The 16th-century church, built by Portuguese colonizers along the Kwanza River in Angola, formed part of a fortress complex that served as a staging point in the slave trade. Enslaved Africans were baptized there before being forced to march roughly 145 kilometers to Luanda, where they were shipped to the Americas.

Historians estimate that more than 5 million people departed from Angola, making it the largest single point of origin in the trans-Atlantic slave system.The Vatican’s early directives in the 15th century had authorized the enslavement of non-Christians, providing religious justification that intertwined Catholic expansion with colonial exploitation.

Over time, however, the Muxima site evolved into a major Catholic pilgrimage center after reports of an apparition of the Virgin Mary in the 19th century.Leo’s visit, part of an 11-day pastoral trip, is expected to include a Rosary prayer on the riverside esplanade near the church. While the Vatican has not confirmed whether the pope will directly address slavery, clergy in Angola view the visit as symbolically significant.

Rev. Celestino Epalanga of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Angola said the pope’s presence could help reframe the site’s meaning, transforming it from a place associated with suffering into one of spiritual renewal.The visit carries added resonance following revelations about Leo’s background.

The pontiff, born Robert Prevost in the United States, was found by a genealogical study to have Creole heritage, with ancestors in Louisiana identified as both enslaved individuals and slave owners. Historians note that some of the earliest enslaved Africans brought to Louisiana originated from Angola, creating a historical link between the region and the pope’s lineage.

Mariana Candido said the convergence of Leo’s heritage and the symbolic weight of Muxima presents a powerful moment for engagement with African Catholics. She added that the visit reflects an effort to align the Church more closely with local expressions of faith across the continent.

Analysts and clergy say Leo has been actively strengthening ties with Africa, including elevating African figures within the Church hierarchy. Stan Chu Ilo said the pope appears intent on addressing long-standing perceptions that Africa has been marginal within global Catholic leadership.Angola’s historical experience adds further context to the visit.

A former Portuguese colony until 1975, the country endured a prolonged civil war after independence that lasted nearly three decades and resulted in more than half a million deaths. Despite significant natural resources, including oil and diamonds, Angola continues to face challenges related to poverty, inequality and governance.

Opposition lawmaker Olivio Nkilumbo said he hoped the pope would use the visit to advocate for social justice and democratic reform, reflecting broader expectations among some Angolans that the Church can play a role in addressing contemporary political and economic issues.

The Vatican has indicated that themes of Leo’s Africa trip will include the exploitation of resources, corruption and governance, alongside pastoral outreach.

Church officials in Angola say they expect the visit to reinforce the institution’s role in promoting peace, reconciliation and social equity in a country still grappling with the legacies of slavery, colonialism and conflict.

The U.S. Department of Education said its Office for Civil Rights opened the probes to examine claims that Harvard continues to discriminate against students based on race, color and national origin, in potential breach of federal statutes.

According to the department, one investigation will assess whether Harvard has continued to apply race-based preferences in admissions following the U.S. Supreme Court affirmative action ruling 2023 that effectively ended affirmative action in higher education.

A second probe will examine allegations of antisemitism on campus, reflecting broader concerns about discrimination and student safety at U.S. universities.

Harvard did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The university has previously said it opposes all forms of discrimination and is working to address bias on campus.

Internal task force reports released by Harvard last year found that both Jewish and Muslim students had experienced incidents of bigotry and abuse, underscoring tensions within campus communities.

The investigations mark the latest move by the Trump administration targeting leading universities, as federal authorities increase scrutiny of admissions practices and campus environments in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Recognizing caste within the Muslim population isn’t a threat to unity; it’s a path toward justice.

In a landmark shift, India’s central government has decided to include caste data in the upcoming national census—the first time such a detailed caste count will take place since 1931. On paper, it’s a technical change. But for millions of India’s most invisible citizens, it’s potentially transformative.

Among those who stand to gain the most are Pasmanda Muslims—a broad umbrella term that includes Dalit, Adivasi, and other backward-class Muslim communities. Despite being the numerical majority among India’s Muslims, Pasmandas have long lived in the shadows of policy, politics, and even community representation.

A recent caste survey in Telangana revealed something telling: nearly 80% of the state’s Muslims belong to Pasmanda backgrounds. It was a statistic that didn’t surprise social scientists or grassroots activists—but it was a rare moment of clarity in a country where Muslim identity is often painted with one broad brushstroke.

That simplification has done real harm. The Indian Muslim is frequently seen as a singular, undivided bloc—one minority, one vote bank, one voice. But that narrative erases the deep social hierarchies and caste divisions within the community itself. And Pasmandas, who bear the brunt of poverty, discrimination, and social exclusion, are the ones who disappear from view.

