AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi fiercely opposes the proposed amendments to the Waqf Act, raising serious concerns not just about legal interpretations but also about national unity and majority rights. He claims the amendments will strip Muslims of all Waqf properties and violate constitutional rights, but his argument relies on exaggeration and fear-mongering. Instead of engaging in a constructive legal debate, he rallies communal sentiments to resist any reform.
#WATCH | In Lok Sabha, AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi says, “I am cautioning and warning this government – if you bring and make a Waqf law in the present form, which will be violation of Article 25, 26 and 14, it will lead to social instability in this country. It has been rejected… pic.twitter.com/agGgjpt4Ft
— ANI (@ANI) February 3, 2025
Owaisi Weaponizing Religious Identity
Owaisi insists that “not an inch of Waqf property” can be taken, despite legal and administrative concerns over many of these properties. His absolutist stance undermines democratic governance. He declares Waqf a “form of worship” and rejects any legal scrutiny, demanding an exemption no other community receives. Religious endowments must operate within a transparent legal framework, yet Owaisi refuses any discussion of accountability or reform.
Owaisi Ignoring Majority Concerns
The Waqf Board wields unchecked authority, controlling vast tracts of land that frequently spark legal disputes. In contrast, the state exerts heavy control over Hindu temples in several states, diverting their revenues for non-Hindu purposes. Owaisi ignores this stark imbalance and selectively protests, reinforcing the notion that only one community’s religious rights matter. Meanwhile, the majority continues to suffer under government overreach in its religious affairs.
Fear-Mongering Over Legal Reforms by Owaisi
The amendments seek to address inconsistencies and ambiguities in Waqf land ownership and management. Yet, Owaisi brands these reforms an existential threat to Muslims, fueling panic instead of engaging in reasoned debate. He positions himself as the defender of “Muslim property” and isolates the Muslim community from broader national discussions on land reforms and governance. Instead of advocating for fair policies, he incites fear and distrust.
The Real Question: Why Should Waqf Be Untouchable?
The core issue remains: Why should Waqf properties escape scrutiny or reform when the state controls other religious institutions? If Owaisi genuinely supports equality, he should demand similar protections for all religious properties, including Hindu temples. Instead, he defends a system that grants disproportionate privileges to one community while ignoring the injustices faced by others.
Owaisi’s rhetoric does not just aim to protect Waqf—it fosters a victimhood narrative that pits the Muslim community against the government and the majority. Instead of contributing to a meaningful discussion on legal reforms, he portrays the issue as a direct attack on Islam. This divisive approach does not strengthen national unity or fairness—it deepens social fractures and stokes unnecessary tensions.