Time and again, emotional appeals for street protests have been presented as the only recourse—akin to a one-size-fits-all remedy.

Last week, India’s Parliament passed the Waqf Amendment Bill, a piece of legislation aimed at reforming the management of Islamic charitable endowments known as Waqf properties. This move has sparked significant unease among Muslim organizations, civil society groups, and opposition political parties in the country. Despite appeals to India’s President, Droupadi Murmu, to withhold her approval, the bill has now been enacted into law.

Prominent political figures, including Muslim parliamentarians such as Asaduddin Owaisi of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehad Muslimeen, Mohammed Jawed of the Indian National Congress, and Amanatullah Khan, a Delhi legislator and chairman of the local Waqf Board from the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), have filed legal challenges in India’s Supreme Court, questioning the bill’s alignment with the nation’s constitution.

In contrast, Sanjay Raut, a member of parliament from Shiv Sena (UBT)—a regional political party—has indicated his party’s decision not to oppose the legislation, suggesting a divergence of views even among the government’s critics.

India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led central government defends the bill, asserting it is in the nation’s best interest. Key officials, including Kiren Rijiju, the Minister of Minority Affairs, and Amit Shah, the Minister of Home Affairs, have repeatedly emphasized that the law does not infringe on Muslim rights. Instead, they argue it seeks to improve the efficiency of Waqf Boards—bodies responsible for overseeing these endowments. The government has dismissed opposition claims that the bill undermines constitutional protections as baseless.

Nevertheless, a coalition of Muslim organizations, individuals, and opposition parties continues to argue that the legislation threatens the sanctity of mosques and graveyards managed under Waqf. Labeling it unconstitutional, these groups are mobilizing for nationwide protests, including large-scale sit-ins and street demonstrations, to demand the law’s repeal.

The Historical Context of Waqf Management

Before jumping to support calls for protests, it’s worth exploring the historical management of Waqf properties—endowments established under Islamic law for charitable purposes—since India’s independence in 1947. This moment of controversy offers a chance to reflect on how these assets, meant to serve religious and social welfare, have been handled over decades.

A 2011 report by the Sachar Committee, a government-appointed panel studying the socio-economic conditions of Indian Muslims, alongside data from the Central Waqf Council, revealed that over 50% of Waqf land in India is either encroached upon or tangled in legal disputes—a striking indicator of systemic mismanagement across regions and political regimes.

In Telangana, a southern Indian state never governed by the BJP, approximately 75% of Waqf land is reportedly encroached upon, with the figure rising to 82% in its capital, Hyderabad. This underscores that the problem transcends any single political party or central policy. These statistics challenge the narrative that the current uproar is solely a result of the national government’s actions and prompt scrutiny of the role local Waqf Boards and regional leaders played in allowing such widespread losses to occur.

The Gap Between Rhetoric and Results

For decades, the administration of Waqf properties—intended to fund education, healthcare, and welfare initiatives—has failed to deliver on its charitable promise. Despite controlling vast assets, the benefits to India’s Muslim community remain limited. This raises pressing questions about who has truly profited from Waqf properties since India’s independence, who bears responsibility for the encroachments, mismanagement, and misuse of these lands, and how many schools, hospitals, or welfare centers have been established using Waqf resources.

Furthermore, what actions were taken against those who exploited these endowments, and in what measurable ways has Waqf contributed to the economic advancement of Muslims? Calls for accountability and reform in Waqf management should have surfaced long ago. Instead, the same organizations now rallying for protests—many of which oversaw this decline—are accused of stirring emotions for political leverage.

Critics argue these self-proclaimed “guardians” of the Muslim community have historically mismanaged Waqf resources, often prioritizing personal or political gain over communal welfare.

The Myth of Wake-Up Calls

Much has been said about “wake-up calls” to galvanize India’s Muslim community. Yet, the reality suggests that community leaders and Waqf custodians were never dormant—they were simply focused elsewhere.

Many Waqf properties have been illegally occupied, with rents kept artificially low, allowing beneficiaries to exploit them for decades without oversight or adjustment. This pattern of neglect raises doubts about the sincerity of those now decrying the new law.

The Pattern of Response to Legislation

A recurring trend emerges in how certain groups react to laws perceived to affect Muslim interests in India. When the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC) were introduced—policies aimed at streamlining citizenship processes—similar fears were ignited, with claims that Muslims would be stripped of citizenship. Years after the CAA’s implementation, no widespread evidence of such disenfranchisement has emerged.

