Part 1: The Legacy of Waqf – From pious endowments to modern law

The concept of Waqf is deeply rooted in Islamic jurisprudence, representing a unique form of religious and charitable endowment. In Islamic law, Waqf signifies the permanent dedication, by a person professing Islam (known as the Waqif), of any property, whether movable or immovable, for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious, or charitable. Crucially, once a property is declared Waqf, its ownership is considered to vest in God Almighty, rendering it inalienable – it cannot typically be sold, gifted, or inherited. The income generated from these properties is earmarked for specific objectives outlined by the Waqif, such as the upkeep of mosques, dargahs, graveyards, imambaras, the support of educational institutions (madrasas), or providing assistance to the poor and needy within the community. A caretaker, known as a Mutawalli, is usually appointed to manage the property’s day-to-day affairs.

There are 872,000 registered Waqf properties across the country, running into lakhs of acres. This immense scale explains the socio-economic and religious significance of Waqf assets within the Muslim community.

The administration of these properties has evolved through various legislative frameworks over the past century. An early attempt at regulation was the Mussalman Wakf Act, 1923. Post-independence, the Waqf Act, 1954, marked the first significant effort to establish a structured system for managing these endowments. This Act underwent several amendments (in 1959, 1964, 1969, and 1984) aimed at refining administrative processes.

A more comprehensive legal structure arrived with the Waqf Act, 1995. This Act repealed the 1954 law and its subsequent amendments, seeking to provide for the “better administration of Auqaf (Waqfs) and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto”. The 1995 Act laid down the framework for establishing State Waqf Boards and a Central Waqf Council, defining their powers and functions. Further amendments were introduced in 2013 by the then UPA government, which, among other changes, formally established the statutory framework for State Waqf Boards and increased the permissible lease period for Waqf properties from three years to thirty years, aiming for better utilization of assets.

This historical progression of legislation reveals a trend towards increasing formalisation and state intervention in the management of Waqf properties. What began as a community-managed religious practice gradually came under greater regulatory scrutiny, reflecting the complex interplay between religious institutions, community autonomy, and the state’s administrative imperatives. The sheer scale and value of Waqf assets have inevitably drawn governmental interest, shifting the focus over time from purely religious oversight towards broader concerns of administration, management efficiency, and, as recent events suggest, potentially political control. The 1995 Act itself represented a significant step in this direction, setting the stage for the more pervasive changes introduced in 2025.

Part 2: Understanding the Waqf Act, 1995: Key Provisions Explained

The Waqf Act, 1995, served as the cornerstone of Waqf administration in India for nearly three decades before the recent amendments. Understanding its key provisions is essential to grasp the significance of the changes brought about by the 2025 Act.

Defining and recognizing Waqf (Section 3 (r) – Pre-amendment)

The 1995 Act recognised Waqf formation through three primary means:

1. Declaration: A formal dedication of property by its lawful owner for religious or charitable purposes under Muslim law.
2. Waqf by User: This crucial provision allowed a property to be recognised as Waqf if it had been used for a long period for any religious or charitable purpose recognized under Muslim law, even in the absence of a formal dedication deed. This acknowledged the reality of many historical endowments, particularly older mosques, graveyards, or community spaces, where formal documentation might be lost or non-existent but continuous religious use established its character.
3. Waqf-alal-aulad: An endowment where the benefits primarily accrue to the founder’s family or descendants for a specified period, with the ultimate benefit designated for a religious or charitable purpose upon the extinction of the family line.

Governance Structure

The Act established a hierarchical structure for Waqf administration:

• State Waqf Boards (Establishment under Section 13, Composition under Section 14 – Pre-amendment): The Act mandated the establishment of a Waqf Board in every state. States could also establish separate Boards for Shia and Sunni Waqfs if their population and Waqf numbers warranted it.
  • Composition: The Boards were designed to be predominantly composed of Muslim members, reflecting the religious nature of the institutions they governed. Section 14 provided for a mix of elected and nominated members. Elected members included up to two representatives each from electoral colleges comprising Muslim Members of Parliament (MPs), Muslim Members of State Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) and Legislative Councils (MLCs), and Muslim members of the State Bar Council. Nominated members included government officials and individuals recognized for their expertise in Islamic law, finance, or administration. The Act also mandated the inclusion of at least two women members.
  • Functions (Section 32): The Boards were vested with the general superintendence of all Waqfs within the state. Their key functions included ensuring that Waqfs were properly maintained, controlled, and administered according to the Act, Muslim law, and the specific objectives laid out in the Waqf deed; settling schemes for management; directing the utilization of surplus income for approved purposes; scrutinizing and approving budgets submitted by Mutawallis; and appointing or removing Mutawallis under specified conditions.
• Central Waqf Council (Establishment under Section 9 – Pre-amendment): At the national level, the Act provided for a Central Waqf Council.
  • Composition: It was chaired by the Union Minister in charge of Waqf. Critically, Section 9 stipulated that, barring the Minister, all other members of the Council had to be Muslims. These included MPs, scholars of Islamic theology, representatives of national-level Muslim organizations, and former judges of the Supreme Court or High Courts. At least two members were required to be women.
  • Role: The Council’s function was primarily advisory. It was tasked with advising the Central Government, State Governments, and the State Waqf Boards on matters concerning the effective administration of Waqfs and the functioning of the Boards.
• Mutawalli (Defined in Section 3 (i)): The Act defined a Mutawalli as any person appointed, either verbally or under any deed or instrument by which a Waqf has been created, or by a competent authority, to manage or administer such Waqf. They were the primary managers at the property level, responsible for implementing the Waqf’s objectives and managing its income and expenditure, subject to the oversight and direction of the State Waqf Board.
• Survey Commissioner (Section 4 – Pre-amendment): The state government was required to appoint a Survey Commissioner to conduct preliminary surveys of all Waqf properties existing in the state. The Commissioner was responsible for identifying Waqfs, investigating their nature and extent, and submitting a report to the state government and the Waqf Board.

Identifying and Managing Waqf Property

• The Power of Section 40 (Pre-amendment): This section granted the State Waqf Board the power to determine, after conducting an inquiry, whether a particular property was Waqf property. The Board could issue notices to interested parties and hold hearings.
• Registration of Waqfs (Section 36): The Act mandated the registration of all Waqfs, whether created before or after the commencement of the Act, at the office of the respective State Waqf Board.
• Protection of Waqf Property: The Act included provisions to safeguard Waqf assets:
  • Restrictions on Alienation (Section 51): It generally prohibited the sale, gift, exchange, mortgage, or transfer of Waqf property. Leases exceeding one year (or three years for agricultural land) required prior sanction from the Board (Section 56). The 2013 amendment significantly extended the permissible lease period up to 30 years with Board approval, aiming for better economic utilization.
  • Penalties for Encroachment (Section 52A – added by 2013 amendment): This section defined ‘encroacher’ and prescribed penalty of imprisonment for up to two years, for illegally occupying Waqf property.

