Protests, Power, and the Future of Waqf Properties

The recent passage of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, has set off a wave of violent protests in various parts of India, particularly in West Bengal. What started as a political move to address the mismanagement of waqf properties quickly escalated into widespread unrest, with many people believing that the bill undermines religious autonomy. Protests erupted across the region, creating a deep divide in communities and sparking intense debates about the future of waqf governance in the country. 

The Waqf (Amendment) Bill was initially introduced with the intent to modernize the waqf system, which had long been plagued by mismanagement, encroachment, and poor oversight. The bill aimed to bring more transparency and accountability by mandating the registration of waqf properties, setting up a two-member tribunal to resolve disputes, and including non-Muslim members on Waqf Boards to ensure impartiality. The goal was to restore order and prevent further misuse of properties meant for charitable, educational, and religious purposes. However, instead of bringing about reform, it has stirred strong emotions and sparked violent protests. 

At the heart of the controversy is the concern among Muslim communities that the bill could lead to increased government control over their religious institutions. The inclusion of non-Muslim members on the Waqf Boards has drawn criticism for threatening the autonomy of Muslim religious bodies. In West Bengal, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee voiced strong opposition, arguing that the bill infringes upon the rights of Muslim religious institutions. This political standoff has contributed to the growing tension, which has fueled protests in areas like Murshidabad, Malda, South 24 Parganas, and Hooghly. 

Historically, waqf properties have been crucial in supporting community services such as mosques, schools, and hospitals. Unfortunately, many of these properties have fallen prey to encroachment, mismanagement, and corruption. According to a 2019 National Commission on Waqf report, nearly 60% of waqf properties in India were either illegally occupied or misused. This issue has left communities deprived of resources that should have been used to support their welfare, prompting the need for legal reform. 

The bill's provisions, including mandatory registration of waqf properties and a tribunal system for resolving disputes, were meant to bring some order to this chaos. However, these measures have been met with resistance. Critics argue that the bill’s provisions may open the door for government intervention in religious matters, especially given the political backdrop. The fear is that this could lead to further polarization and erode the autonomy of Muslim communities over their own religious affairs.  

The protests have turned violent, particularly in West Bengal's Murshidabad district, where clashes between protesters and police forces have led to widespread chaos. Roads have been blocked, vehicles set on fire, and train services disrupted as people rally against the bill. In some areas, the violence has become so intense that residents have been forced to flee their homes, fearing for their safety.  

This unrest underscores the complexity of balancing governance, religious rights, and political agendas. While the government's intentions may have been to address the issues surrounding waqf properties, the bill has clearly touched a nerve in India’s diverse social landscape. As the situation continues to evolve, it remains to be seen whether the Waqf (Amendment) Act will achieve its goals or further inflame tensions within the country. 

The unrest sparked by the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, can be traced back to several core reasons, with the inclusion of non-Muslim members in the management of Waqf Boards standing out as one of the most contentious points. For many in the Muslim community, this provision is seen as an infringement on their religious autonomy. Critics argue that non-Muslim members could introduce political influences into the management of religious properties, leading to the potential misuse of waqf assets for non-religious or political purposes. This has created a deep sense of insecurity, especially among communities that already feel marginalized. The fear of losing control over their own religious institutions has only intensified as the government’s oversight is perceived as a tool for political manipulation.  

At the heart of the unrest is the perception that the bill threatens religious and cultural autonomy. Many see the provisions for government oversight and the introduction of external members as unwelcome impositions, particularly in a politically sensitive environment. The bill is viewed by some as a political tool, designed to divide communities and consolidate political power. In areas like Murshidabad, the violence triggered by these protests has taken a toll on local communities. Muslim families, particularly those from lower-income backgrounds who rely on waqf properties for their livelihoods, have been forced to confront the possibility of further marginalization. The violence has pushed many families to temporarily leave the area in search of safety, further destabilizing local communities and businesses. The social fabric of the region has been strained, and the local economy has been negatively impacted by the ongoing disruptions.  