This history prompts questions about the opposition to the Waqf Amendment Bill: Are objections rooted in genuine threats to religious rights, or do they reflect an automatic resistance that ultimately serves political agendas rather than community well-being?

The Human Cost of Protest Without Protection

Time and again, emotional appeals for street protests have been presented as the only recourse—akin to a one-size-fits-all remedy.

During the CAA-NRC protests, fears of mass citizenship loss fueled widespread unrest. Yet, as Minister Kiren Rijiju noted during the Waqf bill debates, no Muslims have lost citizenship under CAA. Still, the fallout from such movements lingers: young Muslims arrested during protests against CAA, NRC, and earlier laws like the Triple Talaq ban often remain in jail, lacking legal or financial support from the groups that spurred them into action.

In Muzaffarnagar, a city in northern India, 24 Muslim youths faced legal notices simply for wearing black armbands as a symbolic dissent—not even a full protest—each required to post a ₹2 lakh (approximately $2,400 USD) bond. In Ahmedabad, a western Indian city, around 40 people were detained during demonstrations.

These cases highlight the risks to ordinary citizens when protests lack strategic planning, legal backing, or institutional support.

Before heeding new calls to protest, communities deserve to know whether organizers have secured proper permissions from authorities, are prepared to provide legal aid to those arrested, have a legal team in place, will accept responsibility for the outcomes, and will support the families of detainees financially and emotionally.

The Path Forward: Reform and Accountability

The current Waqf management system demands overhaul. Transparency, accountability, and effectiveness must take precedence over political maneuvering. Rather than blanket opposition, India’s Muslim community could benefit from demanding targeted amendments to problematic clauses in the bill instead of outright rejection, proposing governance models that balance religious autonomy with accountability, establishing independent oversight to track how Waqf resources serve the community, creating forums for community input into Waqf decisions, and developing long-term plans to leverage Waqf assets for education, healthcare, and economic growth.

From Reaction to Responsible Engagement

India’s Muslim community faces a pivotal choice. The current approach lacks strategy, unified leadership, negotiation, or internal reform—just a repetitive cycle of politicization until issues reach the courts. Continuing this pattern of protest and division is an option, but so is redirecting energy toward ensuring Waqf properties fulfill their charitable mission. The community must resist further manipulation.

For decades, Waqf assets have been plundered while leaders stood by. Now, as the government pushes for accountability, some of these same figures are accused of misleading the public once more.

True leadership goes beyond rallying crowds—it requires vision, strategy, and responsibility. By advocating for reforms that bring transparency and efficiency to Waqf management, the community can ensure these resources uplift its most vulnerable members and build enduring institutions for future generations.

The challenge is not merely whether to oppose a law, but how to ensure the sacred trust of Waqf serves its intended purpose: benefiting the community it was created to support.

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

Adv. Rasheed, the general secretary of Indian Union Women League (IUWL) filed a petition to the center on 6th July 2020, which goes along side with other petitions of Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind, Muslim Advocates Association and others, who legally oppose the criminalization of triple talaq. Supreme court is due to hear her petition as well as other petitions.

Triple Talaq or popularly known as Talaq-e-Biddat was a typical practice of divorce in some sections of the Indian Muslim communities, where a husband can legally divorce his wife with the utterance of three words “Talaq, Talaq, Talaq”. However, according to the other schools of thought, it is not permissible under the Shariah law.

India’s ruling party Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) took an exaggerated stance against the practice by dedicating debates and discussions in the lower and upper houses of parliament in 2019. Eventually, the practice is deemed unconstitutional and punishable with up to three years of jail for the men who pronounce divorce thrice in a single instance.

According to Adv. Rasheed’s petition, “The protection of women cannot be achieved by incarceration of husbands”. According to Hindustan Times report, she also challenged the validity of a provision in the law that grants permission to relatives of the wife to file a complaint, stating that such an allowance would be “highly detrimental not only to the wife but also to the marital relationship”.

Adv. Rasheed objected that criminalization of triple talaq is to witch-hunt only one community, which gives enough reason to reveal BJP’s sinister motives.

She said, “Welfare-oriented legislation would promote amicable resolution of matrimonial disputes rather than criminalise marital discord, particularly criminalisation of only one community…the intent behind the Act is not abolition of triple talaq [instant divorce] but punishment of Muslim husbands.”