Dispute Resolution

• Waqf Tribunals (Establishment under Section 83 – Pre-amendment): To handle disputes related to Waqf properties, the Act mandated that state governments constitute one or more Tribunals. These Tribunals had jurisdiction over questions such as whether a property is Waqf, disputes regarding Mutawallis, or issues concerning Waqf administration.
  • Composition: Section 83 specified the composition: a Chairman who was a member of the State Judicial Service (holding a rank not below that of a District, Sessions, or Civil Judge, Class I), one member from the State Civil Services (equivalent in rank to at least an Additional District Magistrate), and crucially, one member having knowledge of Muslim law and jurisprudence. This composition aimed to blend judicial, administrative, and religious legal expertise.
  • Jurisdiction (Section 85): The Tribunals were granted exclusive jurisdiction over Waqf matters, explicitly barring suits or legal proceedings in civil courts concerning any dispute required to be determined by the Tribunal under the Act.
• Finality of Tribunal Decisions (Section 85 – Pre-amendment): The Act did allow the High Court to exercise revisional jurisdiction – it could call for records and pass orders either on its own motion (suo motu) or on the application of the Board or an aggrieved person on any matter which has been determined by the tribunals, and even modify such order.

Exemption from Limitation Act (Section 107 – Pre-amendment)

• A significant protective measure was Section 107, which stipulated that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 (which sets time limits for initiating legal action) would not apply to any suit for the possession of immovable property in any Waqf. The purpose of this exemption was to safeguard Waqf properties from being lost due to adverse possession – where an encroacher occupies land openly and continuously for a prescribed period (typically 12 years for private immovable property under the Limitation Act). Section 107 allowed Waqf Boards to initiate recovery proceedings for encroached land regardless of how long the encroachment had persisted.

Significance of the 1995 Act

The 1995 Act, therefore, represented a layered legal architecture attempting to balance the unique religious nature of Waqf with the requirements of modern administration and state oversight. Provisions ensuring Muslim majority representation on Boards and Councils, and the inclusion of Muslim law experts in Tribunals, sought to maintain the institution’s religious integrity. However, the very establishment of state-controlled Boards, the appointment of Survey Commissioners, the broad powers under Section 40, and the Tribunal system itself signified substantial state involvement.

Part 3: The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025: What has changed?

The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, introduces sweeping changes to the 1995 framework, impacting nearly every aspect of Waqf definition, governance, property management, and dispute resolution. The government has renamed the legislation the “Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development Act” (UMEED Act), in line with the government’s enthusiasm to rename things.

Redefining Waqf creation and scope:

• New Criteria for Declaration (Amended Section 3(r), New Section 3A): The Act imposes new conditions for creating a Waqf by declaration. Firstly, only a person who has demonstrably practiced Islam for at least five years can now declare a Waqf. Secondly, the Act explicitly requires the person creating the Waqf (Waqif) to be the lawful owner of the property being dedicated.
• Abolition of ‘Waqf by User’ Prospectively (Amended Section 3(r)): The Act removes the concept of ‘Waqf by user’ for recognising future This means properties cannot be newly recognised as Waqf based solely on long-term religious or charitable use without a formal declaration by a qualified owner. While the amendment includes a proviso stating that existing properties registered as ‘Waqf by user’ before the Act’s commencement will remain Waqf, it adds a crucial exception: this protection does not apply if the property is “wholly or in part, in dispute or is a government property”. This exception clause creates uncertainty for many existing ‘Waqf by user’ properties, particularly those facing legal challenges or situated on land claimed by the government.
• Waqf-alal-aulad clarification (new Section 3A(2)): The amendment specifies that the creation of a Waqf-alal-aulad (family Waqf) must not result in the denial of inheritance rights to the Waqif’s heirs, explicitly including women heirs, or infringe upon the rights of others with lawful claims. This is presented by the government as a measure to ensure gender equality and protect inheritance rights.

Shift in Property identification and Survey:

• Deletion of Section 40: The Section 40, which empowered State Waqf Boards to declare properties as Waqf after an inquiry, has been entirely removed.
• Collector’s Role in Survey (Amended Section 4): The role of the Survey Commissioner is abolished. Instead, the District Collector (or an authorised officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector) is now responsible for conducting surveys of potential Waqf properties. These surveys are to be conducted according to the procedures laid out in the state’s revenue laws. This transfers significant authority from a potentially specialised body focused on Waqf to generalist revenue administration officials, raising concerns about potential bias and lack of specialized knowledge.
• Government property: The Act explicitly states that any government property identified as Waqf will cease to be considered Waqf property. In cases of uncertainty regarding ownership between Waqf claims and government claims, the Collector is empowered to determine ownership and report to the state government.

Changes in governance bodies (Amended Sections 9, 14):

• Inclusion of Non-Muslims: A major structural change is the mandatory inclusion of non-Muslim members in both the Central Waqf Council and the State Waqf Boards. The Act specifies at least two non-Muslim members for State Boards and mandates two non-Muslims on the Council, while also removing the previous requirement that certain categories of Council members (like MPs, former judges, eminent persons) must be Muslim.
• Nomination over Election: The previous system where some members of State Waqf Boards were elected by specific Muslim electoral colleges (MPs, MLAs/MLCs, Bar Council members) has been abolished. The Act now empowers the state government to nominate all members of the State Waqf Boards. This significantly increases state government control over the composition and functioning of the Boards.
• Mandated Representation: While increasing government control, the Act also mandates specific representation within the nominated Boards. They must include at least one member each from Shia, Sunni, and recognized Backward Classes among Muslims. Additionally, if there are Bohra or Agakhani Waqfs in the state, one member from each of these communities must be included. The requirement for female representation is retained, specifying that at least two Muslim members must be women.

Tribunal reforms (Amended Section 83, Omission of Section 85 finality clause):

• New Composition: The Tribunal will now consist of three members like before but with some changes in the composition: a Chairman who is a current or former District Court judge, and a member who is a current or former state government officer of the rank of Joint Secretary or equivalent and a person having the knowledge of Muslim law.
• Appeal to High Court: In essence, provides a 90 day time limit to appeal the tribunal’s decisions to the High Court. However, the appeal provision existed in the 1995 act too.
• Digital Mandate and Financial Changes:
• Central Portal and Database (New Section 3B, Amended Section 3(ka)): The Act mandates the establishment of a central online portal and database managed by the Central Government. All existing Waqfs registered under the Act prior to the amendment are required to file detailed information about the Waqf and its properties on this portal within six months of the Act’s commencement.
• Contribution Reduction: The mandatory annual contribution payable by Waqfs from their net annual income to the State Waqf Board for administrative expenses is reduced from 7% to 5%.

Applicability of Limitation Act, 1963 (Omission of Section 107):

• Perhaps one of the most impactful changes is the omission of Section 107 of the 1995 Act. This means the Limitation Act, 1963, which sets time limits for filing lawsuits, will now apply to Waqf properties like any other property from now on. Consequently, the special protection Waqf properties previously enjoyed against claims of adverse possession is removed. Individuals or entities who have illegally occupied Waqf land for the period specified under the Limitation Act (often 12 years for immovable property) could potentially claim legal ownership, severely hindering the ability of Waqf Boards to reclaim long-encroached properties and effectively legitimizing past illegal encroachments.

