MyVoice: Views of our readers 4th Apr 2025

Flawed law on Waqf

The new piece of legislation on waqf, passed after a decent debate in the Parliament, is in tune with the Hindu revivalist times. In other words, it cannot be looked at in isolation from the crisis of secularism that the country is currently going through. The question to ask is, whether the newly-enacted waqf law strengthens or weakens our identity and status as a secular democracy. The revised law has given reason for worry to those who are for India’s continued existence as a secular democracy. Its whole object is suspect.

The 6Ds that run through the new waqf law are discrimination against Muslims, dispossession of Muslims, disenfranchisement of Muslims, defamation of Muslims, division of people on religious lines and dilution of the Constitution. Read against Article: 26 of the Constitution, it becomes clear that the new law violates the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion in both letter and spirit.

There is legitimate fear among Muslims that the law endangers waqf properties - mosques, shrines, seminaries, graveyards, orphanages, shops and landholdings - vulnerable to disputes, acquisitions, confiscations and demolitions across states, especially in Uttar Pradesh. For reasons well known, “demolition” has become a scary word for the Indian Muslims. The law passed by the BJP with the help of its ‘secular’ allies is unconstitutional to survive the legal challenge to it in the Supreme Court which is sure to happen once it gets the President’s assent.

G. David Milton, Maruthancode, Tamil, Nadu

***

The Lok Sabha passed the Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2025 after a marathon debate over nine hours on the revised version of the Bill on Wednesday. The Bill mainly focused to placate the amendments that were made in 2014 in run up the general elections by the UPA. The Bill was named the Unified Waqf Management Empowerment, Efficency and Development (UMEED) .The Bill provides provision to take 2 members from non - Muslims and 2 women into Waqf boards and Councils. It also restricts the people to create Waqf properties unless they practice Muslims at least five years.

The ruling NDA terms the Bill to protect the 9.4 lakh acres of Waqf land which is worth about ₹ 1.2 lakh crore. But the opposition argued that the Bill was against Articles 14, 26and 29 of Constitution, thereby it attacked on the basic structure of the constitution. It has four goals - to dilute the constitution, defame minorities, divide the society and disenfranchise the minority. Further the opposition challenged the Treasury benches to make same amendendments to the other religious boards. However the Bill creates polarisation in the society.

Pratapa Reddy Yaramala, Tiruvuru, AP

***

The Lok Sabha passed the Waqf (Amendment) Bill after strong discussion for over 12 hours with the govt countering the opposition’s charges of encroachment on constitutional and Muslim rights and attacks on secular and federal principles laid down in the constitution with a strong defence of the changes in the Act governing Islamic endowments.

The smooth passage of the bill marked an important juncture. Coming after the enactment of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, which was opposed on the ground of being allegedly anti-Muslim, criminalisation of triple talaq and enactment of the Uniform Civil Code in Uttarakhand, the passage of the Waqf Bill marked the fourth instance where the BJP govt has had its way despite the combined resistance of Muslim outfits and secular parties.

Dimple Wadhawan, Kanpur Nagar

SC verdict exposes ‘Inhuman’ Yogi govt

The Supreme Court has given an important verdict by describing the houses dropped from bulldozers in Prayagraj as inhuman and illegal, saying that the soul of the court has suffered a setback. The process of demolishing houses with bulldozers in our country is very unfair and condemnable. Do not understand why any person’s illegal construction is visible only after the crime?

Why is the legal process of preventing illegal construction not adopted? This decision of the Supreme Court is correct. Giving punishment for a criminal’s crime to his entire family is not justified in any way and is not justice. The Supreme Court should no longer let the bulldozer move forward, taking a decision in the public interest.

Hema Hari Upadhyay, Khacharod, Ujjain

HC comes for green cover rescue

“The High Court of Telangana’s decision to stay the felling of trees and ground levelling work in the 400-acre land at Kancha Gachibowli area is a significant victory for environmental conservation (Hans India dt 3-4-25). This move will help preserve the green cover of Hyderabad and protect the city’s ecosystem. In the name development and creation of jobs destruction of a 400-acre green cover in Hyderabad City is indeed devastating.

The use of bulldozers to raze trees, lakes, and habitats of peacocks is not only environmentally harmful but also threatens the local ecosystem. The High Court’s timely intervention has saved the city from ecological disaster, upholding the importance of environmental protection. This verdict serves as a powerful reminder that development must be balanced with conservation and sustainability.”