Waqf Act 2025: Legislative Divide and Hindu Silence in Bharat

Introduction

In Bharat, a nation of 1.4 billion where diversity weaves unity and tension, the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, aimed to curb mismanagement in waqf properties—Islamic endowments for charity—through digitization, audits, and appeal rights. Yet, its passage sparked protests, exposing deep communal tensions. This fourth blog in our HinduInfoPedia series dives into the legislative process behind the Act, the surprising silence of Hindu communities, and the media’s role in amplifying division. Why did a reform meant to address systemic issues become a communal flashpoint, and what does this reveal about Bharat’s governance challenges?

A Complex Waqf Legacy

Waqf properties, intended for Muslim welfare, have grown to 39 lakh acres, but mismanagement has plagued their governance since the 1995 and 2013 amendments granted waqf boards unchecked powers to claim lands, often leading to encroachments in areas like Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh (Sachar Committee, 2006; The Hindu, November 7, 2024). Our prior HinduInfoPedia blogs traced this history: the first explored the 1954 Waqf Act and subsequent amendments, comparing Bharat’s system to transparent models in Muslim-majority nations like Turkey. The second analyzed the 2025 Act’s reforms—regular audits, digital records, and civil court appeals—alongside global reactions. Despite addressing litigation overload and opaque dealings (Economic Times, February 14, 2025), the Act faced fierce opposition, driven by perceptions of haste and exclusion that echoed debates over reforms like triple talaq in 2019.

Legislative Process: Thorough or Rushed?

The Waqf (Amendment) Act’s passage followed extensive consultations by the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC), with 34 sittings across cities like Mumbai, Hyderabad, Chennai, Ahmedabad, and Bengaluru, engaging 284 stakeholders, including state officials, waqf boards, farmers, scholars, and organizations like the Zakat Foundation. Over 1 crore public emails poured in from states like Maharashtra, Gujarat, and Tamil Nadu between September 26 and October 1, 2024 (Hindustan Times, August 9, 2024). JPC leadership defended the process as “thorough,” highlighting plans for further visits to Assam, Bihar, and West Bengal (ANI, September 24, 2024). A JPC member noted that “everyone had the opportunity to express their views,” with 42 organizations consulted in Hyderabad alone (DD News, January 27, 2025). A minister cited “200 complaints regarding waqf encroachments” as input, while another praised the JPC’s transparency efforts (Hindustan Times, August 9, 2024; India Today, April 3, 2025).

However, critics labeled the six-month timeline rushed compared to Congress-era processes, where 60–71% of bills went to committees (PRS India). The absence of Hindu groups like RSS or Hindu Mahasabha in consultations fueled skepticism, deepening communal tensions. Kerala’s Christian communities, representing 18% of the population, supported reforms to curb waqf overreach, aligning with broader demands for fairness (Kerala Kaumudi, October 10, 2024), but opposition rhetoric framed the Act as anti-Muslim, amplifying mistrust.

The Silent Hindu Backlash

Hindu silence was stark amid rising tensions. In West Bengal’s Alipurduar, where Muslims form 8.74% of the population, waqf boards claimed 250 acres, sparking unrest among Hindu farmers, yet groups like Vishva Hindu Parishad remained quiet (The Indian Express, October 20, 2024). In Tamil Nadu’s Tiruchirappalli (8.6% Muslim), 1,200 acres were disputed, with no response from Hindu organizations or opposition parties (The New Indian Express, October 15, 2024). In Murshidabad, protests targeted Hindus, leading to clashes, but government inaction raised questions about secular equity (Times of India, April 13, 2025). In Tripura’s Unakoti (2.26% Muslim), protests injured 18 police officers, yet Hindu grievances went unaddressed (India Today, April 3, 2025). This disconnect suggests a missed opportunity for inclusive reform, contrasting with vocal opposition elsewhere.

Media’s Narrative Imbalance

Media coverage disproportionately focused on protests, often portraying the Act as a communal assault while sidelining waqf mismanagement and litigation issues. National and regional outlets highlighted opposition narratives but rarely covered Hindu farmers’ struggles in Alipurduar or Tiruchirappalli, or Christian support in Kerala for curbing waqf overreach. This selective reporting reinforced perceptions of anti-Muslim bias, obscuring the Act’s aim to address corruption and opaque land claims (Economic Times, February 14, 2025). Balanced coverage could have framed the reform as a legal correction, not a provocation, fostering public understanding and reducing communal tensions.

Conclusion

The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, reveals a governance paradox: robust consultations were overshadowed by perceptions of haste and exclusion, silencing Hindu voices while protests dominated headlines. Inclusive dialogue is crucial to bridge Bharat’s communal divides. Our next blog at HinduInfoPedia will explore politicians’ roles in these tensions and why some states curbed unrest while others faltered.

CTA: Can Bharat reform without fracturing its social fabric? Share your thoughts, spread this story, and visit HinduInfoPedia for deeper insights into Bharat’s legal and cultural battles.

Read More

https://hinduinfopedia.in/waqf-act-protests/