India, there are fears that the amendments could be used as a tool to target Muslim religious sites. The state government, under Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, has been accused of fostering an environment of hostility towards Muslims, and many worry that the new waqf law could lead to further marginalization of the community.
There is also a strong argument to be made that the proposed changes fail to adequately address the real issues facing the waqf system. Corruption and mismanagement are indeed problems within the system, but critics argue that the proposed amendments do not provide a genuine solution. Instead of stripping Muslims of their control over waqf properties, reforms should focus on improving transparency, accountability, and the efficiency of the existing waqf boards. By involving the Muslim community in the reform process and ensuring that their voices are heard, the government could achieve meaningful reforms that protect both the rights of Muslims and the integrity of the waqf system.
In conclusion, the proposed changes to India’s waqf laws represent a significant step backward for religious freedom and minority rights. While the government’s intentions may be to root out corruption, the amendments risk opening the door to the seizure of religious properties and further eroding the rights of Muslims in India. To ensure that these reforms are fair and just, the government must engage with the Muslim community and address their concerns rather than imposing unilateral changes that could have far-reaching consequences for religious harmony in the country.
