The recent passing of the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, has triggered a wave of protests across several districts in West Bengal, a state where Muslims form over 27% of the population. In Murshidabad, a district with a Muslim majority, the demonstrations escalated into violence, resulting in tragic fatalities. The situation prompted the Calcutta High Court to order the deployment of central security forces. This unrest mirrors the violent demonstrations seen in the region during the anti-NRC and anti-CAA protests that followed the 2019 Citizenship Amendment Act.

While political clashes are not new to West Bengal, the frequency of large-scale communal violence in recent years marks a disturbing trend. This escalation stems from the political strategies adopted by both the BJP and the Trinamool Congress since around 2017-18, which have deepened communal divides and radicalised factions on both sides. Though such approaches may have bolstered electoral performance for both parties, they have come at a steep cost to the state’s social harmony. Ideologies rooted in communalism and religious fundamentalism, which once existed only at the periphery, have now taken a central role in public and political discourse.

Even as efforts to restore peace and provide support to the affected in Murshidabad continue, it’s crucial not to lose sight of the underlying causes behind these repeated eruptions of communal unrest. Since 2014, several legislative and executive actions by the central government have been critiqued for undermining India’s secular and federal framework. Key events such as the abrogation of Article 370, the building of the Ram Mandir, the NRC implementation in Assam, the enactment of the CAA in 2019, and the push for a Uniform Civil Code have all stirred unease among India’s over 200 million Muslims. The Waqf Amendment Act is viewed as yet another blow in this series of events. In West Bengal, particularly, misconceptions around the Act have amplified public anxieties, highlighting the need to carefully examine the law’s finer details.

Several provisions in the new legislation raise questions about their compatibility with fundamental rights, such as equality before the law, freedom of religion, and the federal nature of the Constitution. The amended law — now titled the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act — fundamentally redefines “waqf” and introduces sweeping changes to how waqf properties are managed. Waqf assets, typically charitable and religious endowments like mosques, madrasas, orphanages, graveyards, dargahs, and Eid grounds, are governed under Muslim personal law.

Previously, under the 1995 Waqf Act, each state had its own waqf board, comprising elected members along with nominees from the government and recognised Muslim organisations. These boards had the authority to conduct surveys and inquiries, with legal disputes being resolved by state-level waqf tribunals. The central waqf council played an advisory and policy role.

The original law also allowed anyone to dedicate movable or immovable property as waqf. However, the amended version restricts this right to individuals who can prove they have practiced Islam for at least five years and that they lawfully own the property in question, free from any manipulative intent. But this raises practical concerns: how does one prove consistent religious practice over five years? Who will issue or verify this certification? And how will the absence of “contrivance” be confirmed?

Another contentious change is the invalidation of “waqf by user” and the blanket removal of waqf board claims on properties now classified as government land. All such properties must be delisted if their waqf status was declared before the amendment came into force. Moreover, the responsibility for property surveys and inquiries has been shifted from waqf boards to district collectors. These officers, as government appointees, may not always serve as impartial arbiters in disputes involving government and waqf interests. This shift undermines the independence and authority of waqf boards.

The reorganisation of both the central and state waqf boards is another cause for concern. Elected members have been replaced by nominees, and there is a noticeable increase in non-Muslim representation, including in leadership roles such as CEOs. These changes compromise the boards’ autonomy and their ability to function in alignment with the community’s religious and charitable needs.

Additionally, the new law mandates the establishment of a centralised digital portal for registering every waqf property across the nation. All relevant documentation — including ownership proof, financial audits, and usage records — must be submitted for re-registration. This process has generated fears that many existing waqf assets could be excluded from the central database, effectively stripping them of legal protection due to overly stringent documentation requirements.

This level of intervention challenges several constitutional safeguards. It potentially violates Article 14 (equality before the law), Article 15 (non-discrimination based on religion), Article 25 (freedom to practice and propagate religion), and Article 26 (the right of religious groups to manage their own affairs). It is also worth noting that these kinds of stringent conditions are being applied only to waqf properties and not to religious endowments of other communities.

Furthermore, since most waqf assets consist of land, transferring control over their registration and management to the central government contradicts the federal structure laid out in Article 246 and the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, which classifies land as a state subject.

The fears of losing control over waqf properties are not unfounded. Over the past decade, India’s Muslim community has largely responded with restraint. During the nationwide protests against NRC and CAA in 2019-2020, the community emphasised defending constitutional values. Peaceful sit-ins led by Muslim women waving the national flag were a defining image of that movement, which only ended due to the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdown.

Now, with a new wave of protests emerging in response to the Waqf Amendment Act, it is essential that the resistance remains peaceful. The protesters can draw strength from the non-violent farmers’ movement of 2020-21, which eventually succeeded in pushing the government to withdraw the controversial farm laws. The Constitution should remain the foundation of the struggle,and it must be defended using constitutional, democratic means.

.    .    .