Indian government’s opposition leaders called the law a “historic mistake”, and that the government should not interfere into people’s religious matters.

Meanwhile, All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) and other women activists voiced strong condemnation against the law.

“Who will take care of the children when the husbands go to jail?” they ask.

The lower house (Lok Sabha) of the Parliament passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill last week while the upper house (Rajya Sabha) has approved now with 99 votes in favor and 84 against it.

The ruling NDA has 107 members among the total 242 members of Rajya Sabha. However, JD-U and AIADMK walked out during the critical hour of voting, hence downsizing the majority to 84 from 121.

Earlier the bill was rejected in Rajya Sabha when 100 votes were against it compared to 84 votes now.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi was quite excited over the bill and tweeted about it as “an occasion to salute the remarkable courage of those Muslim women who have suffered great wrongs just due to the practice of Triple Talaq.”

He also added that, “The abolition of Triple Talaq will contribute to women empowerment and give women the dignity they deserve in our society.”

This is an occasion to salute the remarkable courage of those Muslim women who have suffered great wrongs just due to the practice of Triple Talaq.

The abolition of Triple Talaq will contribute to women empowerment and give women the dignity they deserve in our society.

— Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) July 30, 2019

Interestingly, pro-Muslim parties like Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS), YSR-Congress, SP and BSP were absent, that strategically helped NDA.

All India Muslim Personal Law Board condemned the treachery of the parties by walking out of the house during the critical hour.

"We strongly condemn @INCIndia, @jantadal @Mayawati's BSP, AIDMK, @trspartyonline, @YSRCParty parties. They supported the @BJP4India's political agenda and walked out at the voting time in Rajya Sabha. They all have shown their true colors". Moulana Wali Rahmani:

— All India Muslim Personal Law Board (@AIMPLB_Official) July 30, 2019

Opposition leader Gulam Nabi Azad termed the bill as a politically motivated move to destroy Muslim households with domestic fights.

16th Speaker of Lok Sabha was Smt. Sumitra Mahajan.

Following is the transcript of his Urdu speech translated in English.

Madam, I would like to thank you that you have granted me permission to speak.

I speak as a father, as a brother, as an uncle and as a son, on behalf of cent percent Muslim women of this dearly nation, I would like to convey through this parliament to the Government that cent percent Muslim women of India absolutely oppose and reject this bill.

And the second matter is, Respected Madam/Speaker, the way this bill was presented, and I oppose this bill because according to the Indian constitution and the Article 14, Article 15, Article 26, and Article 29, and the preamble of our constitution which has clearly written in it—“guarantees liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship”, so based on this—I oppose it.

Respected Madam/Speaker, I would like to question the government through you, that what is your explanation that homosexuality has been decriminalized in our dearly nation – according to the judgment 377 – homosexuality has been decriminalized but you criminalize Triple Talaq?

A man and a man, and a woman and a woman can stay together and do whatever they wish, and you have no objection to it, and you have objection to Triple Talaq?

Why it’s imposed? Because it will be misused against us.

Further, respected Madam/Speaker, this government has appealed Supreme court to impose Adultery law for women, and Supreme court has decriminalized it. Adultery was decriminalized and you remained silent, but you criminalize the matter of Triple Talaq?

Madam, let’s consider the prevention of corruption act. You have decriminalized it that anyone can take money which is not meant for public benefit. But you criminalize Triple Talaq?

Respected Madam/Speaker, why is this law against the constitution? You said it correctly from the chair (where you are seated), that this custom is not among Hindus but among Muslims.

But Madam/Speaker, I would like to mention it with utter humbleness before you that, in our dearly country, according to the law of divorce, if a Hindu gets divorced, why does he get only one year of punishment, while Muslim gets three years of punishment? Is this not the violation of Article 14?

This act is against the “harm theory”.

And Madam, I would like to convey through you, our minister has aggressively said that, supreme court has termed it unconstitutional. I would like to learn from him, please show me the part of the judgment  where the majority of judgment has called Triple Talaq as unconstitutional?

Please, for the sake of God, please don’t make a mention of Supreme Court and misguide the parliament.

Madam/Speaker, I would like to ask Government through you, what did Bentham say? What did Montesquieu say?

Montesquieu said that, if law is not required, and if you introduce and enforce a law then it’s tyranny. You are initiating tyranny.

Madam, please listen to me.

