The Waqf Amendment Bill, aimed at addressing issues surrounding the governance and management of Waqf properties, has been a contentious point, especially within religious and political spheres. The bill proposes significant changes to the original Waqf Act of 1995, drawing the ire of various religious groups and communities. Concerns about the implications of the amendment have led to widespread debate, with religious organizations calling for more transparency and dialogue before any further legislative action.
At the heart of the criticism from CBCI’s Laity Council is the perceived encroachment on the autonomy of religious bodies in managing their own properties. Sebastian underscored that the Waqf Bill goes beyond addressing administrative inefficiencies and instead attempts to centralize control over religious properties, stripping local bodies of their decision-making authority. He contended that the resolution passed by the state reflects a disconnect between government action and the interests of the community, further polarizing an already delicate issue.
The amendments in question would modify existing oversight mechanisms for Waqf properties, which are traditionally managed by designated boards across the states. The Union government, represented by Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju, has maintained that the changes are necessary to tackle widespread allegations of mismanagement, land encroachment, and infiltration by criminal elements. Proponents of the bill argue that these issues have plagued Waqf properties for years and that the new provisions would streamline governance and improve accountability.
However, detractors, including religious leaders and civil society groups, view the amendments as an infringement on the constitutional protections granted to religious organizations in India. Critics assert that the government’s attempts to regulate Waqf properties stem from a broader political strategy aimed at curbing the independence of minority religious bodies, which manage significant tracts of land and community assets. They claim that the bill grants excessive power to state officials, who could interfere in matters traditionally handled by religious boards.
Sebastian highlighted that while the bill ostensibly seeks to address corruption and inefficiency, the practical impact would be a dilution of the autonomy long enjoyed by religious institutions. He further pointed out that any genuine attempt to reform Waqf management should involve dialogue with religious leaders and stakeholders, ensuring that the rights of religious communities are protected.
Supporters of the state’s resolution argue that local governments must take a stand against central policies that overreach into religious affairs. They believe that opposing the amendment bill is not only a matter of principle but also a defense of religious freedom as enshrined in the Constitution. However, the Catholic Bishops’ Laity Council, alongside other religious organizations, fears that the passage of such resolutions, without broader consultation, risks alienating religious communities and creating divisions between the government and religious bodies.