Public sentiment, as gauged by surveys, indicates widespread discontent among affected communities. A survey by Local Circles revealed that more than 60% of respondents in areas directly impacted by the protests disapproved of the bill's provisions, particularly those involving the management of waqf properties and the inclusion of non-Muslim members in Waqf Boards. This unrest reflects a growing unease within the Muslim population, with many questioning the government's motivations behind the bill and fearing its potential consequences for religious governance in India. While some sections of the community are open to reform, the manner in which the bill was passed and its controversial provisions have fostered a deep sense of distrust in the government's intentions. 

What began as a local issue has now become a national debate on the delicate balance between reform and religious autonomy, with both political and social ramifications. The protests highlight the widening rift between the government and communities that feel their cultural and religious freedoms are under threat. The continuing unrest serves as a reminder of the urgent need for dialogue and negotiation, ensuring that the bill’s goals of transparency and accountability in waqf management do not come at the expense of religious freedoms. 

The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, has far-reaching implications for the relationship between state authority and religious institutions, particularly when it comes to Muslim religious organizations. One of the most controversial aspects of the bill is the inclusion of non-Muslim members in Waqf Boards. For many religious leaders, this provision is seen as a direct challenge to the autonomy of religious affairs. Historically, waqf properties have been managed by Muslim communities themselves, with decisions about the use and management of these properties being made within a religious framework. The introduction of non-Muslim members in Waqf Boards is seen as government intervention, undermining this self-governance and potentially allowing political influence to dictate the use of waqf assets.  

For communities that have long prided themselves on their ability to self-regulate, this move is perceived as a threat to their independence in managing their religious institutions. Religious leaders argue that such external oversight could lead to the exploitation and mismanagement of waqf properties, diverting them from their original religious and charitable purposes. While the government’s push for transparency and accountability is important, it must be carefully balanced with the need to preserve religious freedom and autonomy. The tension between religious self-governance and governmental oversight remains one of the central concerns surrounding the bill. 

The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, has stirred up more than just legal and political debates—it has ignited deep communal tensions across India. For many in the Muslim community, the bill is not just seen as a reform but as a direct threat to their cultural and religious identity. The provision that allows non-Muslim members to be included in Waqf Boards has particularly fueled concerns about the erosion of religious autonomy. Critics argue that this could further marginalize the Muslim community, accusing the bill of being a tool of "minority appeasement" that serves to alienate them even more. In regions like Murshidabad, where protests have been most intense, the fear is palpable that this bill could pave the way for more government control over religious matters, which many see as an infringement on their rights. 

What started as a legal change has transformed into a flashpoint for broader communal polarization. Muslim leaders argue that the bill undermines their long-standing control over waqf properties. For a community already grappling with feelings of alienation, this bill seems like another step toward further disenfranchisement. The unrest surrounding the bill has not only deepened divisions between communities but also turned the bill into a political battleground. The growing political polarization has made it difficult to view the bill as just a reform—it's now seen by many as a political tool that could alter the delicate balance of power between India’s religious communities. 

The political implications of the bill have only added fuel to the fire. Opposition parties have jumped on the unrest to frame the bill as an overreach into religious affairs, accusing the ruling government of using it as a way to consolidate political power at the expense of religious freedoms. These parties have rallied against the bill, calling it a direct violation of the autonomy of religious institutions, and have used the protests as a rallying cry to garner support from both Muslim voters and the broader electorate. The protests, amplified by media coverage, have given political opponents a platform to criticize the ruling government's handling of religious matters, framing the bill as another example of political manipulation. 

The long-term political effects of this unrest are likely to be significant. What was intended as a reform to address corruption and mismanagement has become a tool for political polarization. As the unrest continues, it could influence voter sentiment, especially in states with large Muslim populations, potentially affecting the outcome of upcoming elections. The unrest could also reinforce existing political narratives, deepening divisions between the ruling party and opposition parties, which further complicates efforts to foster communal harmony in India. 

In conclusion, the Waqf (Amendment) Bill has become much more than just a discussion about waqf governance. It has become a battleground for deeper issues of religious autonomy, government control, and communal division. While the bill aims to modernize the management of waqf properties, it has also raised concerns about how such reforms can fuel tensions and divisions. As the situation continues to unfold, the political and social dynamics surrounding the bill are likely to evolve, making it a crucial issue for India’s future. 