Madam, you have kept tribals deprived of Hindu Marriage Act. Why did you do?

Hence, we speak about Article 26 and 29.

And Madam, I have listened to the great talented people here about Quran, and we call those who speak about Quran as “Fazeelatus-Shaykh” and “Shaykha”. What is left now? You have to proclaim Tawheed (monotheism) and finality of the Prophethood (of Prophet Mohammed ﷺ), and I invite you to it, please embrace it.

Madam, Sabrimala’s judgment was out, and you speak about equality, but where’s my equality? Your faith is your faith and my faith not mine? Is this not the violation of culture? Is this not violation of Article 29?

The intentions of the Government are not sincere.

Madam, now look at the surprising point, you are a woman, and please allow me to express this with humility, a man can run extra-marital affair with multiple-woman, and that’s not a crime, but if anyone calls Talaq thrice, then three years of imprisonment?

While Supreme court has clearly said, marriage is not terminated. If marriage is not terminated, where’s the question of punishment?

“Harm theory” – 377 is in front of you, and Madam, three years of punishment?

Communal riot acts like 148, 153A, 295 has three years of punishment. And if someone’s car hits a person and he dies, then two years of punishment.

Please read Bentham and Montesquieu, or get a fourth year student of any National law school, he will mentor you.

And yes, this is a fact, that marriage is contract in Islam.

I present a proposal, write a condition in the Nikah Nama (marriage contract) that if a Muslim man calls Talaq thrice, then he has to pay double or triple the amount of Maher (dowry given by groom to the bride). If any violation takes place, he goes to jail. It’s a contract and the act will be violation of contract.

You could also write, if anyone calls Talaq thrice, it will be considered only one. But you don’t do that either. We have a provision for it.

But, the intention is to imprison. They never favor women.

Who will give allowance?

What does a woman need? She needs a house, food on her table, and arrangement of her kids’ school fees.

Will you do?

Will you do?

Madam, I would like to ask you, Shayara Banu (Triple Talaq Petitioner) joined BJP, what have you done so far for her? Tell me. Have you done anything for her?

Madam, I am concluding. I am concluding.

There are hidden plans behind introducing these laws.

Madam, sexual minorities have choice as per section 377, why don’t religious minorities get choice?

There’s choice-jurisprudence in the Indian constitution. Won’t I get it?

Your law is against religion. You intend to dismantle the plurality. It’s quite clear.

You are not in favor of justice for Muslim women, in fact your hidden target was evident, when Attorney General in the Supreme Court said—terminate every law.

Mukhtar Sahab (while pointing towards him), Shia’s Segha law will also be terminated, so be careful.

Finally, Madam, #MeToo movement was started in the entire nation by the women. Where is the Minister (referring to MJ Akbar) who was standing here? Where is he now? Tell me?

[MLAs in the background shout: SHAME SHAME SHAME]

And you sheltered them in your party? You would have kicked him out, the one who raped women, the one who oppressed them. He was a mean fraudster. We call him in Urdu – “Totaye-Chasma”, and you sheltered them? And you show us the mirror?

Madam, please look, why I tell this – in our country 84% under-aged Hindu girls around 10 years of age are married, we made law against it. What happened? What happened, please tell me?

How about desertion? Over 20 Lac Hindu women are deserted after marriage. What about them? Please implement law against it.

Social evils have to be ended with everyone’s collective efforts.

I am ending it, Madam, and in conclusion I say – I tell the Government through you that, under your pressure, under your force, under your aggression, we shall not forsake our religion.

We shall live as Muslims till the end of times. We reject this bill, Madam!

The Congress and many opposition parties earlier demanded that the bill should be sent to a joint select committee of Parliament for further deliberations.

The Opposition argued that the bill is against the Supreme Court’s verdict that outlawed instant triple talaq. The government, on the other hand, said that the bill is aimed at honouring the rights of women.

It said the government is ready to discuss and listen to the objections that the opposition parties have on the triple talaq bill.

The bill seeks to make instant triple talaq a criminal offence. The Narendra Modi government drafted the bill after the August 2017 Supreme Court verdict that outlawed the practice.

S Q R Ilayas, member of working committee of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), said there was no need for this bill and it has been brought keeping in mind the upcoming Lok Sabha elections.

“It is a very dangerous bill that will make a civil issue a criminal offence. Who will take care of the wives and children once the husband goes to jail?” he said.