Waqf Amendment Bill infringes on religious freedom: Senior journalist
The Opposition dubbed it a farcical exercise in which they were not allowed to speak. Will these amendments undermine Muslim autonomy?
Amid the raging controversy surrounding the Waqf Bill amendments, senior journalist Peer Mohammad deliberated on various aspects of the issue in an insightful interview with The Federal. He shared his perspective on the Opposition accusing the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) chief of "subverting" democratic process. He also highlighted how all 44 amendments proposed by the Opposition were rejected, leading to accusations of unfair treatment, particularly regarding the restructuring of the Central Waqf Council.
Composition of Central Waqf Council
The Opposition’s main concern lies in preserving essential features of the original Waqf Act. The proposed amendments, according to Mohammad, alter the composition of the Central Waqf Council, a critical change that undermines the Act's fundamental principles. These changes are viewed as a threat to the religious freedom guaranteed under Article 25 of India’s Constitution, which the original Act supported.
“The Opposition demanded that the basic autonomy of the Waqf Act be retained,” said Mohammad, emphasising that the restructured council would diminish the autonomy needed for the Muslim community's religious governance. This alteration, he argues, contradicts the original intent of the Waqf Act and raises concerns about religious freedom.
Economic burden of new registration
One of the more pressing issues discussed by Mohammad was the proposed registration process for Waqf properties, which would require registration within six months of the Act coming into effect. He explained that many users of these properties are poor, and this new registration requirement will impose an economic burden. The Opposition draws parallels with the introduction of GST, which led to bureaucratic complications and financial strain on small businesses.
“The new registration process could create a huge economic burden, similar to what happened with GST,” said Mohammad, underlining that the compliance cost would outweigh the benefits. This, according to him, is a critical concern that has not been adequately addressed by the ruling dispensation.
Waqf properties
Mohammad also discussed the significant role Waqf properties play in the Muslim community. He pointed out that these properties are largely funded by the hard-earned money of Muslims, and the government’s interference could be seen as an attack on their dignity. Mohammad stressed that while the Opposition disputes the government's control over Waqf properties, the community’s sense of autonomy and dignity must be preserved.
“The Waqf properties are not inherited but built through hard work,” he said. “When people give their money for the greater good of the community, that trust should not be undermined.”
As the debate continues, Mohammad believes that the real challenge lies in addressing the fundamental issues of trust and fairness in the process. With an eye on future political shifts, he believes that these issues will only be addressed when the balance of power changes. The conversation remains open, with many in the Opposition waiting for their voices to be heard in a more democratic manner.
“Change will come when power changes hands,” Mohammad concluded, expressing his hope for a fairer and more transparent process.
(The content above has been generated using a fine-tuned AI model. To ensure accuracy, quality, and editorial integrity, we employ a Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) process. While AI assists in creating the initial draft, our experienced editorial team carefully reviews, edits, and refines the content before publication. At The Federal, we combine the efficiency of AI with the expertise of human editors to deliver reliable and insightful journalism.)