These amendments, viewed collectively, represent a significant shift in the governance philosophy surrounding Waqf. While the 1995 Act balanced community involvement with state oversight, the 2025 changes appear to tilt this balance decisively towards state control. The removal of the Board’s power under Section 40, the replacement of the Survey Commissioner with the Collector, the introduction of nominated Boards with mandatory non-Muslim presence, and the altered Tribunal composition all point to a reduced role for community institutions and increased authority for government functionaries.

Part 4: A question of rights: How the 2025 amendments impact minorities

The passage of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, has been met with strong opposition and rightly so. A widespread concern regarding its impact on the fundamental rights of India’s Muslim minority is prevalent. Why?

Erosion of religious autonomy (Violation of Article 26)

Article 26 of the Indian Constitution grants every religious denomination the right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes and to manage its own affairs in matters of religion. The 2025 Act infringes upon this right by significantly increasing government control over Waqf administration. The transfer of survey powers to the District Collector, the replacement of elected Board members with government nominees, and, most notably, the mandatory inclusion of non-Muslims in the governing bodies (State Boards and Central Council) are direct state interference in the management of inherently religious and charitable endowments established under Muslim law.

Concerns over Non-Muslim representation

While the government presents the inclusion of non-Muslim members on Waqf Boards and the Council as a move towards inclusivity and secular administration, this provision fails to hide the intentions of the ruling establishments to somehow gain control over the spaces that have been reserved for Muslims. When contrasted with the strict norms for say the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam where the service rules mandate that any appointment to any category of post in the TTD should be made from among the persons professing Hindu Religion. Some employees were pulled up in February 2025 for engaging in non-Hindu activities and were sent memos.

The question of whether our society can hire individuals from different religions for non-religious roles—and what it reveals about us if we cannot—is a separate and deeply important conversation in itself. However, what needs to be noted here is that if traditional Hindu dominions like the TTD have such strict and well accepted rules over all categories of employees, it is not fair to have non-Muslims’ representation in dominions that have been held by Muslims for generations now. This is not a question of essential religious practices but a question of how spaces occupied by two religions are being treated differently.

The argument is that Waqf properties are specifically dedicated under Islamic law for purposes defined by that law, and their management should primarily rest with members of the Muslim community who understand the religious context and obligations.

Weakening property protection and potential for dispossession

Several amendments are directly weakening the legal protections afforded to Waqf properties, raising fears of systematic dispossession:

Impact of Removing Section 107

The repeal of the exemption from the Limitation Act, 1963, is arguably one of the most damaging changes. By making Waqf properties subject to claims of adverse possession (typically after 12 years of uninterrupted illegal occupation), the Act potentially legitimizes decades of encroachment and makes it significantly harder, if not impossible, for Waqf Boards to recover vast tracts of land illegally occupied in the past. This fundamentally undermines the principle of Waqf property being inalienable and perpetually dedicated.

For example, in Telangana, more than 70% of Waqf land has been encroached by various elements. Now, the biggest protection to Waqf was that even if the encroachers squatted on the land for more than 12 years, they would not have had the right to claim it and this changed with the amendment thus putting the encroached properties in danger.

Impact of abolishing ‘Waqf by User’

Removing the possibility of recognizing new Waqfs based on long-term usage closes off a vital avenue for protecting historical community assets where formal documentation is lacking. Furthermore, the caveat that even existing registered ‘Waqf by user’ properties lose protection if they are disputed or on government land creates significant vulnerability.

Collector’s Enhanced Role: Empowering the District Collector, a revenue official accountable to the state government, to conduct surveys and determine ownership in case of disputes involving government land fuels concerns about political interference and decisions potentially biased against Waqf claims. 

Arbitrary restrictions and discrimination

Certain provisions that have been brought via the amendment are plain arbitrary and discriminatory

• The ‘5-year practice’ rule

The requirement that a person must have practiced Islam for at least five years to create a Waqf is an arbitrary and intrusive limitation on religious freedom. It imposes an unnecessary burden of proof on individuals born into the faith and lacks a clear legislative rationale.

• Exclusion of ‘Waqf by User’

The prospective abolition of ‘Waqf by user’ is discriminatory against a historically significant method of recognizing community endowments based on established practice.

Conclusion

The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, enacted under the banner of the “Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development (UMEED) Act,” seeks to reform the administration of Waqf properties in India. However, a critical examination reveals that its provisions represent a significant regression, fundamentally undermining the religious autonomy and property rights of the Muslim minority, thereby challenging constitutional safeguards.

A central pillar of this critique rests upon the Act’s assault on the autonomy guaranteed under Article 26 of the Constitution, which allows religious denominations to manage their own affairs. The systematic replacement of elected members on State Waqf Boards with government nominees, coupled with the mandated inclusion of non-Muslim members in both State Boards and the Central Waqf Council, constitutes an unprecedented level of state interference in the governance of institutions intrinsically linked to Islamic faith and practice. This contrasts starkly with the governance norms often applied to the endowments of other faiths, raising legitimate concerns about discriminatory application of legislative principles.

Furthermore, the Act delivers a severe blow to the protection of Waqf properties. The repeal of Section 107 of the 1995 Act, which shielded Waqf properties from the Limitation Act, 1963, is particularly damaging. This single amendment potentially legitimizes decades of illegal encroachment by allowing claims of adverse possession, threatening the recovery of vast tracts of land  that were intended for perpetual religious and charitable use. This action directly contradicts the core Islamic principle of Waqf property being inalienable.

While framed as a move towards transparency and efficiency, the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, functions as a mechanism for increased state control over minority religious institutions and assets. It markedly weakens property protections, erodes constitutionally guaranteed autonomy, and introduces potentially discriminatory clauses. Far from progressive reform, the Act represents a shift that jeopardizes the integrity and security of Waqf institutions and properties across India, rightly prompting serious constitutional challenges.

(The author is part of the legal research team of the organisation)

Related:

Amid Waqf Debate, Should Hindu Endowment Boards be Held Responsible for the Sorry Plight of Dalits?

Waqf Amendment Act 2025: SC grants some time to Centre on condition no non-Muslims appointed to Board, Council & no change in any Waqf status

SC to UoI on Waqf Amendment: ‘Are you willing to allow Muslims on Hindu endowment boards?’

The post Waqf Amendment Act 2025: An erosion of rights under the garb of reform appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The United Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development (UMEED) Bill 2024, introduced by the ruling BJP-led Union government, has now been referred to the Joint Committee of Parliament (JCP) for further examination. Upon reviewing the draft Bill and observing reactions from the Opposition, media, and academics, it becomes evident that a crucial aspect is missing from the discourse. The responses from Muslim organisations follow a familiar pattern: an outright rejection of reforms deemed as religious matters, coupled with a resistance to any state intervention aimed at reforming these areas. This has been the typical stance on issues like Muslim Personal Law, Muslim University governance, and Waqf administration.

This reaction necessitates an intervention to bring forth a broader perspective.

The scope of the flawed bill

The proposed Bill ostensibly addresses the management and mismanagement of Waqf properties, rather than delving into the theological or historical legitimacy of Waqf as an institution. It seeks to address concerns about the assets held under Waqf, the proceeds they generate, and the persistent corruption within the Waqf administration. However, some Opposition leaders seem to be treating the Waqf Bill in the same way as they have treated other religious matters, such as the Shariat Act of 1937 and the governance of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU).

