In the heart of Hyderabad, a palpable sense of urgency rippled through the streets surrounding Dharna Chowk, Indira Park. What may have been an ordinary June Sunday was transformed into a focal point of grassroots political mobilization, led by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) and a coalition of minority rights groups. The object of their protest: the controversial Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. This movement, representing a cross-section of India’s religious and cultural diversity, exemplifies the ongoing friction between the politics of property, religious autonomy, and constitutional safeguards in the world’s largest democracy.
To grasp the stakes in this conflict, it is crucial to unpack what is at issue. “Waqf” in Islamic jurisprudence refers to an endowment made by Muslims for religious, educational, or charitable purposes. In India, waqf properties—land and buildings—are managed under a legal framework designed to protect them from sale or misuse while enabling their income to benefit the community. The Waqf Act, first enacted in 1954 and amended several times, governs the administration and oversight of these properties by Waqf Boards at the state and national level.
The recent amendment in 2025 has triggered widespread anxieties and, according to the AIMPLB and supporting organizations, poses an existential threat to the autonomy of minority religious trusts. While the government claims the changes modernize administration and clamp down on corruption, critics see a covert attempt to centralize control and sideline community participation.
The protest was remarkable for its organization and participation, drawing hundreds if not thousands—men and women alike—many having arrived on motorbikes in visible defiance of intimidation or fatigue.
Akbaruddin Owaisi, All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) floor leader in the Telangana Assembly, was unequivocal in his condemnation: “The Waqf Act has been brought to destroy Waqf properties. The Modi government will have to withdraw the ‘black law’.” He urged for perseverance and unity among India’s estimated 25 crore (250 million) Muslims, a sentiment echoed in fiery speeches by other representatives of Jamiatul Ulema-e-Hind, Jamaat-e-Islami, Anjuman Mehdavia, and Majlis Tameer-e-Millat.
In a show of democratic faith, Owaisi assured the gathered that the struggle would remain firmly within constitutional means, leveraging both protest and legal action. The Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision on petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the 2025 amendment underscores the seriousness of this campaign.
Another point of contention is the widened scope for declaration and de-notification of waqf properties by the authorities, which activists claim opens the door to “land grabbing” and bureaucratic abuse. The government counters that such provisions are necessary to resolve disputes, recover encroached property, and bring transparency to what is—by all accounts—a sector riddled with mismanagement and scandal.
Notably, some legal experts caution that the details of the amended bill remain somewhat opaque, with full texts not readily available in the public domain. Initial analyses from legal forums suggest the amendment’s language around “public interest” and government “supervision” is exceptionally broad, inviting concern that this could set a precedent for deeper state intervention in the affairs of all religious and charitable trusts.
There is, indeed, widespread acknowledgment that the waqf sector is fraught with irregularities. According to a 2023 report by India’s Parliamentary Standing Committee, thousands of waqf properties are embroiled in legal disputes, with lost revenues running into crores of rupees annually.
Yet for many in the AIMPLB and civil society, the government’s “cleansing” rhetoric is a thin veil for centralizing power, reducing minority autonomy, and opening the floodgates for the alienation of community assets.
Legal scholars argue that by making Waqf Boards more answerable to central authorities, the 2025 amendment possibly violates these constitutional protections. The federal structure of India also appears threatened, as matters related to religious endowments and charities traditionally fall under the jurisdiction of state governments. The Supreme Court’s reserved order on interim petitions reflects the gravity and complexity of the constitutional questions at stake.
This cross-sectarian solidarity, while rare, holds profound implications for future coalition-building in India’s fractured polity. In private conversations, organizers confided that the movement is as much about defending Waqf as it is about forging a broader alliance for civil and religious liberties in the face of what is perceived as an overzealous executive branch.
At the time of writing, the Supreme Court had reserved its ruling on interim relief on May 23—a move widely interpreted as a signal of the case’s complexity and potential far-reaching consequences. Petitioners are pressing for a stay on implementation pending full judicial review, while the government has asked the Court to allow administrative reforms to proceed.
The government’s defenders argue that strong central oversight is necessary to curb corruption, misuse, and to ensure that benefits are widely and fairly distributed. Opponents warn that an overly broad reading of “transparency” risks eroding constitutionally enshrined protections and diminishing the space for diversity and dissent.
If the government can centralize control over one of the country’s largest portfolios of minority-held property, precedent may soon extend to other trusts and charities—secular and religious alike. If, on the other hand, constitutional protections are reaffirmed, the events of June will go down as a landmark in the ongoing evolution of Indian pluralism.
For those reading from afar, the events unfolding in Hyderabad are a powerful reminder: the struggle for justice, pluralism, and constitutionalism is both perennial and universal—shaped anew by each generation’s response to the challenges of their time.
