Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/subscribe/
A storm was brewing in the quiet lanes of Murshidabad. What began as whispers of a central law altering the management of Muslim religious endowments erupted into violent protests, leaving three dead and dozens injured. The trigger? The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, a legislation that, while framed as reform, is being seen by many as a direct assault on the autonomy of the community. As the state government distances itself from the Centre’s move, and the Calcutta High Court calls in central forces, the clash over waqf land has swiftly escalated into a larger contest over law, faith, and federalism.
Why violence in Murshidabad?
The violence in Murshidabad did not erupt in a vacuum. It was the result of long-standing anxieties around land, identity, and state power. With a considerable Muslim population and a dense concentration of waqf properties, the district became a flashpoint as news of the amendment spread on 5th April. Protestors feared that the new law would result in the state gaining control of community assets under the pretext of development. Rumours of mosques being destroyed and people being forced to leave their homes caused widespread fear. The state government’s public disapproval of the law failed to turn down the unrest. It shows the mistrust in the people toward both state and central authorities that runs deep.
What is the law in question?
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 amends the law governing waqf properties, that are religious endowments made under Islamic law for charitable or religious purposes. While the government describes it as a step toward transparency and efficient management, the amendment has raised red flags among community leaders and legal scholars. One of the most contentious changes is the enhanced power granted to government-appointed authorities to survey, acquire, and even repurpose waqf land for ostensibly “public purposes,” without sufficient consultation with the waqf boards. Critics argue that the move dilutes the community’s right to manage its religious and charitable institutions, and opens the door for potential misuse and arbitrary land acquisition.
Constitutional aspects involved
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 invites serious constitutional scrutiny, particularly in light of Article 26. The Article guarantees every religious denomination the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion. Contentions of the critics are that by vesting enhanced control over waqf properties in state-appointed bodies, and by broadening the scope for state acquisition, the amendment may infringe upon this protected autonomy. The shift in balance raises the question: is administrative rearrangement being achieved at the cost of constitutional safeguards? Equally significant is the Act’s ripple effect on federal relations. Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee’s categorical refusal to implement the law has reignited debates over the limits of state defiance. While land is a state subject, waqf falls under the Concurrent List, making Article 254 relevant, which provides that a Central law prevails in case of conflict.
Communal and Political Fallout and the Role of the Judiciary
The issue has assumed a communal and political dimension. The critics are seeing it as a component of a larger majoritarian initiative aimed at undermining minority institutions under the pretext of reform. In West Bengal, the situation has escalated into a significant political conflict between the TMC and the BJP. The former asserting its role as a defender of minority rights and federal autonomy. In this difficult environment, the Calcutta High Court’s order to deploy central forces in Murshidabad was notable. It was not just a law-and-order action but also as a nuanced affirmation of judicial power. This has incited significant enquiries over the judiciary’s growing role. The courts are more involved in the intricate balance between the Centre and State, particularly when political disputes influence constitutional interpretation. Consequently, judiciary is slowly turning into platforms where India’s conflicting interpretations of governance, federalism, and secularism are subtly yet significantly influenced.
What lies ahead?
The current situation serves as a reflection of the concerns inside a profoundly diverse society contending with issues of authority, ownership, and identity. The violence in Murshidabad exemplifies that rule; seemingly technical, may possess significant social implications, especially when they meet with religion. The Centre’s pursuit of uniformity and the Mamta government’s claim of autonomy have once more revealed the vulnerability of India’s federal structure. In this evolving conflict, the judiciary’s function as a mediator is expected to expand. However, there is also an increasing necessity for a political conduct that fosters trust rather than mere obedience.
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.