It is important to clarify that, regardless of the Supreme Court’s upcoming verdict on AMU’s minority status, structural reforms in the governance of AMU will remain unresolved. For instance, the AMU will still have a preponderance (over 80%) of membership of the internal teachers in the Executive Council. In all these cases, there exists a widely held belief within all Muslim communities that the state should not interfere, that no reforms should emerge from within the community, and that these matters are divinely ordained and therefore immutable. This belief perpetuates a sense of Muslim exceptionalism, exclusivity, and isolation from the state.

Both the government and the Opposition appear to be engaging in the usual “vote-bank politics”, addressing their respective constituencies based on identity. This approach has already caused significant harm to India’s Muslim communities, due to the bizarre stance of their own self-serving elites as well as the ruling and intellectual elites of the country. It is crucial for ordinary Muslims to be informed by their theological and secular institutions (such as Deoband, Nadwah, Aligarh Muslim University, Jamia Millia Islamia, and MANU Hyderabad) that Waqf, arguably, does not have explicit Quranic or Shariah mandates. Imam Abu Hanifa (699-767) also didn’t approve of it as an institution indisputably and explicitly sanctioned by Sharia. Waqf-e-Aam and Waqf-e-Aulad (types of Waqf) are often more about circumventing Quranic inheritance rules and preventing division among heirs than about altruism and charity and public welfare. They are not divinely ordained.

The historical context of Waqf

In the latter half of the 19th century, Waqf in India became a means to fund identity politics and secure representation in colonial governance institutions. Gregory Kozlowski’s 1985 book, Muslim Endowments and Society in British India, highlights that most Waqfs in India emerged during this period when the colonial state turned land into a commodity. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan (1817-1898), a visionary pragmatist, was aware of both the British Indian judges’ concerns about Waqf-e-Aulad (Waqf for descendants) and the self-interests of the Muslim landed aristocracy. British judges rightly saw Waqf-e-Aulad as circumvention of Quranic inheritance laws and in their judgments invalidated many of these Waqfs, as they lacked charitable elements. This is why they kept invalidating such Awqaf, annoying the Muslim landed elites turning into Waqifs.

Sir Syed therefore, proposed a middle path. In 1879 –as member of the Viceroy’s Legislative council– he introduced a draft bill advocating that Waqf properties be used also for more meaningful and tangible charitable purposes such as education, healthcare, and social welfare, not just for mosques and madrasas. He argued that if managed properly, Waqf could be a powerful tool for social change and community development, brings out Prof. Shafey Kidwai’s column (India Today, August 13, 2024). Sir Syed’s proposal was also published in 1877 in his periodical Tehzibul Akhlaq, with the title, ‘A Proposal for Salvaging Muslim Families from Extinction and Destruction’. This was vehemently opposed by orthodox Muslims who saw the insistence on charity and public welfare as an innovation (bidat). As a result, Sir Syed succumbing to the conservatives and orthodoxy withdrew the bill.

In contrast, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the cunning politician, by the second decade of the 19th century, jumped in to protect the interests of the Muslim landed elites who needed the Waqf Validation Act of 1913. This act, supported by the colonial state, aimed to safeguard the landed assets of these elites, who were seen as potential allies against the growing anti-colonial movement. The Swadeshi Movement, which opposed the religious-communal partition of Bengal, had forced the colonial state to annul the (Bengal) partition in 1911-192, necessitating a political arrangement to secure Muslim support.

Such a political arrangement to safeguard the monopoly on landed assets is equally true for the Mahanths and their Mutths .Unfortunately this institution of Mahanths and Maths remains under-explored by the historians of peasant and agrarian relations. Prakash Jha’s film Mrityudand (1997) attempts to depict some of the degenerative aspects of the institution of Mahanth, but it eventually turned more into a melodramatic movie.

The BJP has got no intent of introducing a similar Bill to reform this Hindu institution of Mahanths’ Muths? This is therefore an additional reason why Muslim communities look upon the proposed Bill with alarming concern, as it creates an impression of targeting only Muslims with discriminatory treatment. One more apprehension is, turning the Bill into a tool to harass Muslims by local majoritarian forces and outfits in those smaller villages and mohallas where written deeds of a Waqf and mosques aren’t available.

The nature of Waqf: Neither divine nor immutable

Waqf is not the exact equivalent of charitable endowments in the “Christian” West. In many cases, as said earlier, it is a means of circumventing Quranic inheritance regulations. Just as the community’s elites have misled others into believing that Shariat is divinely ordained, Waqf has also been portrayed as an immutable, divinely sanctioned institution. This deception needs to be exposed for the greater common good.

Moreover, the looting and encroachment of Waqf assets have been a recurring issue across the Islamic world since the 7th century AD. This mismanagement occurred with the earliest prominent Waqfs, such as Khyber and Sawad (Iraq) during Caliph Umar’s time, and the Rumlah (Palestine) Waqf established in 912 AD by a person named Faíq (which has earliest surviving written record-stone inscription). All three “earliest” Waqf estates have since become non-existent, as their assets were looted by military and other elites!

Waqf mismanagement and loot

The looting of Waqf assets is almost as old as the institution itself. In India, there is a consensus that Waqf properties suffer from gross mismanagement and looting. Despite numerous legislations, the loot continues unabated. The existing laws, therefore, require a thorough re-examination. Unfortunately, neither the ruling party nor the Opposition has highlighted this consensus in the Lok Sabha, in media, or in academic debates. The near silence of academics from institutions like AMU and JMI on this matter is particularly notable.

The “Muslim-friendly” “secular” Opposition refrains from addressing Waqf loot because doing so would justify the need for the Bill. This also explains why their interventions in the Lok Sabha are superficial and merely rhetorical. The Opposition cannot afford to state frankly that Waqf is not divine and requires human intervention for reform in order to prevent its loot and redirect it for the welfare and empowerment of the Muslim communities.

Academics, theologians and other knowledge elites have been shallow in their interventions. They have not voiced the concerns and apprehensions they discuss privately about the implications of the proposed Bill. The Muslim community needs to see through this politics, not only of the politicians but also of their own knowledge elites. Why aren’t these academics helping legislators and the community understand the issue in a holistic manner?

The real threat posed by the Bill is to the elites within the Muslim community. The proposed Bill challenges the exclusive Muslim representation in Waqf Boards as mandated by Section/clause 14 of the Waqf Act of 1995. This section, which deals with the social composition of Board Executives, is being questioned in the new Bill. The provision for Muslim-exclusive privileges in Waqf representation is being removed, which is a significant point of concern, alarm and contention. Another alarming concern is the proposal to do away with the enabling provisions enshrined in section 40 of the Waqf Act, 1995. It gives powers to the Board to acquire, issue notices or hold an enquiry into the ownership of the property that it has reasons to believe belongs to the Waqf.

Proposed reforms

While the proposed Bill has its deep flaws, the lack of detailed articulation by its opponents hinders constructive debate. Historically, state intervention has sometimes yielded positive results, as seen in the Mohsin Waqf of Hooghly, where the British colonial state established the Mohsin Hooghly College in 1836, going beyond the original terms of the original Waqf. The Waqf Bill of 2024 should explicitly incorporate such progressive steps. Parliament should legislate to ensure Waqf Boards take similar rewarding actions.

