Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi interview: ‘Waqf change an administrative reform, not religious… Only those who enjoyed a legal licence to loot are scared’

* The government’s view is that Waqf is a secular concept, which is countered by others who argue that it pertains to religious affairs of the Muslim community. What is your take on it?

Some people are trying to communalise it (the Act) by creating an imaginary legal confusion and want communal conflict by creating fear. Everyone must understand that India is a nation of reform, and has seen many kinds of reforms – be it social, economic, administrative, electoral, educational, agricultural or health – before and after Independence.

We are not a closed country with a touch-me-not approach to legislation. They tried to make the entire system of Waqf a touch-me-not one. This approach is neither in national interest nor in the interest of society. The idea (of the Act) is to bring the system within the Constitutional hierarchy to benefit stakeholders.

* The Act says properties falling under ‘Waqf by user’ prior to the amendment will remain Waqf properties only if they are registered. The counterview is that earlier laws mentioned nothing about consequences of not registering them, and that this amounts to just takeover of user properties…

People must understand that when they talk about (land going back to) 1913, baat niklegi to door talaq jaayegi (a lot of other things will come up).

The Judicial Committee of the British Privy Council held in 1894-95 that this is a system of the worst kind. Countries under British rule then reformed their Waqf systems. I was Union Minority Affairs minister for a long time and studied this issue in depth.

In India, the Muslim League went for communal polarisation. They politically exploited the issue. In 1910, (Muhammad Ali) Jinnah became a member of the Imperial Legislative Council from Bombay in connivance with the British. The 1913 Act was a product of Jinnah’s connivance with the British… Even in Pakistan, the Waqf system has been reformed in 1959, 1960, etc.

* Another sticking point is the composition of the Central Waqf Council and state Waqf boards.

They claim Hindus have been included in the Waqf Council and Waqf boards, but we need to understand that after Partition, Muslims went to Pakistan in large numbers while Hindus and Sikhs came to India in large numbers. The Muslims who chose to leave India left their properties behind, while those Hindus and Sikhs who chose India left theirs in Pakistan. The Muslims (in Pakistan) were allowed to occupy the vacant properties, and today own them. But Hindus who chose India are neither owners nor tenants of those properties that the Muslims left behind. A sword constantly dangles over their heads. Hence, non-Muslims are also stakeholders in the Waqf system.

* The law says there can be no Waqf in tribal lands. However, if a tribal person adopts Islam, does it not amount to saying he can never create Waqf?

(Religious) conversions are dangerous, particularly if they are forced, taken up by fraudulent means or are funded. When one speaks about tribals, they should ask for whom the Waqf system exists? It is for Muslims and only those practising Islam can do Waqf.

As I said earlier, non-Muslims are also stakeholders in the Waqf system as they left everything they owned in Pakistan. Their stakes need to be respected. People in many states say things like… ‘We got this shop in 1949 when our family came to India from Pakistan, but I still get notices and have to pay hafta to retain them’. So, legal correction is the need of the hour.

* Why does the law mandate a person to prove that he or she has been practising Islam for five years to be able to donate property as Waqf?

Please remember that people have been claiming half the country’s property as Waqf. They say Parliament, roads, fields, trees and rivers are Waqf properties. This kind of criminal anarchy needed to be remedied by bringing it within the bounds of the Constitution. Faith is protected under the law but administrative problems need to be addressed.