The Waqf Amendment Bill, 2024, is on the verge of becoming law this week and has given rise to several apprehension in the Indian Muslim community. The new legislation advocates for sweeping changes in the management and control of the Waqf properties.
The new bill fundamentally changes the Waqf Act of 1995. The government propagates that the bill would promote transparency and efficiency, yet many believe it is a direct governmental effort to undermine Muslim control from the religious and charitable resources.
Waqf is a distinctive Islamic institution where an individual permanently dedicates property for religious or charitable purposes. Once declared as Waqf, the property cannot be sold, transferred, or inherited, and must be used exclusively for its designated charitable purpose in perpetuity. Waqf properties serve as sustainable funding sources for mosques, dargahs, educational institutions, orphanages, and various other social welfare programs and charitable purposes that benefiting the community.
In India, there are about 8.7 lakh waqf properties with over 10 lakh acres of land holding, worth more than ₹ 1.2 lakh crore. Waqf properties are administered by 32 Waqf Boards including two Shia-specific Waqf Boards in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.
Reducing Muslim control
While Waqf properties provide essential services for those in need and religious institutions, they frequently face challenges from encroachment and legal disputes. The recent amendments have reduced the authority of Muslim-controlled Waqf Boards, shifting power toward government and non-Muslim officials. This transfer of control has contributed to feelings of marginalization within Muslim communities.
The bill also provides for non-Muslims to be included in the Central Waqf Council and state Waqf Boards and this is being resented by the Muslim community. The bill also does away with the requirement that the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of a Waqf Board must be a Muslim. Any government officer ranked Joint Secretary or above may be appointed irrespective of religious affiliation.
Waqf is by definition an Islamic religious and charitable institution, the management of which has always been in the hands of the Muslim community. This practice is similar to the management of Hindu temple trusts and boards. Vaishno Devi and Amarnath Boards specifically mentions that only a Hindu can head these boards. If the Lieutenant Governor, who serves as the head of these boards, does not belong to the Hindu faith, they are required to appoint a qualified and eminent Hindu individual to assume the position. This ensures that the management of these religious institutions remains within the community that follows the same traditions and beliefs.
The new bill thus arouses suspicions that people with scant understanding of Waqf or Islamic principles may be in charge of all responsibilities for management of such holdings, paving the way for mismanagement and/or misuse with alarmingly consequences.
Unbridled Power to Bureaucracy
The new law strips away the authority previously granted under the Waqf Act, 1995, which allowed a designated survey commissioner and additional commissioners to assess Waqf properties. Instead, it hands over unchecked power to the district collectors, enabling them to unilaterally decide whether a property belongs to the Waqf or the government. This effectively means that a government-appointed bureaucrat can arbitrarily declare Waqf properties as state-owned land.
Once the collector makes this decision, the government can simply alter revenue records to seize the property, leaving the Muslim community disempowered in the face of official appropriation. This is a dangerous proposition as several Waqf properties are already in dispute with the government. The powers given to the Collector to decide ownership effectively make the government both judge and party in these disputes.
The bill repeals Section 40 of the Waqf Act, 1995, according to which the waqf boards would determine whether a property was Waqf or not. This means that even properties long considered Waqf could be doubted and seized by the government. This would lead towards a huge loss of Waqf lands, especially in urban areas, where land prices are high.
Of the most damaging provisions is the deletion of "Waqf by use." Historically, a piece of land or building used for prayer and burial or other Islamic purpose for quite a long time was automatically considered as Waqf. Many ancient mosques, graveyards, and dargahs exist today without modern documentation but have been used for centuries.
Such properties may lose their Waqf status simply because of lack of documentation and may be subjected to takeover. Another significant change is that the structure of Waqf Tribunals has been changed. These tribunals had the last word on Waqf disputes. Now their decisions can be appealed in the High Court, which might lead to interminable legal wranglings and moral denial of justice.
Cases could be stalled in the courts by wealthy clients or government authorities wanting to grab waqf land. The bill also mandates that two women and two non-Muslims/others must be elected to the waqf boards. While women's representation is welcome, non-Muslim representation raises apprehensions as other religious boards do not have such a law.
This selective interference feeds into the fear that the government is targeting Waqf properties rather than promoting good governance. In a country where religious communities manage their own institutions, this move is clearly an intrusion into Muslim affairs.
Singling out Waqf for ‘Transparency’
The argument that these changes bring 'transparency' rings hollow when similar measures are not applied to temple or church trusts. If the real intent was reform, similar amendments should have been introduced for other religious institutions.
Many waqf properties have already been taken over by government agencies. For instance, airports, railways, roads, and government offices were built up on what were erstwhile Waqf lands. Now, instead of safeguarding these endowed lands, this law further cripples these waqf institutions and facilitates governmental seizure of these lands.
Many educational institutions in India like Aligarh Muslim University and Jamia Millia Islamia are built on Waqf land. These have benefited all communities, particularly Muslims, for generations.
Any reform to Waqf administration should aim to increase transparency while preserving religious autonomy. This bill extends beyond Waqf issues alone, potentially establishing a dangerous precedent for government control over religious institutions. If Muslim communities lose authority over Waqf properties, other religious communities may face similar interventions in the future.
The fundamental right to religious autonomy must be protected. The government should reconsider its approach and restore Waqf administration to those it was originally intended to serve. Failure to do so risks becoming a form of institutional erosion that could harm community well-being for generations to come.
Before pressing ahead with this bill, the government must first engage the Muslim community and address their concerns before placing such radical laws into effect. The amendments to be made should ensure that waqf remains a religious, charitable function, managed by persons who have knowledge of its principles and tenets.
Have you liked the news article?