Muslim communities must abandon their collective hypocrisy. For instance, the practices, such as Instant Triple Talaq (ITT), are un-Quranic yet they stubbornly refuse to reform themselves as much as they resist the state intervention. Despite, Ali Miyan Nadvi’s assurance to the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, the AIMPLB refuses to provide for maintenance to divorced Muslim women. They keep opposing the Supreme Court verdicts in this regard.  Likewise, adoption of a child is not prohibited by Quran (it only prohibits concealing the biological paternity of the child adopted) and custody is absolutely valid as was the case with Zayd the adopted son of the Prophet Muhammad, yet, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) refuses to reform it. Their stubbornness is immensely supported by most of the academics of the modern institutions such as the AMU and JMI. Political leaders like Akhilesh Yadav, Asaduddin Owaisi, and the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) must take a clear stand on this issue.

Some Tentative Recommendations for the Waqf Bill 2024

1. Creation of a Waqf Tribunal: Establish a tribunal consisting of judges of the rank of High Court judges as the exclusive body for resolving Waqf cases, with the Supreme Court as the appellate authority.
2. Enhanced Land Survey: A Land Survey Commissioner should be comprised of at least three officers in each Board.
3. Mandatory Gender and Caste Representation: The Waqf Board’s composition should be diversified and this should be made mandatory (with Muslims of all castes and women as members).
4. Digital Transparency: Waqf assets, deeds, and real estate records should be digitized and made publicly accessible online for transparency and vigilance.
5. Promotion of Charitable Activities: The Bill should mandate that Waqf properties be used aggressively for establishing modern educational and research institutions, especially quality residential schools under Article 30 of the Constitution.
6. Strict Penalties for Mismanagement: Penalties for those who grab, usurp or mismanage Waqf properties should not be diluted. Rigorous imprisonment should be enforced.
7. Memorialization of Waqf Creators: Waqf creators (Waqif) should be remembered in a befitting manner, be honored, and their deeds digitized and made publicly available.
8. Defined Roles for Mutawallis: The roles of Mutawallis (Waqf administrators) should be clearly defined, with fixed tenures of 3-5 years. Eligibility criteria should be established for their appointment.
9. Accountability Mechanisms: A robust check and balance mechanism should be implemented for both Mutawallis and Waqf Boards.
10. Mandatory annual auditing, and the income of the Waqf Boards should be made available for public vigilance.

Hope, the stakeholders would listen to the above words!

(The author is a Professor of History, Aligarh Muslim University)

The post The Waqf Bill 2024: An Open Letter to the Joint Committee of Parliament, the Opposition, and India’s Muslim Communities appeared first on SabrangIndia.

First of all, let me congratulate you for successfully piloting the Waqf Bill, now rechristened UMEED, which in both Hindi and Urdu means “Hope”. I am sure President Droupadi Murmu will soon give her assent to the Bill and it will become the law of the land. In this context, I remember the agricultural Acts the Modi government had to rescind following a massive protest from the farmers.

I liked your assertion in the Lok Sabha that you yourself belong to a minority community and you do not feel any discrimination against minorities. As you are the minister in charge of minority affairs, can you say with confidence that there is no such discrimination?

As you are a Buddhist, I do not have to tell you that the Buddhists have built great Peace Pagodas like the one in Delhi and elsewhere. They are all architectural marvels and I never miss them on my visits to places like Leh in Ladakh, Darjeeling in West Bengal, and Kathmandu in Nepal.

I am sure that you will not contest me when I say that the greatest pilgrim centre for Buddhists the world over is not Lumbini in Nepal, where Siddhartha Gautama was born. Instead, it is the Mahabodhi Temple in Bodh Gaya where Lord Buddha attained enlightenment under a Bodhi tree. I have visited the place several times.

In the eighties, I did a cover story on the Mahabodhi Temple for the Sunday Magazine of the Hindustan Times. One of the highlights of the article was the demand the Buddhists were making for control of the temple. They resent Hindu Brahmins doing Puja there and the Hindus controlling the administrative affairs of the temple.

The agitation for control of the temple still goes on, though it does not get traction in the media. As a Buddhist and Minister for Minority Affairs, you will do a great service to the nation if you can liberate the Mahabodhi Temple from the immoral control of non-Buddhists. Instead, you want non-Muslims to have a say, if not control, of the Waqf Boards at the Centre and in the states.

You should see this in the light of the Tirupati temple authorities’ draconian decision to terminate the services of all their non-Hindu employees. The argument is that Tirupati temple belongs to the Hindus and only Hindus can work there. I don’t think you have taken any action against the retrenchment of the few non-Hindu employees.

The greatest Hindu pilgrimage centre in Kerala, from where I come, is Sabarimala, which is controlled by the Devaswom Board. The MLAs can vote for various posts in the board but only Hindu MLAs can take part in the voting. The Vaishnodevi temple in Jammu and Kashmir is run by a Trust. The Lieutenant-Governor holds the post of Chairman of the Trust.

If a non-Hindu is appointed governor, a Hindu has to be appointed chairman of the Trust. Once, when General S.K. Sinha was governor and no ice lingam was formed in the Amarnath cave, he managed to procure tonnes of ice from as far away as Jammu to create an ice lingam. Alas, a press photographer published the pictures of the ice lingam which had dirty hand marks of the workers who made it. Sinha escaped unscathed.

Early this week, the details of the will of Ratan Tata, worth Rs 10,000 crore, appeared in the media. Most of the wealth has gone to philanthropic organisations. What attracted me is a clause under which his favourite dog, Tito, and other pets will benefit from a Rs 12 lakh fund, which will be used to care for his pets, ensuring that each of them will receive Rs 30,000 per quarter for their care. He also mentioned that his cook, Rajan Shaw, will take care of Tito after his demise.

The executors of the will have a duty to ensure that the money is distributed as mandated by Tata.

In the seventh century, Umar ibn al-Khattab, also spelled Omar, who later became the Caliph, owned land on the shores of the Khyber. He approached the Prophet on what he should do with the land. He was advised to give it to Allah, which will, of course, deprive him of all his authority over the land. The land could be used only for religious or charitable purposes and the person responsible for it was known as Mutawalli. I owe this information to an article by Advocate T. Asaf Ali in the Madhyamam daily.

A Jew who fought unsuccessfully against the Prophet bequeathed all his property for similar purposes. All the rules and regulations governing Waqf follow from this precedent. This reaffirms the point that Waqf properties cannot be sold for profit; they can only be used for religious or charitable purposes.

Under UMEED, only a person who has been a practising Muslim for at least five years can will away his property as Waqf. Since you studied the Bill, let me ask you how will you determine whether a person remained a Muslim for five years or not?

A person becomes a Muslim when he dedicates his prayer solely to Allah and considers Mohammed as the final prophet and messenger of God. Of course, his religious practices are enumerated in the Five Pillars of Islam: the declaration of faith (shahadah), daily prayers (salah), almsgiving (zakat), fasting during the month of Ramadan (sawm), and the pilgrimage to Mecca (hajj) at least once in a lifetime.

