Pakistan, April 9 — The Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2024, which aims to modify the 1995 Waqf Act, was recently approved by India’s upper parliamentary chamber. This bill not only reflects the discriminatory ideology known as Punyabhumi but also indicates that the Indian government is embracing strategies similar to those employed under Netanyahu’s administration, suggesting a shift toward an ‘India-ization’ model akin to Israel’s approach.
The suggested changes have considerable constitutional issues, notably concerning Articles 14, 25, and 26 of the Indian Constitution. These articles guarantee equal treatment under the law, personal liberty regarding faith, and the authority to oversee religious practices. Additionally, these modifications violate the standards set forth in the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities. This declaration was established through Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 by the General Assembly with resolution 47/135 on December 18, 1992.
The content of this legislation clearly indicates an intention to weaken and sideline the already disadvantaged Muslim population. It sends a strong message: Everyone is equal within the Indian Union, yet minorities are treated as lesser equals. This law is becoming increasingly aligned with Hindu nationalist principles.
This legislation aims to diminish the independence of Muslim Waqf properties and take control over lands that were traditionally set aside for spiritual and philanthropic uses.
The extent of Waqf property sheds light on the wider implications of legislative efforts towards Hindu nationalism. The total area encompassed by Muslim Waqf properties spans roughly 5,045 square kilometers. To put this into perspective, this region is almost double the size of Mauritius, which covers an area of 2,040 square kilometers. Additionally, it is nearly six times greater than both Singapore’s and Bahrain’s territories. In fact, this expanse exceeds the land areas of at least 26 nations globally. These legal actions suggest that India may be aiming to claim control over these lands.
In India, Muslim Waqf comes under the scope of personal law. The nation has considerably modified the legal framework concerning personal law by permitting the participation of non-Muslims on committees responsible for overseeing charitable trusts, thereby increasing governmental oversight over these entities’ property rights as well. Up until recently, such management boards were composed exclusively of Muslims; however, provisions have now been introduced to allow non-Muslim representation.
The issue under discussion is: Why are non-Muslim members being incorporated into Waqf Boards when Hindu endowment boards do not allow non-Hindus to participate? It raises the question of whether there could ever be a requirement for non-Hindus to serve on temple boards as well.
The suggested revision shows clear discriminatory traits, specifically requiring Hindus to manage the private affairs of Muslim groups, while also enforcing limitations on everyone who isn’t Muslim, stopping them from allocating properties for waqf uses. Additionally, new converts to Islam must wait an extra five years before qualifying to designate property for such purposes.
Importantly, the previous amendment in 2013 explicitly stated that “any person” had the right to dedicate property for waqf, thus indicating a significant regression in legal inclusivity with the introduction of the current amendment.
The requirement of a five-year probation period is both unfair and racially motivated legislation. According to Islamic legal principles, there isn’t a set probation time for people who adopt the religion. Once someone converts to Islam—a person often called a “new Muslim”—they receive complete religious standing immediately upon conversion. Such individuals have all the same rights and duties as those raised within the faith right from the start. Labeling Muslims as ‘full’ or ‘partial’ appears to be an effort to impose Hindu nationalist ideologies onto Islamic law.
Moreover, this law has reduced the safeguards provided under Waqf regulations, leading to increased assertions—by both state bodies and private entities—over Waqf assets. Such actions have thus legitimized their appropriation. Consequently, this could embolden more intrusions and streamline procedures for Collectors and District Magistrates to take charge of Waqf estates.
The global community needs to take action before it becomes too late. Minorities in India do not feel secure; their appeals frequently get drowned out amidst widespread apathy. We teeter on the edge of silence, where each voice holds significance, but countless continue to go unnoticed.