Source: lokmattimes.com AIMPLB to continue protests against Waqf Amendment Act - www.lokmattimes.com
Setting the Stage: Understanding Waqf and the Amendment
To grasp the stakes in this conflict, it is crucial to unpack what is at issue. “Waqf” in Islamic jurisprudence refers to an endowment made by Muslims for religious, educational, or charitable purposes. In India, waqf properties—land and buildings—are managed under a legal framework designed to protect them from sale or misuse while enabling their income to benefit the community. The Waqf Act, first enacted in 1954 and amended several times, governs the administration and oversight of these properties by Waqf Boards at the state and national level.The recent amendment in 2025 has triggered widespread anxieties and, according to the AIMPLB and supporting organizations, poses an existential threat to the autonomy of minority religious trusts. While the government claims the changes modernize administration and clamp down on corruption, critics see a covert attempt to centralize control and sideline community participation.
The Protest: Voices from the Ground
At the Hyderabad protest, an impressive array of leaders and organizations was present. The event was not limited to Muslims; Hindus, Sikhs, and Christians all rallied behind the AIMPLB, embodying a broader concern for minority and religious rights vis-à-vis state intervention. Moulana Khalid Saifullah Rahmani, the president of the AIMPLB, warned, “This is not the problem of Muslims alone, but it is the problem of all minorities and all justice-loving people. This is an issue related to protection of the Constitution as the government is trying to undermine it through the Waqf Act.”The protest was remarkable for its organization and participation, drawing hundreds if not thousands—men and women alike—many having arrived on motorbikes in visible defiance of intimidation or fatigue.
Akbaruddin Owaisi, All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) floor leader in the Telangana Assembly, was unequivocal in his condemnation: “The Waqf Act has been brought to destroy Waqf properties. The Modi government will have to withdraw the ‘black law’.” He urged for perseverance and unity among India’s estimated 25 crore (250 million) Muslims, a sentiment echoed in fiery speeches by other representatives of Jamiatul Ulema-e-Hind, Jamaat-e-Islami, Anjuman Mehdavia, and Majlis Tameer-e-Millat.
In a show of democratic faith, Owaisi assured the gathered that the struggle would remain firmly within constitutional means, leveraging both protest and legal action. The Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision on petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the 2025 amendment underscores the seriousness of this campaign.
The Contested Amendment: Key Provisions and Flashpoints
At the core of the controversy lie several contentious provisions. Reports indicate that the 2025 amendment gives the central government discretionary powers to override state Waqf Boards’ decisions, appointor remove members, and dictate policy changes ostensibly in the “national interest.” Critics argue this undermines the delicate federal balance and risks turning waqf properties into de facto government assets, contrary to their intended charitable purpose.Another point of contention is the widened scope for declaration and de-notification of waqf properties by the authorities, which activists claim opens the door to “land grabbing” and bureaucratic abuse. The government counters that such provisions are necessary to resolve disputes, recover encroached property, and bring transparency to what is—by all accounts—a sector riddled with mismanagement and scandal.
Notably, some legal experts caution that the details of the amended bill remain somewhat opaque, with full texts not readily available in the public domain. Initial analyses from legal forums suggest the amendment’s language around “public interest” and government “supervision” is exceptionally broad, inviting concern that this could set a precedent for deeper state intervention in the affairs of all religious and charitable trusts.
Perspectives from the Government: Reform or Overreach?
The Modi government and its supporters defend the Waqf (Amendment) Act as a necessary modernization. Official statements emphasize that the reform aims to digitize waqf records, tighten mechanisms for dealing with encroachments, and address longstanding allegations of corruption. A senior official in the Ministry of Minority Affairs was quoted in national daily coverage as stating, “Transparency, accountability, and efficiency in the administration of waqf properties are our priorities. The amendment brings us closer to that goal and ensures that the intended beneficiaries—the poor and marginalized—are not deprived due to opaque governance.”There is, indeed, widespread acknowledgment that the waqf sector is fraught with irregularities. According to a 2023 report by India’s Parliamentary Standing Committee, thousands of waqf properties are embroiled in legal disputes, with lost revenues running into crores of rupees annually.
Yet for many in the AIMPLB and civil society, the government’s “cleansing” rhetoric is a thin veil for centralizing power, reducing minority autonomy, and opening the floodgates for the alienation of community assets.
Constitutional Issues: Minority Rights and Federalism
A critical dimension of this struggle is the constitutional guarantee of minority rights in India. Article 26 of the Indian Constitution provides “every religious denomination or any section thereof” the right “to manage its own affairs in matters of religion.” The Supreme Court has repeatedly underscored the centrality of this right in a plural democracy.Legal scholars argue that by making Waqf Boards more answerable to central authorities, the 2025 amendment possibly violates these constitutional protections. The federal structure of India also appears threatened, as matters related to religious endowments and charities traditionally fall under the jurisdiction of state governments. The Supreme Court’s reserved order on interim petitions reflects the gravity and complexity of the constitutional questions at stake.
