Waqf (Amendment) Bill: A Political Battlefield Over Property Rights and Accountability

Paromita Das

GG News Bureau
New Delhi, 28^th Jan. The recent proceedings of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) on the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, have deepened the divide between the ruling BJP-led NDA and the opposition, as key amendments proposed by the BJP and its allies were approved, while all 44 suggestions from opposition members were rejected. The amendments, aimed at streamlining Waqf property management, have been met with sharp criticism, particularly over allegations of autocratic conduct and political bias in the process.

Key Approved Amendments: Redefining Waqf Property Management

The JPC introduced several key changes to the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, including:

• Relaxation of Registration Deadlines: Extending the six-month window to register Waqf properties on a designated portal, allowing more time for compliance.
• Redefining Authority Over Disputes: Replacing the district collector with a state government official as the arbiter in disputes over whether a property is Waqf land or government-owned.
• Expertise on Waqf Tribunals: Mandating that at least one member of the Waqf tribunal possess knowledge of Muslim law and jurisprudence.

The BJP argues that these changes will improve transparency and accountability in Waqf property administration, addressing long-standing inefficiencies. However, critics claim the amendments dilute the autonomy of Waqf boards and open the door to political interference.

Opposition’s Rejection and Allegations of Bias

The 44 amendments proposed by opposition members were unanimously rejected, fueling accusations of undemocratic conduct. Opposition leaders released a scathing joint statement, alleging that the chairman of the JPC, BJP MP Jagdambika Pal, acted at the behest of the Union Government to sideline dissenting voices.

The statement read: “The awkward and solo acting of the chairman… made him as (if) a painter to enable the Union government to give saffron colour to this secular nation by using its brutal majority in Parliament.” This language reflects the deep mistrust between the opposition and the ruling coalition, with opposition MPs accusing the BJP of exploiting its parliamentary majority to bulldoze contentious reforms.

Revisiting the 2013 Waqf Act: A Comparison

The Waqf Act of 2013, enacted during the UPA government, was designed to enhance the management and protection of Waqf properties. It introduced measures such as mandatory surveys and digitization of records. However, critics argue that the law failed to address systemic corruption and inefficiencies within Waqf boards, leaving vast resources underutilized or mismanaged.

The 2024 amendments aim to plug these gaps by introducing stricter oversight and faster dispute resolution mechanisms. However, opposition leaders contend that these changes erode the community-led governance model envisioned in the 2013 Act.

BJP’s Perspective: Reform for Efficiency

The BJP’s stance on the Waqf (Amendment) Bill aligns with its broader narrative of ensuring transparency and preventing misuse of public resources. By relaxing registration deadlines and introducing state government oversight, the party claims it is creating a more accountable system. The requirement for Waqf tribunal members to have expertise in Muslim law is pitched as a step toward fairer adjudication.

Jagdambika Pal defended the JPC’s decisions, stating, “The amendments adopted by the committee will make the law better and more effective. The majority view has prevailed, and the process was entirely democratic.”

Critics Question the Motive Behind Reforms

Critics, however, argue that the reforms are politically motivated, targeting minority institutions under the guise of administrative efficiency. The removal of the “Waqf by user” clause, which allowed properties to be classified as Waqf based on customary use, is seen as particularly controversial. Opposition MPs claim this change undermines the cultural and historical significance of Waqf properties and may lead to disputes over ownership.

Moreover, opposition parties have accused the BJP of exploiting the legislative process to further its political agenda, with Congress MP Kalyan Banerjee labeling the JPC’s proceedings as a “farcical exercise.”

Ground-Level Realities: Mismanagement or Marginalization?

Waqf properties in India, estimated to cover over 6 lakh acres, have long been plagued by allegations of mismanagement, encroachment, and underutilization. The Sachar Committee report highlighted the potential of these properties to generate revenue for community welfare but lamented the lack of transparency and accountability in their administration.

While the BJP frames its reforms as a corrective measure, opposition leaders argue that the government is prioritizing political gains over genuine solutions. They point to the rejection of all opposition amendments as evidence of a one-sided approach that risks alienating minority communities.

A Missed Opportunity for Consensus

The Waqf (Amendment) Bill represents a critical opportunity to address decades of mismanagement and unlock the potential of Waqf properties for public welfare. However, the lack of bipartisan support and the unilateral rejection of opposition proposals have cast a shadow over the reform process.

Reforms of this magnitude require trust and collaboration, especially when dealing with sensitive issues like religious endowments. By sidelining opposition voices, the government risks deepening divisions and undermining the credibility of its reforms.

At the same time, opposition parties must acknowledge the need for change and engage constructively, rather than opposing for the sake of political posturing. The focus should remain on creating a transparent, accountable, and inclusive system that benefits all stakeholders.

Conclusion: A Contentious Path Ahead

The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, has reignited the debate over the governance of religious endowments in Bharat. While the BJP positions its reforms as a step toward transparency and efficiency, critics view them as an encroachment on minority autonomy.

As the bill heads to Parliament, the government must navigate the fine line between reform and marginalization, ensuring that its actions are guided by the principles of justice, fairness, and inclusivity. Without broader consensus, the amendments risk becoming another flashpoint in the nation’s polarized political landscape.