Within the community, elite Muslim groups—those traditionally seen as Ashraf or upper caste—have dominated platforms of power: political parties, religious boards, cultural institutions, and media narratives. Meanwhile, Pasmandas have remained underrepresented, often struggling with lower literacy rates, poorer healthcare, and fewer job opportunities.

The last significant spotlight on Muslim marginalization came nearly two decades ago, through the Sachar Committee Report in 2006. Its findings were damning: many Muslim groups, especially those from Pasmanda backgrounds, fared worse than Scheduled Castes in key development indicators. Yet the lack of caste-disaggregated data meant that policies based on these findings were broad and ineffective. Everyone got lumped together. And as usual, those at the bottom lost out.

That’s why this new caste census matters. It could offer, for the first time in independent India, a full picture of caste realities within the Muslim community. It could provide a foundation for smarter, more targeted policies—ones that don’t just benefit “Muslims” in general, but specifically uplift those most in need.

It also corrects a historical oversight. During British rule, caste among Muslims was acknowledged and documented. The 1901 and 1931 censuses classified Muslims into categories like Ashraf (nobles), Ajlaf (backward), and Arzal (Dalit or “untouchable”). These categories were crude, but they at least reflected a social truth. After independence, however, India adopted a more homogenized view of its minorities—particularly Muslims—and quietly dropped caste from the conversation.

This erasure wasn’t just bureaucratic. It had real consequences. In 1950, Dalit Muslims lost their eligibility for Scheduled Caste (SC) reservations. To this day, they are denied affirmative action on the basis of caste, despite experiencing the same structural discrimination as their Hindu Dalit counterparts.

Welfare schemes and affirmative policies, designed without acknowledging these internal hierarchies, have repeatedly missed their mark. Upper-caste Muslims—though a minority within the minority—have often been the primary beneficiaries. Pasmandas remain at the margins.

For the upcoming census to make a difference, it must be handled transparently and without political interference. The data should be released in full. No filters. No spin. Only then can it serve as a blueprint for real change.

This isn’t about dividing communities—it’s about understanding them. Recognizing caste within the Muslim population isn’t a threat to unity; it’s a path toward justice. It gives voice to those who have long been ignored and lays the groundwork for more inclusive policies.

For Pasmanda Muslims, this census isn’t just a count. It’s a chance to be seen.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

Minister of Minority Affairs, Kiren Rijiju introduced the bill rooted with history, practicality, and the realities faced by Pasmanda community.

On April 2, 2025, the Lok Sabha bore witness to a remarkable display of democratic resilience and legislative fortitude as the Government of India successfully passed the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, after a marathon 12-hour debate. This historic achievement is not merely a legislative victory but a testament to the strength of India’s democratic institutions, the meticulous process undertaken by the government, and the unwavering unity of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA).

The journey of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, has been one of deliberation and inclusivity. Recognizing the complexity and sensitivity of the issue, the government wisely referred the bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for thorough scrutiny. The JPC, chaired by Shri Jagdambika Pal and comprising members from across the political spectrum, conducted extensive consultations, gathering inputs from stakeholders, experts, and civil society. Even the All India Pasmanda Muslim Mahaaz had the opportunity to present its suggestions and objections.

This process ensured that the legislation was not rushed but refined through a rigorous examination, addressing concerns while strengthening its framework. The successful passage of the bill in the Lok Sabha—by a decisive margin of 288 votes in favor to 232 against—reflects the confidence that the NDA coalition reposed in the government’s vision and the robustness of the JPC’s efforts. The debate was marked by intense exchanges, with the government defending the bill as a measure to improve Waqf property management, while the opposition criticized it as unconstitutional and anti-minority.

Minister of Minority Affairs, Kiren Rijiju introduced the bill rooted with history, practicality, and the realities faced by Pasmanda community. Waqf properties were originally meant for the welfare of the underprivileged, yet they have rarely served their intended purpose. Instead, over the years, they have become a playground for politicians, Waqf Board officials, and Mutawallis (caretakers), who have manipulated these assets for personal gains. The rampant corruption and mismanagement of Waqf properties have led the government to intervene and introduce amendments.

While many Muslim leaders and organizations are vehemently opposing the bill, All India Pasmanda Muslim Mahaaz considered it essential to acknowledge the dire need for reforms. Waqf properties hold vast potential to uplift marginalized Muslim communities, particularly the Pasmanda Muslims, who form the majority but have historicaly been neglected. Unfortunately, these properties have been plagued by corruption, illegal encroachments, and poor administration. AIPMM actively participated in the JPC meetings on the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, offering a series of constructive suggestions to enhance the legislation. The Ministry of Minority Affairs, recognizing the merit of AIPMM’s inputs, accepted several key recommendations, reflecting a commitment to inclusivity and efficiency in Waqf management.

