In response to potential unrest, authorities in Uttar Pradesh have placed police forces on high alert across more than 50 districts. Vigilance has been intensified in all 75 districts of the state. Senior officials at the Uttar Pradesh Police headquarters in Lucknow confirmed these measures, emphasizing the need for heightened security during this period. All police leaves have been canceled, with personnel instructed to remain on duty. Flag marches have been conducted in various areas, including the old city of Lucknow, to instill a sense of security among residents. Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police Dhananjay Singh Kushwaha stated that drones are being utilized to monitor densely populated areas, ensuring a tight vigil.
In Kanpur, similar security protocols have been implemented. Police, along with units of the Provincial Armed Constabulary , have been deployed to monitor sensitive areas. Senior officers, including Deputy Commissioners of Police and Additional Deputy Commissioners of Police , have conducted foot marches to assess the situation on the ground. Drones are also being employed to enhance surveillance capabilities. These measures aim to prevent any potential disturbances and maintain public order during the parliamentary discussions on the Waqf Amendment Bill.
The Waqf Amendment Bill seeks to reform the 1995 law governing Muslim land endowments, known as waqfs. Waqfs are Islamic charitable foundations where donors permanently set aside property for religious or charitable purposes. In India, waqf properties encompass approximately 872,000 assets covering around 405,000 hectares of land, valued at an estimated $14.22 billion. These endowments often include mosques, seminaries, graveyards, and orphanages, some dating back centuries.
One of the bill's key provisions is the inclusion of non-Muslims on waqf boards, which are currently managed exclusively by Muslims. The government argues that this change will promote diversity and help combat corruption and mismanagement within these boards. However, critics contend that this move could undermine the rights of the Muslim community and potentially lead to the confiscation of historic mosques and other properties. Opposition parties and various Muslim groups view the bill as politically motivated, aiming to weaken minority rights.
Concerns have also been raised about the bill's provisions regarding the validation of waqf land holdings. The proposed amendments would grant the government a larger role in confirming waqf land claims, a move that critics fear could strip Muslims of their properties, especially those lacking formal documentation due to their historical nature. This aspect of the bill has heightened apprehensions among the Muslim community, which comprises approximately 14% of India's population.
The debate over the Waqf Amendment Bill has elicited strong reactions from various political figures. AIMIM Chief Asaduddin Owaisi has vehemently opposed the bill, labeling it unconstitutional and an attack on Muslims' rights. During the parliamentary debate, Owaisi tore a copy of the bill, drawing attention to his protest. He asserted that the bill violates Articles 14, 25, and 26 of the Constitution, which pertain to equality before the law and the freedom to manage religious affairs. Owaisi expressed concerns that the bill would allow non-Muslims to administer waqf properties and could lead to the appropriation of mosques, dargahs, and madrasas.
In response, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju defended the bill, stating that it aims to address issues of inadequate documentation and disputes over waqf properties. He emphasized that the bill is not unconstitutional and urged critics to refrain from using such terminology lightly. Rijiju highlighted that the removal of waqf by user is due to insufficient data supporting ownership claims, leading to disputes that the bill seeks to resolve.
The government's move to introduce the Waqf Amendment Bill has also been met with criticism from other political parties. Rahul Gandhi, leader of the Congress party, expressed strong opposition, describing the bill as a weapon aimed at marginalizing Muslims and usurping their personal laws and property rights. He warned that this attack on the Constitution sets a precedent that could be used to target other communities in the future.