The government has tabled the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development Act in Parliament. This law will update the Waqf Act of 1995. The proposed changes have sparked strong and divided opinions.

What is Waqf land?

Waqf refers to properties donated for charitable purposes. Once a person donates a property as Waqf, they cannot take it back. The ownership is transferred, and the property is managed by 32 State Waqf Boards.

How much Waqf land is there?

India has around 9.4 lakh acres of Waqf land, valued at about ₹1.2 lakh crore. This makes Waqf Boards the third-largest landowners in India, after the armed forces and railways.

What are the key changes in the new law?

Changes in the Central Council:

• Previously, only Muslims were part of the Central Waqf Council. Now, it must include at least two non-Muslim members.
• Three MPs in the Council can also be from any religion.

Legal Appeals:

• Earlier, decisions made by the Waqf Board and Waqf Tribunal were final.
• Now, their decisions can be challenged in the High Court.

Government Property Protection:

• No government property can be declared as Waqf property.
• This rule will also apply to past cases.
• If there is a dispute, a government-appointed officer will decide the matter.

Who Can Donate to Waqf:

• Only a person who has practiced Islam for at least five years can donate property as Waqf.

Ending “Waqf by User”:

• Earlier, if a property was used for Waqf-related purposes for a long time, it was automatically considered Waqf land.
• This rule is now removed.

Removing Section 40:

• Previously, Waqf Boards had the power to decide if a property was Waqf land.
• This power has now been taken away.

Reactions to the Bill

The changes have led to political debates. Some Muslim organizations and political parties argue that the government is trying to take away Muslim-owned land. They also criticise the reduction in the powers of Waqf Boards and the increase in government control over Waqf properties.

To understand the impact of these changes, CNBC-TV18 spoke to Congress spokesperson Bhavya Narasimhamurthy, Wisdom Foundation’s Zeenat Shaukat Ali, and BJP spokesperson Ali Daruwala.

Below are the excerpts of the discussion.

Q: The concern that has been raised by the opposition parties is that this entire move is being designed to strip the minority population of its franchise, to take away the population’s assets, and that it potentially violates the Constitution. Why is the opposition against this? I ask you this because the image that Kiren Rijiju today gave while tabling the bill was that “sunlight is the best disinfectant.” He said, “We want to bring about more transparency, and therefore, it’s good to have that degree of oversight.” That’s the impression the government is giving. Why is the opposition against it?

Narasimhamurthy: Bringing transparency to Waqf property has nothing to do with this particular bill. You have to understand the chronology. We’ve seen their bulldozer politics, how they try to demonise the Muslim community, and today they are directly targeting the Constitution of India—the basic fundamental rights that it grants every citizen of this country, irrespective of religion, granting equal rights. They are trying to change that, starting with Article 26 and Article 30. Article 26 ensures the freedom to manage religious affairs, and Article 30 protects the rights of minorities in this country. This Waqf bill completely goes against these two fundamental rights of the Constitution.

When you ask how can one religious agency be governed by someone belonging to another religion? How is that even acceptable? According to this bill, Waqf Boards can be monitored or governed by a person belonging to another religion. Which religion would accept this? I’m a Hindu. I don’t think any religious group would accept someone else managing their religious affairs.

Moreover, it even has some restrictions on defining a Muslim. They propose that someone must have been a Muslim for the past five years to be recognised as such. This is a complete violation of minority rights for their political gains. We have seen how their bulldozer politics target minorities. Our party has always stood for the constitutional rights of every Indian, whether Muslim, Hindu, Jain, Sikh, or Christian.

Q: The question being raised by the opposition parties is that many changes introduced in the bill are not consistent with either the beliefs or the practices of the Muslim community. They are not welcoming this change and fear it will disenfranchise the Muslims. That is the concern raised by various opposition parties. Your quick rebuttal to that?

Daruwala: I would like to ask the spokesperson of Congress, who has appointed her as the spokesperson for the Muslim community? Congress does not represent us – Muslims. We have our own identity. When the JPC was there, we had given them ample time to raise concerns. There were 22 recommendations that were incorporated.

They had concerns about the collector being on the board. We addressed that concern by removing the collector and appointing someone higher up instead. The most important thing was the issue of non-Muslims being on the board. This did not even raise an eyebrow among the people who were part of the JPC. They welcomed this change.

Take the example of the Siddhivinayak Temple Trust—the largest congregation in Maharashtra. The caretaker of the temple in Jejuri is a Muslim. The Tirupati Trust has Muslim members. So why this hatred? Why does Congress have a problem when we Muslims don’t have a problem?

Q: The question raised by many constitutional experts and opposition leaders is about the stripping of powers related to the designation of land. For instance, no government land will be designated as Waqf land, going forward or even retrospectively. Additionally, Waqf lands used for charitable purposes—such as mosques or graveyards—will be discontinued under this law. Are we paving the way for more litigation and conflict over the management of 9.5 lakh acres of land?

Ali: That is a strong point, and litigation is inevitable. In UP, we have already been told that a large amount of land has been taken away. I don’t know whether this is factual or not, but it is said that 11,000 acres have been taken away.

Land is the most contentious issue in the world. Wars are fought over land. Look at Gaza, for example. When ownership of land is questioned, litigations even reach the United Nations, and so far, we haven’t seen a consensus.

Religion is meant for spirituality and to unite people. Religion is for making people compassionate, humble and caring for each other. Unfortunately, the misuse of religion today has become such that we have begun to dislike, hate and suspect each other.

Watch the video for more