Waqf Bill Controversy: 7 Shocking Ways the New Law Dismantles Muslim Rights – Chidambaram & Rahul Gandhi Slam BJP’s Agenda

The new Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, has ignited fierce criticism from opposition leaders like P. Chidambaram and Rahul Gandhi, who argue it targets Muslim rights under the guise of reform. The bill imposes vague and restrictive conditions for creating a waqf, removes protections like “waqf by user,” and controversially allows non-Muslims on State Waqf Boards — a move seen as deeply discriminatory. It also empowers government officials to decide ownership disputes, raising concerns about fairness and bias.

Critics say this amendment undermines Article 26 of the Constitution, which guarantees religious groups the right to manage their own institutions. Rahul Gandhi warned that such laws could set a precedent, potentially affecting other minority communities like the Catholic Church. BJP leaders, however, defend the bill, claiming it targets corruption and misuse by political elites, not the Muslim community itself. The controversy reflects broader concerns about shrinking minority rights and increasing central control over religious institutions in India.

Waqf Bill Controversy: 7 Shocking Ways the New Law Dismantles Muslim Rights – Chidambaram & Rahul Gandhi Slam BJP’s Agenda

The controversy surrounding the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, reflects a clash between concerns over religious autonomy and accusations of state overreach, set against India’s complex socio-political landscape. Here’s a structured analysis:

Key Issues Raised by Critics (Chidambaram & Congress):

1. Religious Autonomy Under Threat:
   • Article 26 Concerns: The bill is seen as infringing on Muslims’ constitutional right to manage religious institutions. Requiring proof of “five years of practising Islam” to create a waqf is vague and unenforceable, potentially excluding legitimate donors.
   • Non-Muslims on Waqf Boards: Critics argue this undermines self-governance, contrasting with Hindu boards managed exclusively by Hindus. The risk of biased appointments by a majority government raises fears of dilution of Muslim representation.
2. Legal and Procedural Ambiguities:
   • “Contrivance” Clause: The lack of clarity on proving a waqf is not a “trick” could lead to arbitrary rejections.
   • Dispute Resolution Bias: Government officers adjudicating disputes involving state claims to Waqf land create a conflict of interest, risking unfair outcomes.
3. Erosion of Traditional Practices:
   • Abolishing “Waqf by User”: This change could dispossess communities of properties historically used for religious purposes but lacking formal registration.
   • Limitation Act Application: This opens the door to adverse possession claims, potentially enabling encroachers to legalize occupation of Waqf land over time.
4. Broader Political Agenda:
   • Linked to the BJP’s wider initiatives (NRC/CAA, UCC, J&K reorganization), critics view the bill as part of a pattern targeting Muslim institutions and rights.

BJP’s Defense (Chandrasekhar):

1. Anti-Corruption & Reform:
   • The bill aims to rectify alleged mismanagement under the 2013 UPA amendments, redirecting Waqf resources to benefit poorer Muslims rather than “elite politicians.”
   • Dismisses Congress’s warnings as fearmongering, emphasizing that lawful land ownership by entities like the Railways or the Church is not under threat.
2. Counteraccusations:
   • Accuses Congress and Waqf Boards of historical land grabs (e.g., in Karnataka) and of spreading misinformation during parliamentary debates.
3. Rhetoric vs. Reality:
   • While defending the bill’s intent, Chandrasekhar sidesteps specifics on how non-Muslim board members or Limitation Act provisions ensure fairness.

Critical Analysis:

• Constitutional & Legal Context:
  • Article 26: While religious groups have autonomy, the state can regulate the secular activities of religious institutions. The bill’s constitutionality hinges on whether the amendments are deemed “reasonable restrictions.”
  • Comparative Religious Laws: Hindu temples are state-controlled in many regions (e.g., Tamil Nadu), unlike Christian or Sikh institutions. This inconsistency highlights selective state intervention in religious affairs.
• Political Undertones:
  • Majoritarianism vs. Secularism: The BJP frames the bill as “reform,” while opponents see it as consolidating majoritarian control. Rahul Gandhi’s Catholic Church analogy, though speculative, underscores anxieties about expanding state interference.
  • Election Dynamics: With the BJP reduced to 240 seats in 2024, the opposition frames the bill as part of an unchecked majoritarian agenda, despite electoral setbacks.
• Unanswered Questions:
  • How will “practising Muslim” status be verified? Could this lead to exclusion or bureaucratic harassment?
  • Is there evidence that previous Waqf Boards misused their powers, justifying increased state oversight?
  • Why target Waqf laws without initiating similar reforms for other religious trusts?

Conclusion:

The Waqf Bill controversy encapsulates tensions between regulatory reform and minority rights. While the BJP positions it as an anti-corruption measure, critics perceive a systemic erosion of Muslim institutional autonomy. A balanced resolution requires transparent dialogue, legal clarity on ambiguous clauses, and ensuring the amendments align with constitutional safeguards for religious minorities. The debate ultimately tests India’s commitment to pluralism in the face of rising majoritarian politics.