Waqf Act Protests: From Rhetoric to Riots Igniting Passion

Part IV: Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025

Table of Contents

Waqf Act Protests: Cause Analysis

In our ongoing series on the Waqf Act Protests, we’ve examined the roots of the 2025 amendment, its legal trajectory, and the global reactions it triggered. The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, aimed at digitizing records and curbing waqf mismanagement, builds on a complex history. Our prior blogs traced its roots: the first detailed the evolution of waqf laws from the 1954 Act through the expansive 1995 and 2013 amendments, comparing Bharat’s system to transparent models in Muslim-majority nations. The second explored the Act’s 2025 reforms and global reactions, highlighting debates over autonomy versus accountability.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

Importantly, the 2025 amendment also reinstated the right to appeal Waqf Board decisions in civil courts—a provision absent in earlier frameworks—offering a lawful channel for grievances. Yet, despite this, public mobilization escalated rapidly.

Now, this third blog examines the protests sparked by the Act, fueled by rhetoric, and probes their deeper motives.

Historical Background Leading to Waqf Act Protests

The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, aimed at digitizing records and curbing waqf mismanagement, builds on a complex history. Our prior blogs traced its roots: the first detailed the evolution of waqf laws from the 1954 Act through the expansive 1995 and 2013 amendments, comparing Bharat’s system to transparent models in Muslim-majority nations. The second explored the Act’s 2025 reforms and global reactions, highlighting debates over autonomy versus accountability. Now, this third blog examines the protests sparked by the Act, fueled by rhetoric, and probes their deeper motives.

Provocative Rhetoric Fuels Tensions Before and After the Act

Opposition to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, began even before its passage on April 5, 2025, with symbolic protests signaling deep unrest. On the Friday before Eid, April 4, 2025, Muslims across Uttar Pradesh’s Muzaffarnagar wore black badges during prayers to oppose the then-proposed Act, a move echoing earlier protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). This action, reported widely, set the stage for heightened tensions, as communities perceived the impending law as a threat to their religious autonomy.

Statements from prominent figures and religious leadership further inflamed Muslim passions, deepening the divide. On April 5, the Supreme Court Bar Association’s president, a figure of legal prominence, called the Act a “direct assault on Muslim religious autonomy,” urging nationwide protests to “protect Shariah principles.” His remarks, widely shared in Urdu media, sparked outrage, with many interpreting them as a call to resist.

Similarly, a Maulana, a Bareilly cleric, declared on April 6 that the Act ‘violates waqf’s sanctity,’ rallying thousands in Uttar Pradesh with sermons portraying the law as targeting Muslim rights.” These statements from legal and religious authorities contributed to a perception of collective grievance, which heightened tensions on the ground.

Political leaders from opposition parties amplified these sentiments, again, drawing parallels to the 2019–2020 CAA protests in Shaheen Bagh, which gained momentum after an Indian National Congress (INC) leader’s speech at Ramlila Maidan on December 14, 2019, decrying the CAA as “anti-Muslim.”

TMC President and West Bengal’s Chief Minister, declared on April 12, 2025, that her state would not implement the Act, stating, “Bengal will not bow to this divide-and-rule tactic; this law is a conspiracy to snatch Muslim rights.” She further provoked sentiments by adding, “Some will incite you to protest, but Didi will protect your properties,” a statement that echoed her earlier resistance to the CAA and fueled protests in Murshidabad, as reported by Times of India.

Another TMC leader and MP, Lok Sabha, on April 5, labeled the Act a “systematic erosion of minority rights,” vowing to challenge it in the Supreme Court, a stance that resonated with her party’s base in West Bengal. AIMIM president, on the same day, called it a “grave injustice,” rallying crowds in Hyderabad with warnings of “eroded rights,” reminiscent of his anti-CAA rhetoric that fueled Shaheen Bagh’s sit-ins.

An RJD senior leader, on April 6, termed the Act a “draconian overreach,” urging Bihar’s Muslims to “resist peacefully,” while SP president, on April 7, accused the government of “using waqf to polarize votes,” a statement that echoed the CAA’s divisive fallout again.