Cross-Religious Solidarity: Uniting for Constitutional Safeguards
One of the most striking features of the ongoing protests is the participation of other minority groups, including Sikhs and Christians. Leaders at the Hyderabad rally were quick to point out that weakening the Waqf framework today could embolden moves against analogous institutions in the future—such as Sikh Gurdwara Boards or Christian church trusts.This cross-sectarian solidarity, while rare, holds profound implications for future coalition-building in India’s fractured polity. In private conversations, organizers confided that the movement is as much about defending Waqf as it is about forging a broader alliance for civil and religious liberties in the face of what is perceived as an overzealous executive branch.
Nationwide Campaign and Legal Challenge
The Hyderabad dharna represents just one node in a larger, coordinated campaign. According to AIMPLB and independent news sources, comparable protests have erupted in other metropolitan centers and even small towns. The AIMPLB, coordinating with major Muslim organizations and opposition political parties, has reportedly filed multiple public interest litigations in the Supreme Court, calling for the blanket withdrawal of the amendment and restoration of previous powers to state Waqf Boards.At the time of writing, the Supreme Court had reserved its ruling on interim relief on May 23—a move widely interpreted as a signal of the case’s complexity and potential far-reaching consequences. Petitioners are pressing for a stay on implementation pending full judicial review, while the government has asked the Court to allow administrative reforms to proceed.
Strengths of the Protest Movement
Analyzing the events and statements, several strengths of the anti-amendment movement become apparent:- Broad Coalition: The inclusion of organizations beyond the Muslim community enhances the legitimacy and reach of the protest, countering rhetoric that this is a “communal” or “parochial” cause.
- Constitutional Framing: By invoking constitutional safeguards and casting the fight as one for universal minority rights, the movement has successfully recast the debate from a sectarian grievance to a citizen-centric demand for justice and federalism.
- Peaceful and Lawful Engagement: Leaders’ repeated emphasis on operating “within the purview of the Constitution and democracy” positions the movement on strong moral and legal footing, contrasting with narratives around disruptive protest politics.
- Legal Recourse: By engaging with the Supreme Court, the movement demonstrates respect for institutional mechanisms, distancing itself from extra-legal agitation.
Risks and Challenges: Navigating a Complex Terrain
However, challenges abound. The anti-amendment campaign must contend with several risks:- Perception of Obstructionism: The government has painted critics as obstructing much-needed reform. This message, amplified by sympathetic media, threatens to undermine public support among those who are justifiably frustrated with waqf mismanagement.
- Fragmentation: Maintaining unity across a diverse set of stakeholders—each with its own priorities and constituencies—is inherently difficult. Past movements have foundered on ideological and strategic rifts, which opponents may seek to exploit.
- Judicial Uncertainty: With the case pending before the Supreme Court, the fate of the movement hinges on unpredictable judicial outcomes. Even if the Court grants interim relief, a protracted legal battle could sap momentum and public attention.
- Potential Escalation: Large gatherings and emotionally charged rhetoric always carry the risk of sudden escalation. Organizers insist on peaceful protest, but the risk of confrontation with law enforcement, or the infiltration by troublemakers, remains real.
The Broader Context: India’s Ongoing Debate over Minority Autonomy
The Waqf Amendment Act controversy cannot be viewed in isolation. It comes on the heels of several other legislative and administrative moves in India that have triggered concern among minority communities: changes to citizenship laws, tightening restrictions on foreign funding for NGOs, and increased scrutiny of madrassas and religious trusts. Each of these, in different ways, puts the balance between national interest and minority autonomy under the spotlight.The government’s defenders argue that strong central oversight is necessary to curb corruption, misuse, and to ensure that benefits are widely and fairly distributed. Opponents warn that an overly broad reading of “transparency” risks eroding constitutionally enshrined protections and diminishing the space for diversity and dissent.
The Stakes: Property, Power, and the Future of Pluralism
Ultimately, the conflict over the Waqf (Amendment) Act is about more than brick-and-mortar assets. It is a contest over who controls the levers of community empowerment and whether India’s constitutional promises to minorities will remain robust in the face of expedient statecraft.If the government can centralize control over one of the country’s largest portfolios of minority-held property, precedent may soon extend to other trusts and charities—secular and religious alike. If, on the other hand, constitutional protections are reaffirmed, the events of June will go down as a landmark in the ongoing evolution of Indian pluralism.
Conclusion: Watching and Waiting as the Story Unfolds
As Hyderabad’s protestors continue their sit-ins, their fate—and the fate of waqf properties—now rests with India’s Supreme Court and the court of public opinion. With cross-religious alliances emerging and constitutional questions at the fore, 2025 may yet be remembered as a turning point in the battle for minority rights and religious autonomy in India. The outcome will reverberate not only through the corridors of the country’s religious boards, but throughout the very fabric of Indian democracy.For those reading from afar, the events unfolding in Hyderabad are a powerful reminder: the struggle for justice, pluralism, and constitutionalism is both perennial and universal—shaped anew by each generation’s response to the challenges of their time.
Source: lokmattimes.com AIMPLB to continue protests against Waqf Amendment Act - www.lokmattimes.com
