The Perversion Must End: A Wake-Up Call on the Waqf Act

The Act is one of the most opaque and draconian laws in a country that prides itself on its secularism, and ought to be repealed forthwith.

The Waqf (Amendment) bill was passed by Parliament after fierce discussion. If the lies and rhetoric unleashed by the opposition are any indication, it looks certain that the Goebbelsian campaign against the bill will continue in many different ways. The government will be branded ‘anti-minority’ and ‘fascist’ and the noise about the constitution being in danger will rise to a crescendo. This apparent concern for the minorities is, of course, only a window dressing for Muslim appeasement, as can be seen from the fact that the Church has come out in open support of the proposed amendment. In this cacophony, one would do well to focus on the facts of the matter before forming any opinion.

Here are some facts about the draconian nature of the Waqf act and the absurdities that have arisen from its implementation. Waqf is the third largest land owner in India after Defence and Railways. Seventy seven percent of Delhi is on Waqf land including the Delhi High Court and even the parliament building. Many of these properties were reclaimed by the government over the last few decades. But in a fit of ‘secularism,’ the outgoing Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government in 2014, gifted 123 prime properties in Delhi to Waqf by withdrawing its claim on them. Mukesh Ambani’s home allegedly sits on Waqf land. Even more bizarre is the case of the 1,500-year-old Manendiyavalli Chandrashekharaswamy temple in Tamil Nadu and all the land of Tiruchendurai village in Tiruchirappalli district, which the Waqf Board has claimed as its property. If one asks how can a 1,500- year-old temple be Waqf property when Islam itself is 1400 years old, it becomes abundantly clear that reason, logic, the basic principles of justice and common sense do not apply to any discussion on the Waqf act.

A Waqf is an inalienable charitable endowment under Islamic law. It involves donating a building, a plot of land or other assets for Muslim religious or charitable purposes. These assets are owned by Allah and can never be returned or reclaimed. Once a Waqf, always a Waqf. Historically in India and elsewhere, Waqf has been used for seizing religious properties of others, conversions and spread of Islam. During India’s Islamic period, when the legal system was controlled by the clerics who were guided by the Sharia law, the Waqf was used to create a Sufi network all over the country. Waqf’s money power enabled them to indulge in mass religious conversions.

After Partition, while the government confiscated or redistributed the properties of Hindus who fled from Pakistan, it allowed Muslim properties belonging to those who migrated to Pakistan to be handed over to the Waqf Boards. This created a powerful religious elite with vast resources at their disposal, with little to no accountability. In practice, the Boards have rarely used this wealth for the upliftment of ordinary Muslims; instead, they have entrenched clerical power and fuelled grievance-based politics.

The original 1954 Waqf Act was amended in 1964, 1969 and 1984, but it was the 1995 overhaul under a Congress-led government that conferred sweeping and deeply problematic powers upon the Waqf Boards, thus making a mockery of justice, rule of law and secularism. These included the authority to unilaterally declare any property as Waqf, the establishment of a Waqf Tribunal composed solely of Muslims, and legal protections that make Board decisions nearly impossible to challenge in ordinary courts.

Under Section 40 of the 1995 Act, the Waqf Board is empowered to decide whether a piece of land is Waqf or not - an extraordinary provision in a secular democracy. The cost of conducting the requisite land survey is borne not by the Board, but by the taxpayer. There is no requirement to conduct a public hearing, and the Board is under no obligation to communicate its claim directly to the property owner. Instead, it merely needs to publish a list, and it is the responsibility of each citizen to check if their land appears on it. If the owner fails to object within a year, the claim is automatically accepted. Crucially, there is no statute of limitation applicable to the Waqf Board itself as it can lay claim to any property at any time, regardless of how much time has passed.

And the burden of proof? It rests not with the Board, but with the alleged encroacher, who can challenge the decision only before the Waqf Tribunal, not a regular civil court. The Board can even allege oral donation, supported by supposed usage, such as an informal dargah or cemetery, to appropriate land. Many government lands have been acquired in this manner as Waqf.

This is not just legal absurdity but legislative apartheid. No democracy worthy of its name can allow a parallel judicial structure where only members of one community are judge, jury and beneficiary. It is a medieval hangover dressed in the garb of secularism.

Under Section 54, it has the power to label any property owner as an ‘encroacher’ and demand their eviction, which the local administration is legally obliged to enforce. It is a system that upends fundamental tenets of natural justice.

Such a bizarre law should not exist even for a moment in a country that calls itself ‘secular.’ It must be repealed forthwith in its totality. However, the perverted definition of secularism is so overpowering in our country that this may not happen anytime soon. But the government has done well to make a beginning by getting the amendment passed which one hopes will bring some sense of sanity by controlling the depths of madness to which our country has sunk in the name of ‘secularism.’

Opposition leaders who now decry the amendment as “anti-Muslim” conveniently overlook the fact that such laws were never pro-poor or pro-minority but pro-cleric. True secularism demands equality before the law, not institutionalised double standards. If anything, curbing the unchecked powers of religious boards is a step towards genuine secular governance.

If India is to call itself a secular, democratic republic, then parallel legal systems run by unaccountable clerics must be dismantled. The perversion must end. A state that fears confronting clerical overreach has already surrendered the moral ground it claims to stand on. India cannot tiptoe around institutionalised inequality while pretending to be a modern republic.

That such a system has not only endured but expanded under the watch of so-called ‘secular’ governments speaks to the intellectual dishonesty at the heart of India’s political consensus. The Centre’s amendment is but a small step in that direction. This modest amendment at least breaks the spell. It restores, however partially, the idea that religious institutions must operate within the bounds of public accountability. India cannot afford legal fortresses built on theology, insulated from civil oversight.

Our civilisation is not under threat from constitutional amendments, but from the rot within: a pervasive unwillingness to confront legal inconsistencies masquerading as religious rights. In the name of secularism, they have handed over sovereignty to theocrats. American historian Arnold Toynbee once said “civilizations die by suicide not murder.” If we do not want our ancient civilization to commit suicide, we must act firmly against the machinations of the ‘break India forces.’

(The author has penned three books. One of them had exposed Cultural Marxism. His next book is expected to be released in a couple of months. Views personal.)