These include the introduction of a “Waqf by User” provision to safeguard existing Waqf properties, the establishment of an appellate system within Waqf Tribunals to ensure fair dispute resolution, and measures for the efficient management and maintenance of Waqf records to promote transparency. Additionally, the ministry embraced AIPMM’s call for regular audits of revenue from rent, lease, and sub-lease to curb financial mismanagement, alongside the inclusion of Pasmanda Muslims and women in the management of Waqf Boards, ensuring diverse representation and addressing long-standing demands for equity within the community. This collaboration between AIPMM and the government underscores a progressive step toward reforming Waqf administration in India.

The Opposition’s Rhetoric and Fear-Mongering

One of the biggest issues with the current discourse surrounding the bill is the irresponsible approach of the opposition and certain Muslim organizations. Instead of constructively engaging with the government to suggest practical improvements, they are using the bill as a tool to incite fear and insecurity among common Muslims.

The rhetoric surrounding the bill is focused more on accusing the government of anti-Muslim motives rather than addressing the real issues plaguing Waqf institutions. If these organizations had properly managed the Waqf system over the years, there would have been no need for government intervention in the first place.

By spreading propaganda and half-truths, these groups are attempting to politically mobilize Muslims rather than ensuring genuine reforms. Pasmanda Muslims, who have historically been denied the benefits of Waqf, must not fall prey to these misleading narratives. Instead, we must demand concrete improvements that will truly help our community.

The blind opposition by certain Muslim leaders will only serve political interests rather than benefiting the community. It is time for Pasmanda Muslims to take charge of the narrative and demand reforms that genuinely serve the underprivileged.

Pasmanda Muslims, who have been historically sidelined, must not allow themselves to be used as pawns in political battles. Instead, we should advocate for meaningful reforms, ensuring that Waqf properties are managed efficiently, transparently, and justly. This is a crucial opportunity to hold the system accountable and demand a fair share of Waqf benefits for the most disadvantaged members of our community.

The opposition and certain Muslim organizations must also reflect on their own failures in managing Waqf properties before blaming the government. Instead of spreading fear and misinformation, they should work towards ensuring better governance and accountability within the Waqf system.

During the marathon debate on the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, in the Lok Sabha on April 2, 2025, Indian Union Home Minister Amit Shah delivered a masterful performance that left the opposition reeling. Armed with a barrage of facts, statistics, and a clear articulation of the bill’s intent, Shah dismantled the opposition’s arguments, rendering them speechless. He meticulously schooled them on the purpose and proper utilization of Waqf properties, emphasizing the need for transparency and accountability—principles the bill seeks to enshrine. Shah’s commanding presence turned the tide of the debate, exposing the opposition’s rhetoric as hollow in the face of evidence.

BJP MP Ravi Shankar Prasad reinforced the government’s stance, asserting that including women and Pasmanda Muslims in the management of Waqf Boards is not just a reform but a constitutional right, amplifying the bill’s progressive ethos. The opposition, despite its fervor, found itself silenced, unable to counter the government’s robust case. AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi attempted to score theoretical points, raising some valid concerns, but his credibility was undermined by allegations that he and his party have encroached upon 80% of Waqf properties in Hyderabad and Telangana.

As the Urdu proverb goes, “Chor ki daadhi mein tinka”—the thief’s beard betrays a straw—Owaisi’s critique rang hollow, overshadowed by his own questionable record. The debate, thus, emerged as a triumph for the government’s clarity and resolve.

However, the true success of these amendments hinges on their effective implementation, which we anticipate will yield positive outcomes for all stakeholders. For Pasmanda Muslims, in particular, embracing a balanced approach—supporting these reforms while actively participating in their execution—will be crucial to ensuring their upliftment. This historic moment offers hope for a more equitable future, provided the spirit of the law translates into tangible progress on the ground.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

The end of USAID’s current aid structure should not mean the end of US support for Africa.

Even when it comes to international aid and assistance, strategic geopolitical interests are always at play. Recently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the results of the review of programs carried out by the US Agency for International Development. This review resulted in an 83 percent cut in aid, significantly affecting many African countries. The decision has reignited debates about the ongoing competition between the US and China in Africa and the heightened risk of humanitarian crises that could arise from these funding reductions.

While competition for influence in Africa is a reality, framing it as part of a great power struggle is misleading. The US and China have taken vastly different approaches to engagement in Africa, and these cuts to USAID funding are unlikely to significantly alter China’s long-term strategy. Moreover, the presence of USAID has not deterred China from expanding its influence on the continent. Instead, the changes in US policy open the door for a fresh approach to American support—one that prioritizes African responsibility and transparency over unchecked aid flows.