Notably, no political leader outside the government alliance has appreciated the law, reflecting a unified opposition stance. Leaders within the ruling alliance, like Union Minister Kiren Rijiju, defended the Act on April 7, claiming it targets “land mafias exploiting waqf,” but this has been overshadowed by broader political opportunism. Politicians focus on vote banks—opposition parties rallying Muslim support, government allies appealing to the majority—overlooking the communal tensions they fuel for electoral gains.

Ironically, these protests surged even though the 2025 amendment reinstated civil court appeals—an institutional avenue that many leaders ignored in favor of street mobilization.

From Rhetoric on Waqf Amendment Act to Riots

The rhetoric surrounding the Waqf Act Protests did not remain confined to speeches and symbolic acts. As emotionally charged narratives took hold, they catalyzed real-world consequences—unfolding in a series of escalating incidents that turned protest into peril.

The passage of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, on April 5, 2025, unleashed a torrent of inflammatory rhetoric from political, religious, and legal figures. These emotionally charged statements, steeped in communal overtones, transformed a legislative debate into a catalyst for widespread protests, looting, and violence across Bharat. By portraying the Act as a threat to Muslim identity, leaders inadvertently contributed to an atmosphere that led to widespread unrest.

1 Supreme Court Bar Association President’s Call to Action

On April 5, 2025, the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association branded the Act a “direct assault on Muslim religious autonomy,” urging nationwide protests to “protect Shariah principles.” His statement, amplified through Urdu media, was interpreted as a rallying cry for resistance. This rhetoric mobilized public sentiment, which was visible in early protests such as the black badge demonstrations in Muzaffarnagar during Eid prayers on April 4, and later in incidents of unrest in cities like Patna, where stone-pelting erupted on April 7.

2 Maulana from Bareilly’s Communal Framing

On April 6, a prominent Bareilly cleric, declared the Act “violates the sanctity of waqf as ordained by Allah,” labeling it a “Hindu conspiracy.” His sermons, delivered to thousands in Uttar Pradesh, inflamed communal sentiments, fostering a narrative of religious betrayal. This rhetoric fueled unrest in Moradabad, where, on April 10, four youths were arrested for distributing posters inciting ‘jihad to protect waqf,’ reflecting radical mobilization sparked by Khan’s claims.

3 Political Leaders Amplify Divisive Narratives

Opposition leaders drew parallels between the Act and earlier legislation like the CAA, which contributed to heightened sensitivities around the issue. West Bengal’s Chief Minister’s April 12 rhetoric, implicitly encouraging resistance, parallels senior Congress leader’s statement at Ramlila Maidan in 2019 condemnation of the CAA as “discriminatory,” and gave a call for “either this side or other side” (is paar ya us paar) which sparked Shaheen Bagh’s sit-ins the next day, leading to Delhi’s 2020 riots. In 2025, her statements triggered protests in Murshidabad and South 24 Parganas, with arson and looting in Dhulian and Bhangar. AIMIM president’s April 5 warning of “eroded rights” and SP president’s April 7 claim of “vote polarization” further escalated unrest, contributing to Tripura’s April 9 clash injuring 18 police officers.

4 AIMPLB’s Nationwide Campaign

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) launched a “Save Waqf, Save the Constitution” campaign, urging Muslims to wear black armbands during prayers and join mass demonstrations. While intended as peaceful, this organized mobilization provided a platform for extremist elements. In West Bengal’s Dhulian and Shamsherganj, protests under this banner turned into mob attacks on Hindu homes, with reports of premeditated violence. The campaign’s emotive framing amplified the Act’s perceived threat, indirectly enabling chaos in vulnerable regions.

5 Consequences of Inflammatory Rhetoric

The cumulative effect of this rhetoric was catastrophic. In West Bengal’s Murshidabad, violent clashes on April 11–12 led to lynchings, widespread looting, and the mass exodus of Hindus to Malda district. In Pune’s Nagpur Chawl, a Hindu family was lynched by a mob during the protest peak, reflecting urban fallout. Tripura’s Unakoti district saw 4,000 protesters clash with police on April 9, while Patna faced curfews after stone-pelting on April 7. These incidents, shaped by a narrative of communal grievance, illustrated how emotionally charged discourse could transform policy opposition into wider societal conflict.

