The Waqf Amendment Bill, 2024, scripted by the Modi regime and passed by both the Houses of parliament militates against the constitution at a time when its 75th anniversary is being celebrated. Orchestrated utterances by BJP leaders inside both the Houses – that the Bill is beneficial to the Muslim community – sound hollow in the context of their deafening silence when blood curdling calls were issued by several top BJP functionaries from the so called Dharm Sansads (religious parliaments) for genocide of Muslims and their comprehensive economic boycott. Therefore, the Waqf Amendment Bill after its enactment on getting the assent of President Draupadi Murmu would be part of the instrumentality of law devised by the Modi regime to target Muslims and their moveable and immoveable Waqf properties.It is now part of the BJP’s pattern of assaulting Muslims. It has used ‘love jihad’ legislations in several BJP-ruled states and other intimidatory formulations such as land jihad and UPSC jihad. Such coercion of Muslims caused by actions of the state amount to the declaration of ceaseless hostility towards them. The situation is evocative of fears expressed by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar who while speaking in the Constituent Assembly on the Objectives Resolution on December 17, 1946, remarked with sadness that several leaders of that time who spewed venom against Muslims talked of launching a war against them and created a false perception that they intended to target the British rulers. In exposing their deception, he warned: “…If there is anybody who has in his mind the project of solving the Hindu-Muslim problem by force, which is another name of solving it by war… in order that the Muslims may be subjugated…[t]his country would be involved in perpetually conquering them.”Designated officialSeveral provisions of the Waqf Bill clearly indicate how Muslims would be treated with hostility regardless of the Modi government’s stand that it would be beneficial to them.Clause 4 3C (1) of the Bill states that an officer above the rank of Collector (designated officer) would examine if a government property has been declared as be a Waqf property. It proceeds to add that till the designated officer submits the report such property shall not be treated as Waqf property. The designated officer being a government officer would act as per the thinking or instructions of the government. When high constitutional functionaries such as governors appointed by the Modi regime in non-BJP ruled states act contrary to their oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” how on earth can anybody expect the designated officer working under a government to act in a fair manner? In a hypothetical context, in case the designated officer declares that a mosque or dargah is not a Waqf property then the government of the day would take no time to bulldoze those structures in the manner in which, in several BJP-ruled states, bulldozers are employed to demolish dwelling units of many Muslims in clear violation of the Supreme Court guidelines in this regard.Of course there are provisions to appeal against that decision of the designated officer in higher courts. But once a decision is taken by the designated official the legal route in pursuit of justice would be a long drawn-out exercise and the process itself would be the punishment.Also read: Why the Waqf Bill Passage Is Not a ‘Muslim’ Issue, It Affects all of IndiaWho is a practising MuslimIt is indeed perplexing that the Waqf Bill mandates that donors dedicating land for Waqf, must have been practicing Muslims for at least five years. This is contrary to the tenets of Islam which do not specify any number of years. The state defining a Muslim in such a manner in contrast to its silence with regards to people of other faiths goes against the very constitution which treats people of all faiths equally.Constitution of Waqf CouncilContrary to the law mandating that the boards governing Hindu temples would be constituted by enlisting only Hindus, the Central Waqf Council, under the new Waqf legislation of 2024, would have non-Muslims apart from the required number of Muslim men and women. The manner in which the non-Muslims have been included in the Central Waqf Council testifies to the Modi regime’s blatant adherence to the doctrine of differential rights – one set of rights for Hindus and a completely different set for Muslims. The doctrine of differential rights defined the colonial rule in India and placed Indians in an inferior position in relation to European colonial masters.Waqf by UserThe legislation also dispenses the Waqf-by-user principle, according to which properties are legally held as Waqf based not on documentary declaration but solely on use for public religious or charitable purposes for a long span of time. The Modi regime often invokes the Supreme Court judgement on Babri Mosque-Ram Temple dispute and flags its operative portion allowing the construction of Ram temple. But it ignores the description of the demolition of the mosque as an egregious violation of rule of law. In that judgement it is explicitly held that “Our jurisprudence recognises the principle of Waqf-by-user even absent an express deed of dedication or declaration.”Kapil Sibal, the legal luminary and Rajya Sabha MP while participating in the discussion on the floor of the House, urged the government to honour the aforementioned Supreme Court judgement outlining the long-held legal and jurisprudential validity of Waqf-by-user principle removed from the Bill.Inclusive idea of Waqf dispensed withIt is also tragic that the inclusive idea of the Waqf outlined in the Waqf Act, 1995, has been removed in the Waqf Bill, 2024. The 1995 Act stated that “Waqf means the permanent dedication by any person, of any movable or immovable property for any purpose recognised by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable.”Any person in the above definition included, apart from Muslims, the Hindus and people professing other faiths. In the present form the Waqf Bill, 2024 states that only a Muslim practising the faith for five years would do the permanent dedication. Reducing a broad definition to a narrow one speaks of the constricted vision enshrined in the legislation.On December 2, 1948, in the context of anxieties expressed by some Muslim members of the Constituent Assembly on a Uniform Civil Code, Ambedkar cautioned, “No government can exercise its power in such a manner as to provoke the Muslim community to rise in rebellion”. He then sharply remarked, “It would be a mad government if it did so.”S.N. Sahu served as Officer on Special Duty to President of India K.R. Narayanan.
