In early March 2025, The Economist published an article titled “A new law targets India’s third-biggest landowner: Allah,” which painted a sensational, fear-driven narrative of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The piece accused the Indian government of using the amendment as a tool to seize Muslim-owned land, framing it as part of a Hindu nationalist agenda. However, a closer examination of the facts and Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s detailed speech on the matter reveals a different picture. The new legislation aims to address decades of abuse within the Waqf system, rather than promote any form of religious persecution.
The Waqf system was originally designed as a charitable endowment to benefit the Muslim community, particularly the poor, orphaned, and unemployed. However, over the years, the system became an avenue for political manipulation and corruption. As Amit Shah explained in his Lok Sabha speech, the Waqf Act, which was intended to ensure the proper management of such endowments, had been exploited for land grabs. State Waqf Boards across India began claiming properties with no clear documentation or evidence that they were ever part of the Waqf system.
The result was a massive increase in land claims. From 1913 to 2013, Waqf lands in India amounted to 18 lakh acres. However, in just the last decade, 21 lakh additional acres were claimed, often by dubious means. As Shah highlighted, many of these claims involved government properties, private lands, and even religious spaces belonging to Hindu temples, Gurudwaras, and churches.
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, aims to restore accountability and transparency to the system. Shah emphasized that the new law does not target any specific community but seeks to address the rampant misuse of Waqf properties. One of the key changes is the introduction of a Charity Commissioner, whose role will be administrative and will not interfere in religious matters. This is similar to the administrative oversight already in place for Hindu trusts and Christian religious organizations.
Additionally, the new law mandates that district collectors verify the titles of Waqf land. This ensures that, just like temple lands, Waqf properties are subjected to clear legal ownership procedures. Shah argued that if temple lands are required to be verified, Waqf lands should follow the same standards, ensuring fairness and consistency.
Before the amendment, Waqf Boards held significant power to declare land as Waqf property without proper oversight. This led to numerous cases of land being claimed without adequate proof, creating a system ripe for abuse. In his speech, Shah pointed to instances like the lease of a Rs 500 crore property in Karnataka to a five-star hotel for just Rs 12,000 a month, or the illegal claims on land belonging to temples in Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu.
The amendment seeks to prevent such abuses by holding Waqf Boards accountable for the properties under their control. It also aims to ensure that Waqf funds, which should have been directed to the poor and needy, are used for their intended purpose. Shah stressed that the annual income from Waqf properties, despite their vast land holdings, was a mere Rs 126 crore, which further underscores the need for reform.
Despite the clear goals of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, The Economist and other foreign outlets have framed it as part of a broader Hindu nationalist agenda. They have suggested that the amendments could lead to the dismantling of Muslim identity and that Hindu nationalists will seize land from Muslims. However, this narrative is misleading and does not reflect the true intent of the law.
Shah made it clear that the government’s reforms do not interfere with the religious aspects of Waqf. Muslim control over Waqf properties, including the roles of Mutawalli (caretakers) and Waqif (donors), will remain intact. The only change is the addition of administrative oversight to ensure that the system is transparent and accountable.
Opposition parties have criticized the Bill, claiming that it was rushed and lacked proper consultation. However, the legislative process for the Waqf (Amendment) Act was thorough and transparent. It was debated for 16 hours in both Houses of Parliament and examined in over 38 committee meetings with input from 284 stakeholders. In contrast, the 2013 amendment, which further entrenched the power of Waqf Boards, was passed in a mere 5.5 hours.
The amendment has garnered support not only from Hindu groups but also from some Muslim organizations and Christian groups, who recognize the risks posed by the unchecked power of Waqf Boards over the years. Some within the Muslim community have even acknowledged the need for reform to ensure a more equitable distribution of Waqf funds, particularly for neglected sects like Shias and Sufis.
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, is not about religious conflict; it is about bringing legal clarity and financial transparency to a system that was long overdue for reform. By addressing the mismanagement and abuse of Waqf properties, the law ensures that the benefits meant for the Muslim community will finally reach those who need them the most.
Critics, like The Economist, may continue to push a narrative of fear and division, but the truth is that the Waqf reforms are a step towards justice. The Waqf system, which owns vast amounts of land across India, has failed to uplift the poorest Muslims. The responsibility for this lies not with the government or the Hindu nationalist agenda, but with decades of mismanagement under the guise of “secular” protection.
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, is an important move towards ensuring that Waqf properties are managed transparently and used for their intended charitable purposes. The law brings much-needed accountability to the Waqf system, preventing the misuse of land and funds that should be helping the poor. As India moves forward, the focus should remain on ensuring that the benefits of these reforms reach the intended communities, rather than falling prey to misleading narratives and fear-mongering.
In the end, the Waqf (Amendment) Act is not a tool for religious oppression but a necessary reform that will benefit all communities by ensuring justice, transparency, and accountability in the management of religious endowments.
Comments