The interplay of incendiary rhetoric and communal narratives directly fueled the escalation of protests into riots. By framing the Waqf (Amendment) Act as an assault on Muslim identity, leaders across spectrums ignited passions that overwhelmed calls for restraint. The resulting violence, displacement, and societal fractures highlight the profound responsibility of leadership discourse in shaping public order and communal harmony, underscoring the urgent need for de-escalatory dialogue to mend Bharat’s fraying social fabric.

Conclusion

The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, intended to streamline waqf governance, instead became a lightning rod for communal unrest, fueled by provocative rhetoric. From the Supreme Court Bar Association President’s call to “protect Shariah” to Maulana from Bareilly “Hindu conspiracy” sermons, and opposition leaders’ parallels to the CAA, emotionally charged narratives painted the Act as an attack on Muslim identity. These words, amplified by campaigns like AIMPLB’s “Save Waqf,” incited protests that erupted into violence—lynchings in Murshidabad, arson in Bhangar, and clashes in Tripura. The resulting displacement and curfews underscore the power of rhetoric to fracture Bharat’s social fabric, revealing a perilous gap between reform and its perception. Leaders’ words carry weight; they can either heal or harm.

Call to Action

As we continue this series, our next blog will probe the role of politicians in enabling riots and why some states contained unrest while others burned. Join the conversation: How can Bharat balance reform with harmony? Share this blog to spark dialogue and subscribe to HinduInfoPedia for unflinching insights into Bharat’s cultural and legal battles.

Feature Image: Click here to view the image.

Glossary of Terms

Waqf: An Islamic endowment of property—usually for religious, educational, or charitable purposes—where the asset remains intact, and its income is used for communal welfare. Managed by Waqf Boards in Bharat.
Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025: A legislative reform aimed at digitizing waqf property records, improving accountability, and introducing non-Muslim representation on Waqf Boards. It also reinstates the right to appeal Waqf Board decisions in civil courts.
Waqf Boards: Statutory bodies established at the state and central levels to manage, protect, and regulate waqf properties. Empowered to claim and administer such assets.
Bareilly Cleric / Maulana: A reference to an Islamic religious leader based in Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, whose sermons hold significant influence. In this blog, the term refers to Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan.
Shariah Principles: Islamic legal and moral code derived from the Quran and Hadith, governing various aspects of personal and communal life, including waqf-related matters.
CAA (Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019): An Indian law that provides a path to citizenship for non-Muslim persecuted minorities from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan. It sparked nationwide protests and riots, especially in Muslim communities.
Shaheen Bagh: A locality in Delhi that became the epicenter of anti-CAA protests in 2019–2020, characterized by sit-ins led by Muslim women. It symbolized resistance but was also criticized for inciting unrest.
AIMPLB (All India Muslim Personal Law Board): A non-governmental Islamic body in India that promotes and protects Muslim personal law. Often takes public stances on matters like waqf, triple talaq, and civil law reforms.
“Is paar ya us paar”: Hindi phrase meaning “this side or that side.” Popularized in political speeches, it implies a decisive, now-or-never moment, often used to polarize or radicalize public opinion.
Land Mafias: Illegal groups or networks involved in the unauthorized occupation, transfer, or misuse of land—often with political or bureaucratic backing.
Muzaffarnagar: A district in western Uttar Pradesh that has witnessed several episodes of communal violence. Mentioned in the blog as an early protest site during the Waqf Act agitation.
Malda, Murshidabad, Bhangar: Regions in West Bengal known for communal sensitivity. These areas experienced violence and Hindu displacement during the Waqf Act Protests.
Tripura’s Unakoti District: A district in northeastern India where protests against the Waqf Act reportedly escalated into police clashes in April 2025.
Black Badge Protest: A symbolic form of protest where participants wear black armbands or badges to signify dissent. Often used to demonstrate peaceful opposition to legislation or government actions.