Anybody can become a Christian and the longevity of his faith does not matter to God. That is why the thief on the cross attained salvation because he believed in Jesus as the Son of God. He did not live even for a day after his conversion. This being the case, on what basis do you say that to be a Muslim one must practice the religion for five years?

Last Sunday, Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited the RSS headquarters at Nagpur. He also visited the Deekshabhoomi, the ground where people led by Dr B.R. Ambedkar got ordained as Buddhists. This religious mass conversion at one place was the first ever of its kind in history. The day they took Deeksha, they became Buddhists.

You may like to know why Ambedkar chose Nagpur for his conversion to your religion. Nagpur is where the Nags lived on the banks of the Nag river. They were the ones who fought vigorously against the invading Aryans. And they were the ones who propagated Buddhism in far corners of the land, including Arunachal Pradesh, to which you belong.

When the British wanted to build a house for the Viceroy in Delhi, they did not go to a temple for a model. Instead, they looked at a Buddhist vihara to draw ideas. When you take UMEED to the Rashtrapati Bhavan for the President’s signature, please check whether the building resembles a temple or a Buddhist vihara.

On the day Parliament was debating the Waqf Bill, UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath claimed that the Waqf authorities had declared the area where the Mahakumbh was held as Waqf property. Even if it is true, did it prevent Yogi from driving away every Muslim selling even Bisleri water bottles from the banks of the Ganga?

Home Minister Amit Shah even claimed that the Waqf authorities could have declared Parliament House as Waqf property. You and your party have perfected the art of scare-mongering. You don’t even leave Aurangzeb, who died 318 years ago.

The whole world knows that Mukesh Ambani’s grotesque house, Antilia, in Mumbai—consuming power worth Rs 70 lakh every month—is situated on Waqf land. Has Ambani suffered on this account? But you portrayed the Waqf Boards as more powerful than even the Supreme Court.

And some persons, like Baselios Cleemis, the current Major Archbishop-Catholicos of the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church, fell for it. He saw the issue from the perspective of the residents of Munambam, numbering 600 families, mostly Catholic. If Ambani could not be evicted from his Antilia, how could they be evicted?

The broader issue was that the Muslims were not consulted on the drafting of the Bill. You mentioned that it was vetted by a parliamentary committee. Was even one suggestion of an Opposition member accepted? During the debate in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, was even one amendment suggested by an Opposition MP accepted? It was a Bill of the government, by the government, and for the government.

With non-Muslims allowed to decide Waqf-related issues, the Muslims will lose control of their Waqf properties. The Waqf Boards will be deprived of assets to run madrasas, orphanages, and hospitals. The Bill’s agenda is clear to the discerning.

Small wonder that the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC), which controls Sri Harmandir Sahib or Darbār Sahib, also called the Golden Temple, has opposed the Bill, for it knows that tomorrow, the government can amend the Sikh Gurdwara Act to their disadvantage. Alas, the Catholic Church leadership can’t see the woods for the trees.

The Catholic and other churches own thousands of acres of land and properties worth billions of rupees. Using the same argument, the government can easily take them over. In fact, many Church-run schools and colleges are situated on government land given by the British on lease for 100 years. The government has already started putting pressure on the church to vacate such properties, as in the Army Cantonment in New Delhi.

While Parliament was discussing the Waqf Bill, some Opposition members drew Parliament’s attention to the attack on two Catholic priests in Jabalpur. As Minister in charge of Minority Affairs, who prevented you from opening your mouth on the action you have taken on the matter?

Nonetheless, I was glad to hear you quoting the Sachar Committee report. Justice Rajinder Sachar appeared for me in a case the Punjab and Haryana High Court instituted, suo motu, against me and some of my colleagues at The Tribune. Have you ever thumbed the pages of his report except to find out what it said about Waqf properties? You say that if the Waqf properties are put to commercial use, Muslims will earn a lot.

That is exactly what is happening under crony capitalism. Government properties are handed over to the likes of Ambani and Adani so that they can become the world’s richest, pushing the poor down the ladder further and further. True, if they are handed over the Waqf properties, they will surely earn billions—so that they can have their swimming pools on their rooftops while the women in Mumbai stand for hours to get a pitcher of water.

By the way, the Sachar Committee made many suggestions, including a mechanism to monitor whether the government’s minority welfare measures benefit the communities concerned.

What amused me the most was your assertion that Muslim welfare was your government’s prime concern. You don’t have a single Muslim colleague in the ministry of which you are a member. Muslims constitute about 200 million in this country. It is unbelievable that the Prime Minister cannot find a single Muslim from among them to represent the community. Forget the Centre—mention one name of a Muslim minister in any of the BJP governments, from Gujarat to Manipur and Delhi to Uttarakhand.

Modi demonstrated his concern for Muslims by introducing the law banning triple talaq during his second term. Divorce frees a woman from marital bondage, especially when the husband no longer wishes to live with her. In many ways, it is better than abandonment of wives.

It has been over five years since the triple talaq law was enacted. Can you name even one conviction under it? The law was designed to appease Hindutvawadis rather than genuinely help Muslims. Unfortunately, the Waqf Bill follows the same pattern, aimed at depriving Muslims of their limited rights. I only wish Christians had realised— to borrow poet John Donne’s words—that the bell tolls not just for Muslims, but for them as well.

Yours etc.

Courtesy: Indian Currents

The post Letter to Minorities Minister: Waqf bell tolls for Christians too appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This propaganda is an attempt to derail the current discussion on misguided Waqf Bill. This campaign falsely claims that the DMC has suggested and DWB has demanded lands of Hindu temples. The fact is that neither DMC nor DWB ever suggested or demanded that temples built on Waqf land be demolished or their land be returned to the DWB. This is an unmitigated lie.

The DMC report of 2019 on some West Delhi mosques (https://archive.org/details/dmc-report-on-illegal-mosques-delhi) was prepared to examine the claim of the then BJP MP Mr Parvesh Verma that “illegal” mosques have been built in his parliamentary constituency and that such mosques should be demolished.

Mr Parvesh Verma had sent his complaint to the Delhi Lt. Governor in June 2019 claiming that 54 “illegal” mosques have cropped up in his constituency (West Delhi) during the last 20 years. He demanded that action should be taken against these mosques. In other words, he wanted these mosques be demolished. When no action was taken on his complaint, Mr Verma re-sent his complaint to the L.G. the next month.

On the publication of reports in the media about this communication to the L.G. by Mr Verma, as the then Chairman of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC), I formed a 5-member committee consisting of two Muslims, two Christians and a Sikh. All of them were reputed members of society and were active in legal and human rights fields. The committee inspected all the mosques on the list provided by Mr Verma, inspected their papers and finally presented a detailed report to the Commission saying that none of these mosques is illegal while some of them were centuries-old and thus protected as ancient monuments. At the same time, the Committee came across a number of illegal temples found in the vicinity of the so-called “illegal” mosques and at times built on the same plot of land as the mosques.

In its report, the Committee mentioned these temples along with their locations and photographs, although Mr Verma had missed them.

