By -Safiur Rahaman Maibam
The inclusion of non-Muslims in the Waqf Board of Manipur is, in my view, clearly against the sentiments and rights of the Muslim community in the state. I stand firmly with the people who are genuinely opposing this inclusion.
However, there is a serious question of consistency that needs to be raised.
When protests and agitations erupted across India against the Waqf Amendment Act, the movement also reached every nook and corner of Manipur. Masses took to the streets, and the movement received solidarity from activists and civil society members across communities. At that time, when people were demanding a clear stand from the then Chairman of the Waqf Board, the MLA of Lilong Assembly Constituency, some CSOs and so-called activists chose to justify his silence. Instead of questioning his position, they concealed him, safeguarded him, surrounded him, and defended his silence when the people were demanding answers, attempted to shield him from public scrutiny.
Today, the amended Waqf Act remains in force, while legal proceedings challenging its provisions are still pending before the Supreme Court. The Waqf Board in Manipur has now been reconstituted under the amended Act, with the inclusion of non-Muslim members. Once again, people have taken to the streets to oppose it.
But here lies the irony.
Some of the very CSOs and activists who once justified the silence of the then Waqf Board Chairman are now at the forefront of the movement against the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Waqf Board.
What has changed their position or their convenience? Was the silence justified then, but outrage justified now? If the principle was important, why was the same principle not defended when the people were demanding accountability from the then Chairman?
This raises a legitimate question: Is this a genuine change of position, or simply selective outrage? Then, silence was defended. Today, that same silence has turned into a loud protest. The hypocrisy could not be more obvious.
This criticism is not directed at those who have consistently and genuinely opposed the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Waqf Board. My solidarity remains firmly with every individual, organisation and community member who has sincerely stood against the provision and continues to do so.
But those who change their position according to circumstances, while attempting to portray themselves as consistent defenders of the community, must also be questioned.
But principles cannot be selective. If a position is right today, it should have been right yesterday too. Selective outrage cannot be disguised as principled activism.
Do not come out now out of political opportunism or personal revenge, only to hijack and exploit the sentiments of the people for your own agenda.
