I have written this piece in support of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill not just as a spokesperson of the BJP but also as a member of the Shia Aga Khani community. The community has been among the worst victims of the land-grabbing tendencies of the waqf system created by governments in the past, through waqf legislation in 1995 and 2013. They gave extraordinary powers to the waqf boards to make claims on diverse kinds of properties—these include the Taj Mahal, a farmer’s land, the Surat Municipal Corporation headquarters, and a 1,500-year-old Hindu temple. Various prominent dargahs have also been at the receiving end of the encroachment by waqf boards, prompting leading lights of the revered Ajmer Dargah Sharif to come out in support of the waqf reforms.
Bringing waqf boards into a transparent, accountable, and reasonable constitutional scheme is, therefore, not a Hindu vs Muslim issue. Nor is it a Hindutva project. It is an honest attempt to correct past excesses. In fact, the Sachar Committee Report of 2006 and the JPC report on waqfs in 2008 (both under the Congress-led UPA government) advocated efficient management and digitisation of waqf records. They talked of revamping the composition of waqf boards to make them more inclusive. These reports also recommended the inclusion of non-Muslim technical experts in the management of waqfs, fixing accountability of the muttawallis (caretakers of waqf), bringing waqfs under financial audits, and penalising the unauthorised use and alienation of waqf properties. The Sachar Report rued that despite being the third-largest landholder in the country, waqf properties generated less than Rs 200 crore every year—the potential minimum revenue could amount to Rs 12,000 crore per annum. The debate, therefore, should be about justice and delivering the benefits of waqf properties to the most deserving and poorest sections of the Muslim community, especially the Pasmandas.
Unfortunately, most Opposition parties, including Congress, Samajwadi Party, RJD, AIMIM, and TMC, have opposed the reforms. Their first contention is that the Waqf (Amendment) Bill is unconstitutional, it’s an interference in the religious affairs of Muslims, and Parliament has no jurisdiction to intervene in such matters. How then were the provisions of the Waqf Acts of 1954 and 1995 and the Waqf (Amendment) Act of 2013 constitutional? Several cases have concluded that the waqf boards are statutory bodies, including Syed Fazal Pookoya Thangal vs UoI and others, and Hafiz Mohammad Zafar Ahmad vs UP Central Sunni Board of Waqf, Lucknow. Entry 28 of the Concurrent List (List III) deals with “charities and charitable institutions, charitable and religious endowments, and religious institutions.” It empowers both the Union and the states to legislate on matters like waqfs.
The other contention is that waqf amendments are designed to snatch masjids and kabristans (graveyards) and establish government control over them. This rhetoric sounds eerily similar to the propaganda on the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA). It’s been over a year since the CAA has been notified, and no Indian Muslim has had to part with his or her citizenship. The Bill will not have retrospective effect, and no provision supports the Opposition’s misinterpretation.
Next, the naysayers suggest that the inclusion of non-Muslims is an egregious interference. But waqf is a statutory creation and not a religious body; many temple boards also include non-Hindus. The Bill does not envisage non-Muslims becoming a part of a specific masjid management committee; rather, it proposes a role for elected officials like MPs in the administration of waqf boards.
The doubting Thomases claim that the waqf reform has been shoved down the throat of an unwilling Muslim community. However, conversations on reforms go as far back as 1976. The Jagdambika Pal-led JPC report, which was produced after 36 sittings and 111 hours of deliberations, heard several Muslim groups. The attempt is not to pass the Bill just by “bahumat” (majority) but to build a wider “sarvmat” or consensus.
The proposed legislation envisages a centralised portal that will deal with waqf property management, including registration, audits, contributions, and litigation. Only practising Muslims (for at least five years) can dedicate their property to waqf, restoring the pre-2013 provision. Already registered properties remain with waqf unless disputed or identified as government land.
Women will receive their rightful inheritance, and there will be special provisions for widows, divorcees, and orphans. The mutawallis must register property details on the portal within six months. In case of disputes, an officer above the rank of collector will investigate government properties claimed as waqf. The Bill also removes the contentious Section 40, preventing arbitrary declaration of properties as waqf.
This reform is actually about two “S” — “sanvidhanik procedure” and “samajik nyay.” Ironically, those who swear by these words are now opposing the reform.
The writer is National Spokesperson, BJP.
