In a passionate speech at the “Waqf Hathao, Desh Bachao” convention in Belagavi, Pujyashri Adrushya Kadhsiddheshwar Swamiji of Kanneri Math joined hands with farmers to protest against the recent Waqf Board notice, challenging what he described as legal bias. “Why do we have a law like this only for Muslims? Why not for Hindus, Buddhists, Jains?” he questioned, demanding answers from the government.
Swamiji voiced skepticism about the government’s assurances that the notice had been withdrawn. “How confident can we be in these statements, especially with three by-elections around the corner? What happens afterward?” He urged for firm guarantees, emphasizing that both he and the people of the state had joined the struggle.
Swamiji also condemned what he called “hired voices” that he claimed were supporting the Waqf Board’s actions without question. “No one from the Waqf has defended these claims, but paid voices are making the most noise. Do they even know who they’re defending?” he asked pointedly. Swamiji further asserted that if his Hindu community’s lands are affected, he would stand with them, as he always has in both “joy and sorrow.”
Addressing recent remarks by Marularadhya Shivacharya from Gulbarga, who suggested giving swords to children, Swamiji highlighted perceived double standards in law enforcement. “In Hubli, people brandished weapons and yet faced no charges. Now, they try to file a case against us,” he thundered, drawing attention to the unequal treatment in these situations.
The Swamiji went on to critique the Waqf Act itself, introduced during British rule and strengthened over time. He questioned the act’s constitutionality, stating, “The Constitution doesn’t provide special facilities to any religion or caste. So why does this law serve only Muslims?” He argued that with two separate Waqf Boards for Shia and Sunni communities, the law heavily favors the Muslim majority.
In his closing remarks, Swamiji questioned the structure of the Waqf Board, which mandates Muslim-only members for positions like MP, district collector, and city surveyor, effectively excluding others. “The Board files the dispute and then decides on it—where is the fairness in that?”