Copies of the said DMC report were sent to the L.G., Delhi Chief Minister and even to Mr Parvesh Verma himself. The report was also released to the media during a press conference. Thereafter, Mr Verma never raised that issue. Now, after five years, Zee News suddenly remembered that report but (deliberately) potrayed this in a skewed, totally wrong context. Zee News presented it claiming that DWB wants to grab temple lands, while the report only passingly mentioned that some temples in the vicinity of the so-called illegal mosques stood on Waqf lands.

Our committee had inspected each and every mosque on Mr Verma’s list and found that no mosque in the list was “illegal”. All were legal while some were centuries-old. During its visits, the Committee came across illegal temples found in the area and discovered that some of them were built on Waqf lands. The Committee registered this fact in its report but did not make any demand on the said lands of the illegal temples. The DWB too did not stake any claim on such lands.

The propaganda aired by an entranced, ‘godi media’ now is totally concocted, brazenly motivated. This campaign obscures the real purpose and findings of the said report. It is an attempt to misdirect the current discussion on the Waqf issue and pave the way to drastic changes in the Waqf law as planned by the Modi government.

A few days back a reporter of Zee News phoned me saying that next day they are holding a panel discussion on the issue on their channel. He wanted me to participate in the said discussion. I apologized saying that for the last four and a half years I do not talk to Godi media due to bitter past experiences about its bias and lies. The said reporter quickly apologised and ended the call.

Next day a reporter of Zee Salam, the Urdu section of Zee News, phoned me for an interview. I repeated what I told earlier to his colleague. He assured me that Zee Salam is different and that my interview will be carried in full with no cuts. After this, I accepted to meet him. He came in the evening and recorded a long interview with me in which I explained the gist and the circumstances and the result of the DMC report and how it is being twisted now. I also gave him a printed copy of the said DMC report. That interview was not carried that night. Upon my enquiry, the reporter told me that the interview will be carried next day. On the following day, Zee News assembled six persons including three saffron-clad Hindutvites. The panel included an advocate who was a member of the said DMC committee. He tried to explain the issue but was not allowed by the anchor to complete his explanation while time was amply given to others including a saffron-clad sadhu who bluntly announced that if you take the land of one temple, we will take ten mosques!

Later, a reporter of a Hindi newspaper talked to me on the same issue but I ended the call when, instead of listening to me, he kept blurting out his understanding of the issue on the Godi media lines.

This propaganda continues on various Godi media and Hindutva platforms. The fact is that these people are not after truth. They can utter any lie in order to serve their agenda. The agenda is dangerous and divisive, to generate lies, half-truths about India’s minorities, the Muslims. 

(The author is a former Chairman, Delhi Minorities Commission)

The post Delhi Minorities Commission (DMC) did not demand land of Hindu temples; former Chairperson DMC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In his video segment, he made the following claims, 

“Why did the Maharashtra government give a grant of 10 crore rupees to the Waqf Board, which should be buried? To defeat Modi in the Lok Sabha elections, those who did vote jihad are now being given a return gift by Eknath Shinde ji? Does this mean that if Afzal Khan stabs us in the back now he will be rewarded? If you want to give it, give it from your party’s account, the one you separated in the name of Hindutva. We oppose giving money to a board that should be dissolved.” He invited people to tune into his show and give him support. 

Who is Suresh Chavhanke?

Suresh Chavhanke is a shrill, right wing Hindutva journalist who is the current chairman, managing director (CMD) and the editor-in-chief of  Sudarshan TV Channel Limited. He is the anchor of TV show Bindas Bol. His ties with the Rashtroya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) are long standing, having been a member since the age of 3 years when he started attending its ceremonies. As a member of RSS, he had worked as a reporter of pro-RSS newspaper, Taun Bharat.  He has held several posts in RSS before becoming a “full-time reporter”. He launched Sudarshan News channel in 2005 in Pune and later shifted it to Noida.]  

Repeat Offender 

Sudarshan TV News editor-in-chief Chavhanke has been repeatedly accused of hate speech. The  Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) has consistently filed complaints against him to the National Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA) due to his inflammatory speeches. A 2023 analysis by Sabrang India also seemed to show that where Suresh Chavhanke gave speeches, communally charged violence used to soon follow. For instance, since December 2022, Chavhanke had made five hate speeches in Maharashtra, specifically in Jalgaon (December 25, 2022), Ahmednagar (February 6), Pune (February 15), Aurangabad (March 19), and Nashik (March 22). Violence against Muslims erupted on March 28, 2023. Additionally, Chavhanke played a significant role in the controversy surrounding the renaming of Aurangabad through his programme on Sudarshan TV. 

जिस वक़्फ़ बोर्ड को कबर में गाड़ना चाहिए उसे महाराष्ट्र सरकार ने १० करोड़ रूपये की ख़ैरात क्यों दी?

लोकसभा चुनाओ में मोदी को हराने के लिए जिन्होंने वोट जिहाद किया, उनको एकनाथ शिंदे जी रिटर्न गिफ़्ट क्यों दे रहें है?

मतलब अब अफ़ज़ल खान पीठ में ख़ंजर मारेगा तो उसका पेट फाड़ने… pic.twitter.com/dElSf5f6ii

— Dr. Suresh Chavhanke “Sudarshan News” (@SureshChavhanke) June 14, 2024

In a new government resolution from June 10, the Maharashtra Minority Development Department has announced that the Waqf Board will be allocated Rs 2 crore from the Rs 10 crore budget, which is being set aside for minority welfare in the 2024-25 financial year. This directive was issued by Moin Tashlidar, the Deputy Secretary in the Maharashtra government.

The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) has also added to this and called out the Maha Yuti government, which is led by the BJP in Maharashtra, for allocating a grant of 10 crore rupees to the state Wakf Board. Mohan Salekar of the VHP, has spoken against the state government for “strengthening” the Waqf Board through this step. Salekar stated that the VHP is completely opposed to this grant, stating that the Maha Yuti government is taking actions that even the previous Congress-led government did not undertake and accused them of ‘minority appeasement.’

As per the Indian Express, the state BJP president Chandrashekhar Bawankule has responded to these comments saying, “The funds allocated by the state government was for digitisation of the Waqf Board. The process was necessitated to fix the wrongs. It would help to identify the land which has been wrongly acquired from Hindus and tribes and backward classes.” He also decried any claims accusing the government of minority appeasement. 

As per Deccan Herald, the budget for the Union Ministry of Minority Affairs was again slashed by 38 % in the last fiscal year. Earlier it had been ₹5,020.50 crore in 2022-23 in 2023-24 it was ₹3,097.60 crore. 

Related

Five hate speeches given by Suresh Chavhanke in July, CJP moves NCM

Suresh Chavhanke’s hate filled rhetoric leaves behind a trail of violence

Another hate speech by Suresh Chavhanke, second complaint by CJP: Srirampur, Maharashtra

Suresh Chavhanke’s hate mongering continues with immunity: Shrirampur, Ahmednagar

FIR against Suresh Chavhanke in Jalgaon, Maharashtra

Repeat offender among suspects in lynching of Muslim man in Gujarat

Targeting Muslims in Ramzan: Lynching, assault, harassment mar the holy month in India

The post Suresh Chavhanke, notorious for hate speech, lashes out at the Maharashtra government for allocating funds to minorities appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a video that surfaced online the mosque’s imam, Imam Zakir Hussain mourned the loss of the mosque and stated that it not only housed a madrasa where students came to learn called the Madrasa Bahrul Uloom but also held the sacred graves of revered figures. The demolition allegedly took place just before the call to the morning prayers and caught the local residents and early day worshippers by surprise and shock.

