If the Commander is an excellent strategist, retreat is surely a masterful war move. As the default by default, due to poor management of variables in the field, it points to its use, not as a strategy, but as a disorderly and embarrassing battle to get out of it.
To fulfill its promise to voters, the Voting Bank is committed to establishing a state defined by its religion, a state defined by Hindu Rashtra to identify, investigate and correct misdemeanors of Muslim-managed property and donations, including heritage and donors managed by Muslims, including mosques, cemeteries, graves, cemeteries, and growing number of narnardra, to to to to the narnarrandra to to to to to the narnarrandra, WAQF Act. When the Modi 2.0 government abolished Article 370 of the Constitution and abolished the special status of Jamu and Kashmir, this model was set and changed the law to make the “triple Tarak” illegal. It keeps its promise with the BJP and can build and dedicate the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya.
The gap between letters and promises and the spirit of the law revealed by the Supreme Court when it intervened is the gap. The Modi 3.0 government has gone from the brink of acute embarrassment if it continues to defend the laws that amend the WAQF Act in 1995, just like in the Article 370 and incitement cases. Avoiding the retreat of the adverse Supreme Court orders is fascinating. The Modi 3.0 government conception is part of a strategy, and it is expected that firstly, interested parties have filed a large number of cases against the WAQF Act of 2025, and secondly, will the Supreme Court intervene and continue to enforce the law?
Did the Prophet Modi Sarkar foresee that the design of its design significantly changes the WAQF’s listing, registration and management almost immediately test its effectiveness under the protection of the fundamental rights stipulated in Article 26 under the Constitution’s protection? Either way, if the Modi 3.0 government has questions, it is better to postpone its timeline for fulfilling its campaign commitments. It knew in advance that its proposal to amend the WAQF Act of 1995 would be regarded as a hostile move by the opposition and the Muslim Private Law Commission. It knows that the amendment will be seen as deepening the polarization between the majority of Hindu communities represented by the BJP and the minority of Muslim communities represented by the rainbow of political and civil society organizations, all of which oppose their view of the attack on the fundamental structure and institutional independence of the Constitution.
The WAQF Bill Amendment boils down to basics and seems to be to inspire polarized voters, while those who can polarize poll status in Bihar in 2025, as well as Kerala, Kerala, Assam, West Bengal and Tamil Nadu, in 2026. There are a large number of attributes controlled/managed as WAQF attributes.
Public protest timelines for amending the WAQF Act are known; in some parts of India, the possibility of increased tensions and possible confrontation is not surprising. The violence and three deaths of two Hindus and one Muslim in Murshidabad, West Bengal are the worst. There were angry protests in other parts of the state and across the country, but no deaths were found. It is easy to link violence in West Bengal to polarization, as the main divide is with its highly competitive politics, where the Trinamur Congress, known as synonymous with Muslim soothing, is accused of turning it into a “Bangladesh” on international borders, and the BJP has appointed itself as a protector of endangered Hindus. By citing emotional memories of Direct Action Day in 1946 in the context of Mershidabad’s violent behavior, this is a future thing in the BJP’s narrative, and the WAQF bill has been weaponized. It will be deployed within the next 11 months ahead of the 2026 General Assembly elections.
Then there is the management of “user’s WAQF” and WAQF board issues. Where there is property, there is trouble. The link between WAQF and property, especially valuable real estate, is not the steak spread by the opposition. Instead, in a series of media reports, the WAQF is the third largest entity controlling Indian property, second only to the railways and the armed forces. The Supreme Court seems particularly aware of the danger, as it warns that it will retain laws applicable to “waqf by-user” and appoint non-Muslims to better manage the property. Why would a government choose a minority that survives the goodwill of its allies, choose to join the battle, and retreat is a better choice to save faces? Polarized politics is driven by its own logic. It is trapped in a feedback loop; calling on polarized public, political actors, or parties and political institutions to act in a more polarized way.
In the WAQF Act 2025, it begins with a campaign commitment to already polarized voters, hoping to get better scores for support for polarized platforms in the new converter. In Lok Sabha, a political institution is strongly polarized, establishing a joint parliamentary committee in a way that its behavior and advice to the Modi government is a dead giveaway, i.e., polarization rather than being considered unpopular. Obviously, the expected outcome will be further polarization, which can then be politically deployed to increase polarization among voters.
The BJP’s unwavering sliding deepens polarization towards the separatist identity politics of the majority based on the threat of minority, a way to consolidate its voter base and improves its appeal in states where the Modi government failed to capture spells. In the WAQF Act Amendment, the Supreme Court said it would step in and position itself as a victim of the Constitution and the rule of law. It cannot do this again and again, even if there is no doubt that the pressure of the mosque built above the temples has undoubtedly occupied the WAQF of the “government” land and the unified Civil Code, just as a sword hanging from the head of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Shikha Mukerjee is a senior journalist based in Kolkata
