Ambedkar's Imagination of a Post-Colonial India and How the Waqf Amendment Dismantles it
Deepanshu Mohan
April 14 is Ambedkar Jayanti, the birth anniversary of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.
Yesterday marked the 135th birth anniversary of Dr B.R. Ambedkar. Prime minister Narendra Modi paid tribute to him, emphasising that it is due to his inspiration that the country continues to strive towards realising the dream of social justice today. In a post on X (earlier Twitter), he said,
“On behalf of all the countrymen, I bow down to Bharat Ratna Pujya Babasaheb on his birth anniversary. It is due to his inspiration that the country is dedicatedly engaged in realizing the dream of social justice today. His principles and ideals will give strength and momentum to the creation of an ‘Atmnirbhar’ and ‘Viksit’ India,”
The statement is not only ironical given how the current government under the same prime minister’s leadership has done everything possible to assert a majoritarian ideological banner of a Hindu Raj, disempowering marginalised communities and minorities, making them atmanirbhar or self reliant by circumstance and state-apathy, not through empowerment.
Minorities reduced to a vote-bank group who are handed symbolic sops and entitlements is almost a norm seen in the practice of the current administration. Social justice and its progressive realisation, remains an oxymoron in a land marred by deep rooted structural inequities, where any pursuit of economic freedom remains deeply embedded in a subsequent need to be politically and socially free. This is, however, something that Ambedkar worked and fought for all his life.
Amongst the many direct and indirect contributions of Ambedkar's legacy in shaping India’s core identity of a post-colonial, independent republic has been in the recognition of certain fundamental rights safeguarded to minorities as part of the Constituent Assembly’s original constitutional charter and its imagination.
The text of Ambedkar's, States and Minorities, was submitted to the Constituent Assembly on behalf of the All-India Scheduled Caste Federation on March 15, 1947. This was presented to the Fundamental Rights Committee of which he was a member.
In States and Minorities, the Fundamental Rights of Citizens is recognised in Article II Section I. The Fundamental rights that are included in this article are borrowed from the constitutions of various countries. In the Draft Constitution, the fundamental rights that were prescribed by Ambedkar were justifiable in the court of law.
Here, Ambedkar observed ‘Equality of Opportunity’ as the most important among rights. Fundamental rights meant the establishment of equality and liberty to reform the social system of India. But inequalities and discriminations conflict with our fundamental rights. As he saw it, if social and economic inequalities remained, political democracy, too, would be unfulfilled.
In contesting the rise and presence of any form of Hindu Raj as being against democracy, Ambedkar said:
“If Hindu Raj does become a fact, it will, no doubt, be the greatest calamity for this country. No matter what the Hindus say, Hinduism is a menace to liberty, equality and fraternity. On that account, it is incompatible with democracy. Hindu Raj must be prevented at any cost”.
Unfortunately, this “menace” of a Hindu Raj asserted by a political ideology has ripped apart the fraternal core of India’s secular and socially cohesive fundamentals.
In more than seven decades since Independence and the enactment of the constitution, Ambedkar’s observed vision for safeguarding equality of opportunity for India’s minorities, from Scheduled Castes to Scheduled Tribes to Muslims, remain a deeply contested social and political issue. It is also an economic issue given the exacerbating inequities in wealth creation, asset holding, income accumulation and its distribution, that India currently experiences.
At the same time, a political party like the BJP, in more than 10 years of being in elected power at the Centre and across different states, seems to do everything possible to create a divisive, communal and majoritarian rhetoric for electoral gains along with the pursuit of an ideological agenda based on totalitarian power assertion built around targeting minorities.
A recent case in point deserves closer attention and a deeper constitutional scrutiny.
Recently, on April, President Droupadi Murmu assented to the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025. The Waqf Act 2025 is an officially enforced amendment to the previous Act of 1995, which statutorily regulates Waqf property and its use in India. The Rajya Sabha held a majority of 128 votes in favour of passing the Act.
The opposition has flagged the Act as carrying strong anti-Muslim undertones, while the government maintains it is a step meant to ‘safeguard’ minority interests, a claim that continues to polarise public opinion. Currently, MP Asaduddin Owaisi and other opposition parties have filed a writ petition in the apex court, challenging the constitutionality of the amendment. As it continues to be in contention, the implications of the new amendments point to the dismantling of the basic fundamental rights of minorities.
Understanding the Waqf
Waqf is an Islamic endowment of property for charitable welfare and religious purposes. By law, a Muslim can donate property for use by the community to help those in need. These charitable endowments are made by private individuals or institutions, also known as waqif.
In a legal transaction, a waqif appoints a muttawalli (manager) for a deed through which a property becomes a waqf. The amendment that took place overhauled the Waqf Act of 1995, which supervised waqf properties in India. A waqf is often used for common spaces that the community can all benefit from, such as schools, graveyards, shelter homes, mosques, etc.
Under Muslim personal law, once a deed is given by an individual to use a particular property as Waqf, then it is considered to be given to god and cannot be taken back. Waqf property cannot be sold and can solely be used for the benefit of the community at large. According to the WAMSI, there are 8.72 lakhs of Waqf properties covering a spacial area of over 38 lakh in total.
