SRINAGAR: Members of Parliament from Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh strongly opposed the Waqf Amendment Bill passed in Parliament today, calling it an infringement on religious freedom and minority rights. The lawmakers argued that the bill undermines the autonomy of Waqf institutions and violates constitutional protections for religious communities.
Sheikh Abdul Rasheed, MP from Baramulla, criticised the bill, declaring, “I oppose this bill tooth and nail.” He accused both the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Congress of political hypocrisy, stating, “BJP openly reminds Muslims of their rights, but Congress stabs Muslims in the back with the sweet juice of secularism.” Rasheed also questioned the role of Waqf management, urging introspection among Muslims regarding the utilisation of Waqf properties. “How many hospitals and universities have we built with Waqf? Are these properties being misused?” he asked.
Mian Altaf Ahmad, MP from Anantnag, condemned the bill as “illegal” and “against minorities.” He argued that the legislation strips state governments of their authority over Waqf matters. “This bill attacks the powers of the state government and brings a law that divides society,” he asserted. Ahmad warned that the law would harm India’s global reputation as a secular nation. “By passing such laws, our country’s secularism is being questioned worldwide,” he added.
Mohmad Haneefa, MP from Ladakh, expressed concern over provisions allowing non-Muslims to be part of the Waqf administration. “If non-Muslims are included in the Waqf Board, this will directly interfere with the religious rights of the Muslim community and violate Article 26 of the Constitution,” he said. Hanifa also criticised the bill’s approach to Waqf properties, stating, “The government wants to abolish the principle of Waqf by taking control of its assets, which have been historically protected by the Muslim community.”
The Lok Sabha passed the Waqf (Amendment) Bill after discussion for over 12 hours with the govt countering the opposition’s charges of encroachment on constitutional and Muslim rights and attacks on federalism with a strong defence of the changes in the Act governing Islamic endowments.