According to the Congressional Research Service, sub-Saharan Africa has been the largest regional recipient of American foreign assistance. Over the past decade, the State Department and USAID have administered approximately $8 billion in aid annually to Africa. Countries such as Nigeria, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya, and South Africa have been among the primary beneficiaries. In addition to direct US aid, African nations also receive assistance through other American agencies and Washington’s contributions to multilateral organizations.

Over the past decade, about 70 percent of American aid to Africa has been allocated to health programs, with a primary focus on HIV/AIDS. Additional funding has supported agriculture, economic growth, security, democracy promotion, human rights, and education. Several major initiatives, such as the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, Feed the Future, and Power Africa, have been instrumental in addressing key issues. However, most aid is delivered through contractors, nongovernmental organizations, and multilateral bodies, rather than direct government-to-government assistance. This indirect distribution has created inefficiencies, as significant portions of the funds go toward administrative costs rather than directly benefiting the people in need.

This inefficiency is not unique to USAID; rather, it is a common issue in most foreign assistance programs and charitable organizations. A considerable portion of aid funds is used to cover operational expenses rather than achieving tangible results. The complexity of cross-border programs further exacerbates this issue, making positive change slower and less efficient. In the case of USAID, these inefficiencies have been particularly pronounced.

Despite these challenges, the US should not abandon Africa altogether. Instead, a recalibrated approach is needed—one that fosters real and positive change while reinforcing African leadership. The situation is somewhat analogous to Europe’s security dilemma, where strategic recalibration rather than complete withdrawal is the key. Africa deserves the generosity of the American people, but Washington must ensure that aid is allocated and executed in a manner that maximizes impact. This should be viewed as a reset, not a cancellation.

US aid policy must move beyond ideological motivations and focus on solving real problems while reducing Africa’s reliance on perpetual foreign aid. The ultimate goal should be to empower African leaders and institutions to take control of their economic future. Two key areas require immediate attention: poverty alleviation and the empowerment of local management. However, healthcare remains the most urgent concern.

Africa is paradoxically both a land of immense natural wealth and extreme poverty. Despite possessing some of the world’s largest mineral reserves—including gold, diamonds, platinum, copper, and uranium—many African nations continue to struggle with severe economic hardship. Control over these resources has historically been a source of military conflicts and external interventions. Similarly, Africa is a major producer of oil and gas, with countries such as Nigeria, Angola, and Algeria leading in petroleum reserves, while Libya and Egypt play significant roles in gas production. Additionally, Africa’s vast renewable energy potential, particularly solar power in the Sahara, holds the promise of transforming the continent’s energy landscape.

While Africa’s agricultural potential remains largely untapped, it is home to 60 percent of the world’s uncultivated arable land. It already leads in the production of commodities such as cocoa, coffee, tea, and timber. The region’s fisheries offer another source of economic promise. However, the reality is starkly different from these theoretical potentials. The disconnect between Africa’s resource wealth and its persistent poverty highlights the shortcomings of foreign aid and its structural inefficiencies. Rather than fostering self-sufficiency, aid has often perpetuated dependency while allowing external powers to gain control over resources in exchange for minimal infrastructure development.

This historical pattern has, in some ways, shifted the burden of economic responsibility away from African leaders and onto Western powers. In doing so, it has given external actors near-unfettered access to Africa’s wealth in return for relatively minor developmental contributions. By contrast, the Gulf Cooperation Council’s approach to engagement in Africa has generally been more pragmatic and mutually beneficial, earning it greater respect and acceptance.

For these reasons, the end of USAID’s current aid structure should not mean the end of US support for Africa. Any new American approach should prioritize helping Africa gain control over its own resources and development trajectory. This strategy should not be driven by a desire to counter Chinese or Russian influence but rather by the genuine spirit of American generosity and ethical responsibility. Such an approach would lay the foundation for a more sustainable and mutually beneficial US-Africa partnership.

A reformed aid strategy should focus on infrastructure development, technology transfer, and education to empower African nations to manage their own wealth effectively. Economic partnerships should replace traditional aid, ensuring that Africa is not merely the recipient of assistance but an active participant in its own development. Strengthening governance and transparency mechanisms will be crucial to ensuring that resources are used effectively and equitably.

The US has a unique opportunity to redefine its role in Africa. By shifting from a model of dependency-driven aid to one that fosters self-reliance, Washington can build a stronger and more lasting alliance with African nations. The ultimate goal should be to create a framework where aid is no longer necessary because African nations have developed the capacity to manage their resources and economies independently. In doing so, the US can demonstrate that its support for Africa is not just about competing with other global powers but about upholding a genuine commitment to the continent’s long-term prosperity.