The Waqf Board is responsible for the management and regulation of Waqf properties, recovering any lost properties as well as transferring immovable properties. Under the Waqf Act of 1995, the three administrative bodies that regulate Waqf properties are: (i) Central Waqf Council, (ii) State Waqf Boards, and (iii) Waqf Tribunals.
The new amendment has created a mass uproar due to the insertion of the state within the community and its religious practices. The current changes carried out to the 1995 Act have led to questions on how protected personal law is, specifically the laws for minorities. The Union government’s objective to reduce the ‘legal loopholes’ that existed with regulating Waqf has led to the relinquishing of the legal autonomy of the Muslim community – one of the largest minority groups in India.
Interpreting the socio-legal implications
At the core of the controversy is the quiet dilution of community control for a minority population made vulnerable at the hands a majoritarian state-party agenda.
The amendment systematically redraws the contours of Waqf governance, tilting the axis from internal self-regulation to state-led oversight. One of the most striking changes is the empowerment of district-level bureaucrats, rather than specialised waqf tribunals, to adjudicate whether a piece of property belongs to the government or constitutes waqf. This means the state, in effect, gets to judge disputes in which it itself is an interested party, a direct conflict of interest, as the state often contests these very properties.
Section 3C of the amendment gives the state power to appoint a senior officer to decide if a property is waqf or government-owned. Until such a decision is reached, the property cannot be treated as waqf. It also allows non-Muslims to serve as CEOs and members of key Waqf bodies. The government frames this as inclusive, arguing that professional expertise should trump religious identity in matters of administration. Under other religious and charitable endowment laws, administrators with similar equivalent positions are required to belong to the respective religion. The Devaswom Boards in Kerala must be composed entirely of Hindus, as mandated by law. This fundamentally undermines the autonomy of religious denominations to manage their affairs in matters of religion and charity.
Another fault line is the removal of the long-standing doctrine of “waqf by user,” a principle rooted in Islamic jurisprudence that allowed properties in continuous communal use to be recognised as waqf even without formal documentation. While the final version of the amendment spares those already registered, it simultaneously invalidates future claims based on use alone.
This change directly threatens thousands of historically held properties, especially in states like Uttar Pradesh, where over 90% of registered waqf properties fall into this category. Further, the amendment that only those who’ve practiced Islam for five years can establish a waqf creates a vague and exclusionary hurdle. It sidelines converts and less observant Muslims, reversing the inclusive stance of the 1995 Act. With no clear rationale, this distinction appears arbitrary and raises serious questions.
The repeal of Section 107 of the 1995 Act, which once shielded waqf lands from the Limitation Act, now opens the door for individuals to claim ownership of encroached waqf property after 12 years, potentially legalising long-standing illegal grabs. Critics warn this could further deplete the Muslim community’s already strained assets.
At the same time, stricter waqf eligibility rules and reduced board powers risk undermining the fragile ecosystem of madrassas and scholarship programmes that have long supported marginalised Muslim families. With education schemes like SPEMM defunded and scholarships scaled back, many fear a slow erosion of opportunity and a chilling effect on future waqf donations that once kept this support system alive.
In a democracy where majority voices often dominate, India’s Muslims, already underrepresented in the public sphere, as highlighted by the Sachar Committee, face the risk of losing one of their few autonomous spaces.
Underlying shift
These recent amendments reveal a complex landscape of support and opposition among various Muslim organisations too. Prominent among the supporters are some of the Pasmanda Muslim organisations, which represent the interests of backward and marginalised sections of the Muslim community. Their endorsement of this legislative initiative has significant implications for the governance and management of Waqf properties, which play a crucial role in providing social and economic welfare to the Muslim community in India.
Furthermore, the AIPMM advocates for specific provisions such as the participation of women within these boards and the need for better management of Waqf properties to benefit marginalised groups. This representation of Pasmanda Muslims in Waqf boards could be a significant turnaround for the community, as it allows their unique perspectives to influence decision-making processes.
However, critical challenges remain which merit deeper constitutional scrutiny and juridical oversight on the legislative’s unchecked powers to include a Bill that has been so contested by the opposition. AIMPLB has voiced concerns regarding certain aspects of the amendment that could potentially undermine the interests of specific groups within the Muslim community.
Ambedkar’s engagement with the minority as an ‘idea’ and creating favourable space within the democratic political structure has been and is all the more relevant in India now. Any party, or government, pushing for a communal majoritarian agenda like Modi’s BJP has failed to incubate, observe and practice Babasaheb’s vision. On the contrary, they have done everything to establish a Hindu Raj, which narrativises hate and a divisive communal rhetoric against the Muslims.
Deepanshu Mohan is a professor of economics, dean, IDEAS and director, Centre for New Economics Studies. He is a visiting professor at the London School of Economics and an academic visiting fellow to AMES, University of Oxford.
Najam Us Saqib, Aman Chain and Harshita Hari contributed to the piece.
The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.