Proponents of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 argue that the bill is essential for addressing the long-standing inefficiencies, corruption, and encroachments that have plagued waqf properties. They contend that provisions like mandatory property registration, the establishment of a two-member tribunal system, and increased government oversight are necessary to ensure greater transparency and accountability within the waqf system. Supporters point to troubling statistics, such as a 2019 report revealing that over 60% of waqf properties in India are either encroached upon or misused, as evidence of the need for reform. Without intervention, they argue, these properties will continue to be exploited, depriving the community of resources meant for their welfare. 

Supporters also highlight the two-member tribunal system as a means of speeding up the resolution of disputes that often drag on for years in traditional courts. This, they argue, would ensure quicker justice for those who own waqf assets. While critics worry about government control, proponents stress that the aim is not to infringe on religious autonomy but to protect waqf properties from mismanagement. The inclusion of non-Muslim members in Waqf Boards, they argue, is a step toward neutral governance and greater transparency, ensuring that religious properties are managed without political or religious bias. 

While there is no denying the need for reform, many critics argue that the Waqf (Amendment) Act oversteps, particularly with provisions that seem to undermine the religious autonomy of Muslim communities. The inclusion of non-Muslim members in Waqf Boards, for example, is seen as a political interference in the management of religious assets. Critics argue that this provision undermines the principle of self-regulation, which religious institutions have historically enjoyed. By allowing external members, particularly from non-Muslim backgrounds, critics contend that the bill opens the door for political motivations to influence the management of waqf properties, potentially sidelining religious priorities. 

Moreover, while the bill seeks to address the pressing issues of encroachments and mismanagement of waqf properties, many critics believe these goals could have been pursued without threatening the autonomy of Muslim institutions. The bill’s centralized oversight and involvement of external parties are viewed by some as an overreach, especially given concerns that such provisions may be used to advance political agendas under the guise of reform. Instead of resolving the issues at hand, critics argue that the bill’s provisions risk alienating the Muslim community and could ultimately deepen existing divides, polarizing the religious landscape further instead of promoting unity.  

Furthermore, the introduction of a two-member tribunal system aimed at resolving disputes more swiftly is another area of concern. Critics acknowledge that the system may speed up the resolution of disputes, but they warn that without strong safeguards against political influence, the tribunal could end up exacerbating tensions rather than alleviating them. The fear is that the bill, despite its good intentions, might not address the systemic problems of waqf mismanagement effectively and could instead increase mistrust and division in society. 

While the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, seeks to address the long-standing issues of mismanagement and encroachments on waqf properties, the controversial provisions—particularly the inclusion of non-Muslim members in Waqf Boards—have sparked intense political tensions and concerns about religious autonomy. The bill, intended to improve the governance of waqf properties, has instead become a flashpoint for communal polarization, especially in regions like West Bengal, where political divisions have been exacerbated by the unrest. 

Although the bill’s aims of improving waqf governance are commendable, the inclusion of non-Muslim members in the management of waqf properties remains a deeply contentious issue. Critics argue that it compromises the religious freedom of the Muslim community and could potentially open the door to political manipulation. The bill’s implementation, as it stands, is perceived by many as a step toward undermining the independence of religious institutions and eroding the principle of religious autonomy. 

As tensions continue to escalate, it is imperative for both the government and opposition to engage in constructive dialogue to find a balanced approach. Both sides must ensure that the bill’s provisions address the systemic issues within the waqf system without exacerbating religious tensions. The goal should be to address the root causes of mismanagement while maintaining respect for the autonomy of religious communities. 

In a diverse and pluralistic country like India, the challenge remains to balance governance and religious autonomy. The future of such reforms will depend on whether India can find a path forward that upholds its commitment to diversity and inclusivity while ensuring effective governance and accountability. The debate surrounding the Waqf (Amendment) Act highlights the need for sensitive and inclusive dialogue in the pursuit of meaningful reform.