West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee Refuses to Implement Waqf Amendment Act

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has taken a defiant stand against the recently passed Waqf Amendment Act, announcing that her government will not implement the controversial legislation in the state. The declaration, made during a program organized by the Jain community in Kolkata on Wednesday, has ignited a fierce political debate, with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) accusing her of vote-bank politics and failing to maintain law and order amid violent protests in the state.

Table of Contents

Mamata’s Stand: A Defense of Minority Rights

Addressing the gathering, Banerjee emphasized her commitment to protecting minority communities and their properties, stating, “I will protect the minority people and their property. I know you are unhappy with the implementation of the Waqf Act. But have faith—nothing will happen in Bengal that will allow anyone to divide and rule.” She framed her rejection of the Act as a resistance to what she perceives as a divisive agenda by the BJP-led central government.

Banerjee also drew parallels with the unrest in neighboring Bangladesh, cautioning against similar instability in West Bengal. “Look at the situation in Bangladesh. The Waqf Amendment Bill should not have been passed now,” she remarked, suggesting that the timing of the legislation was ill-considered and provocative.

The Chief Minister’s announcement comes on the heels of violent protests in Murshidabad’s Jangipur area, where demonstrators clashed with police, set fire to vehicles, and pelted stones in opposition to the Act. Banerjee sought to calm tensions, urging unity and assuring minorities that her administration would safeguard their interests.

The Waqf Amendment Act: A Polarizing Legislation

The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, which received presidential assent from Draupadi Murmu on Saturday after being passed by the Lok Sabha on Thursday and the Rajya Sabha on Friday, introduces significant changes to the management of Waqf properties—lands dedicated under Islamic law for religious, educational, or charitable purposes. The central government has defended the law, arguing that it will enhance transparency, efficiency, and accountability in the functioning of Waqf Boards while reducing land-related disputes.

However, critics, including Banerjee and other opposition leaders, have condemned the Act as an overreach into religious affairs and an attempt to target the Muslim community. A particularly contentious provision allows non-Muslims to participate in reviewing Waqf activities, a move that has drawn sharp criticism for undermining the autonomy of religious institutions.

Political Backlash and Escalating Tensions

The BJP wasted no time in slamming Banerjee’s decision. Suvendu Adhikari, the Leader of Opposition in the West Bengal Assembly, accused the state government of indulging in “vote bank politics” and failing to curb the violence in Murshidabad. In a post on X, Adhikari shared a video allegedly showing protesters burning public property and police vehicles, claiming that “anti-social elements” were spreading anarchy under the guise of dissent. He called for the deployment of central forces and urged the Union Home Ministry to intervene.

BJP leader Amit Malviya echoed Adhikari’s sentiments, criticizing Banerjee for “going silent” during the unrest and accusing her of suppressing the truth. The party has argued that the violence reflects a broader failure of law and order under her leadership, with Malviya citing prohibitory orders imposed by the Murshidabad District Magistrate under Section 163 of the BNSS, banning gatherings of five or more people for 48 hours.

In response, Banerjee’s supporters within the Trinamool Congress (TMC) have portrayed her stance as a principled defense of constitutional values and minority rights. The TMC has long positioned itself as a counterweight to the BJP’s alleged majoritarian policies, and Banerjee’s rejection of the Waqf Amendment Act aligns with this narrative.

Legal and Constitutional Implications

Banerjee’s declaration raises questions about the legal feasibility of her stance. Under India’s federal structure, laws passed by Parliament on matters in the Concurrent List—such as the Waqf Act—are binding on all states. While states can resist implementation through non-cooperation or challenge the law in courts, outright refusal to comply could invite legal and political repercussions. The TMC has hinted at exploring a Supreme Court challenge, a route also being considered by other opposition parties like the Congress.

The Congress, while opposing the bill in Parliament, has distanced itself from Banerjee’s unilateral approach. Former Uttarakhand Chief Minister Harish Rawat, speaking in Ahmedabad, clarified that Banerjee’s position was her “personal view,” though he reiterated the party’s broader opposition to the legislation.

Protests and Security Measures

The unrest in Murshidabad has underscored the polarizing impact of the Waqf Amendment Act. Clashes between protesters and police in Jangipur have prompted heightened security measures, with authorities tightening arrangements in the area. The violence, which saw railway tracks blocked and public property damaged, has fueled the BJP’s narrative of administrative collapse, while Banerjee’s administration has accused opposition forces of instigating trouble.

A Broader Political Battle

Banerjee’s rejection of the Waqf Amendment Act is more than a policy disagreement—it’s a salvo in the escalating war of words between the TMC and BJP ahead of West Bengal’s assembly elections next year. The TMC has vowed to nullify the Act if a non-BJP government comes to power at the center, a promise Banerjee reiterated earlier this month. “When a new government is formed after ousting the current regime, we will bring a new amendment to nullify this Waqf Bill brought by the BJP,” she had said on April 3.

For the BJP, the issue is an opportunity to rally its base by accusing Banerjee of appeasement and portraying her government as soft on lawlessness. The party’s leaders have repeatedly framed the protests as evidence of radical elements gaining ground in West Bengal, drawing comparisons to recent upheavals in Bangladesh.

Conclusion

Mamata Banerjee’s rejection of the Waqf Amendment Act has thrust West Bengal into the center of a national controversy, pitting her against the BJP in a high-stakes battle over identity, governance, and federal authority. As protests simmer and legal questions loom, the standoff is likely to reverberate beyond the state, shaping the discourse around minority rights and religious autonomy in India. For now, Banerjee remains steadfast, casting herself as a protector of minorities against what she calls a “divide and rule” policy—a stance that promises to keep West Bengal’s political cauldron boiling in the months ahead.