At CNN-News18’s Rising Bharat Summit 2025, Prime Minister Narendra Modi delivered a keynote address that marked a significant political and ideological statement, particularly in light of the recently enacted Waqf Amendment Act. His remarks, delivered amid anticipated protests from sections of the Muslim community and opposition parties, directly engaged with both the historical context of India’s partition and the evolving legal debate surrounding Waqf properties.
In a pointed critique of what he termed "appeasement politics," the Prime Minister asserted that India’s partition was not driven by the aspirations of ordinary Muslim families, but by “fundamentalist elements” who were, he claimed, “nourished by some Congress leaders” in pursuit of political power. This was the first instance since the Act's passage that the Prime Minister has addressed the Waqf issue in such detail on a public platform.
“The politics of appeasement has long hindered India’s progress,” Modi said. “Recently, Parliament amended the law related to Waqf. This matter has been discussed extensively on your network. At its core, the Waqf debate reflects the deeply entrenched politics of appeasement.”
Drawing a historical parallel to partition, the Prime Minister stated: “This politics is not new. Its seeds were sown during the freedom struggle. Think about it — among the many nations that gained independence around the same time as India, how many were divided as a precondition for freedom? Why was partition imposed only on India? It was because, at the time, the hunger for power overrode national interest.”
Modi sought to distance the Muslim community at large from the partition narrative, emphasizing that the concept of a separate nation was not rooted in the aspirations of everyday Muslim families. “Rather, it was the product of a few fundamentalists, empowered by certain Congress leaders seeking exclusive control over political power,” he said.
Turning to contemporary concerns, Modi questioned the outcomes of decades of appeasement politics: “What did the common Muslim, the poor Pasmanda Muslim, truly receive? Neglect, illiteracy, unemployment. What did Muslim women get? Injustice, as exemplified by the Shah Bano case, where constitutional rights were sacrificed at the altar of fundamentalism.”
He further alleged that the 2013 Waqf Act amendment was designed to appease “Muslim fundamentalists and land mafias,” shaping the law in a manner that seemingly placed it above the Constitution. “Instead of delivering justice, the law became a source of fear,” he asserted. “Even temples, churches, gurdwaras, and farms — no one could be certain their land wouldn’t be claimed. A single notice could plunge entire communities into legal uncertainty.”
The Prime Minister cited specific instances — such as disputed Waqf claims on Christian village lands in Kerala, gurdwara properties in Haryana, and agricultural lands in Karnataka — to highlight the widespread legal and administrative complications caused by the previous framework.
Commending Parliament for what he called a “landmark legislative correction,” Modi praised the new Waqf Amendment Act as one that balances the sanctity of Waqf with the rights of the underprivileged. “This is a law that will not only protect the sacred spirit of Waqf but also uphold the rights of poor, Pasmanda Muslims, women, and children,” he said.
He also highlighted the scale and depth of parliamentary engagement on the bill, noting that it became the second-longest debated legislation in independent India’s history. “There were 38 meetings of the Joint Parliamentary Committee, over 128 hours of discussion, and nearly one crore online suggestions from citizens across the country. This shows that democracy in India is thriving not just within Parliament but through active public participation.”
The opinions posted here do not belong to 🔰www.indiansdaily.com. The author is solely responsible for the opinions.
As per the IT policy of the Central Government, insults against an individual, community, religion or country, defamatory and inflammatory remarks, obscene and vulgar language are punishable offenses. Legal action will be taken for such expressions of opinion.