April 14, 2025
New Delhi – The political struggle of the WAQF Amendment continues in Jharkhand. The BJP has now taken a firm stance after Jharkhand Mukti Molkar (JMM)’s strong opposition to the laws passed by the central government. BJP Governor Secretary General Dr. Pradeep Verma accused JMM of using unconstitutional language and misleading the public.
“Jharkhand is part of India, and the Indian Constitution is here, not the constitution of any particular political party,” Dr Verma said. He criticized JMM's central secretary Supriyo Bhattacharya, because his statement said the WAQF amendment would not be implemented in the state.
Verma tagged Bhattacharya's comments as “anti-national” and asked JMM to apologize. He asserted that the amendment benefited poor and marginalized Muslim communities by leveraging development income generated from WAQF property. He also accused Congress of weakening WAQF laws by pacifying politics.
The BJP leader further clarified that the new amendment also prioritizes the protection of tribal interests. He added: “The law includes a specific provision that prevents tribal lands in WAQF properties in states such as Jharkhand as Schedule 5.” Verma cited Calling Tribal Community President Droupadi Murmu to emphasize that her approval reflects the sensitivity and fairness of the amendment.
On the other hand, JMM accused the central government of directly interfering in federal structures and infringing on religious freedom. Party President Bhattacharya argued at a press conference that the amendment violated constitutional provisions that allow religious groups to comply with their laws and practices.
Bhattacharya stressed that WAQF land is a state entity and any amendment without the consent of the state government will be considered an encroachment on state power. “We will propose a resolution of the Jharkhand Parliament in response to this law and make a resolution on this issue in our party's convention,” Bhattacharya said.
JMM also marked the law as discriminatory to specific communities and raised concerns that could lead to land disputes that disrupt the law and order in the state.