In #Delhi‘s #Mehrauli,A 600-year-old mosque was demolished by the Delhi Development Authority (#DDA) at 6 am on Tuesday, said Imam Zakir Hussain. Debris were completely removed so that people don’t get to know about the demolition.

The mosque named Masjid Akhonji had a Madrasa… pic.twitter.com/CR2oUJmYB7

— Hate Detector (@HateDetectors) January 30, 2024

The Imam has further accused the DDA officials of being careful to remove the demolition debris so as to hide signs of the demolition from the public. Furthermore, he has claimed that the authorities even forcefully took the phones from him and other people present at the incident due to which none of them could document the demolition. The Imam also further stated that the authorities did not even let him and others salvage the copies of the holy Qur’an before the demolition. Furthermore, the Imam has also stated that not only were the sacred artefacts and books within the mosque desecrated, but officials also destroyed the belongings and properties, such as food and clothing items, of the 22 students studying at the Madrasa.  The demolition, reportedly, took place with a considerable amount of police presence.

This shocking development comes only months after the DDA had expressly told a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula at the Delhi High Court that no mosque, graveyard, or legally owned Waqf property would be demolished by the authorities in the Mehrauli Archaeological Park in response to a petition by the Delhi Waqf Board.

Citizens online have decried the “unconstitutional” nature of the demolition. The demolition comes in the line of various incidents where various state governments have selectively carried out demolitions of properties owned by Muslims. Recently as per a video posted by Hate Detector on the social media site, X, released in which the Assam Chief Minister, Himanta Biswa Sarma, can be seen boasting about having conducted 50,000 demolitions of homes in the state and expressed that Assam does not get as much “publicity.”

Related:

Rajasthan: State Education Minister warns of bulldozer action against teachers

Around the inauguration of Ram Temple, communal tension erupted in Uttar Pradesh

75th Republic Day of India: Hindutva Juggernaut Rolls on to Demolish Democratic-Secular Indian Republic?

Global Risks 2024: misinformation and climate risks some of the biggest challenges of the coming decade

The post Historic 600 year old Delhi mosque demolished without notice appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Lucknow: Amid the ongoing surveys of unrecognised madrasas across Uttar Pradesh, the Yogi Adityanath government has ordered a survey of properties managed by Sunni and Shia Central Waqf Boards in what the government says is an attempt aimed at preventing illegal encroachment of the properties in the state. It has also cancelled a 1989 government order under which uncultivable land at several places was “illegally registered” as Waqf property. 

Chief Minister Adityanath has asked all district magistrates and commissioners to scrutinise and demarcate Waqf properties in the revenue records. The directive came in response to a letter written by the state minority affairs ministry that said that several properties have been illegally occupied by Waqf boards. Sources say that the survey aims to stop “illegal possession and sale” of Waqf properties.

A letter sent to commissioners and district magistrates by Shakeel Ahmed Siddiqui, deputy secretary, UP government, reportedly states that several Waqf authorities had neglected the regulations regarding property registration as per the Waqf Act-1995 and the UP Muslim Waqf Act of 1960. In 1989, an order was also issued to properly register such properties in the revenue records.

In the letter, Siddiqui reportedly alleged there were pieces of barren land that were registered as Waqf property by “manipulating” provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Muslim Waqf Act, 1960.

In the order issued by the government, it has been said there is no provision in the Act for the registration of properties without following due process.

Siddiqui’s letter states that according to the Act, only those properties come under the category of Waqf that are donated for religious and welfare work according to Muslim law and customs.

As per the directive, the state government has said that cemetery, mosque and idgah land should be demarcated because, on the basis of the 1989 ordinance, many such lands registered as banjar (barren), usar (uncultivable), and bhita (mound) were declared as Waqf properties. Also, gram sabha and municipal councils had land that could be used for the general public but was occupied by Waqf boards, it said. However, any change in management and nature of these areas is prohibited under the 1989 order.

Meanwhile, Danish Azad Ansari, Minister of State for Minority Welfare and Waqf, termed the exercise a “normal departmental process”, saying it has nothing to do with other Waqf properties.

Waqf properties are donated to be used for religious or pious purposes, such as building mosque, cemetery, orphanage or hospital.

At the centre of the UP government’s latest move is a 1989 government order, under which uncultivable land at several places was “illegally registered” as Waqf property, PTI reported quoting an official. This has been revoked by the government with immediate effect with divisional commissioners and district magistrates being asked to examine all proceedings taken under the order to “correct revenue records” accordingly. 

“Waqf properties are very important and they are god’s property with nobody having the right to illegally occupy it. The state government, with a noble intention, has started a survey and we have given orders to first identify the Waqf properties and then take further action,” Dharam Pal Singh, minister for minority welfare, Muslim Waqf and Haj, told mediapersons.

Under Islamic law and customs, properties that are donated for religious and welfare work come under the category of Waqf, which means a charitable, religious endowment. Once donated, it is treated as “god’s property”.

There are 162,229 Waqf properties, including 1,50,000 registered with the Sunni Central Waqf Board and 12,229 with the Shia Central Waqf Board in Uttar Pradesh.

Muslims React to Order

Reacting to the recent directives, Khalid Rasheed Farangi Mahali, Imam Eidgah and a senior member of All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) told NewsClick: “For the last many years, the Waqf Board has been demanding that all government offices or any Waqf property encroached by any organisation or allotted by the government should either be handed over to the Waqf Board or rent be paid as per market rate.”

A Waqf board member, wishing anonymity, told NewsClick: “First madrasa and now Waqf Board land within a month shows the intention of the government. If an honest inquiry was to be done, then massive corruption would be unearthed in Uttar Pradesh in the past 15 years, as everybody knows how government offices and its leaders grabbed Waqf land in the state.”

Doubting the government’s intention, he further said: “The old Shia Waqf Board chairman faced a CBI inquiry. The Sunni Waqf Board chairman who first took over during the BSP (Bahujan Samaj Party) rule, continued during the SP (Samajwadi Party) regime, remains on his post even today. If this survey is an eyewash, then I don’t have much to offer. But if the government is serious, then it’s a welcome step.” 

The move comes amid a controversy surrounding an ongoing survey of private madrasas across Uttar Pradesh. However, Darul Uloom Deoband, an Islamic seminary, organised an ‘Ijlas’ (conference) on September 18 were the heads of over 250 major madrasas from across the state attended the event and said it had no objection to the survey of private madrasas.

However, the seminary noted that the entire system of madrasas —Islamic religious schools— should not be disregarded just because some institutions are found to have violated rules.

The government claimed it conducted surveys of “unrecognised and private madrasas” to gather information about the number of teachers, curriculum, and basic facilities available there, among other factors.

Saleem Shah, a Muslim intellectual, told NewsClick: “I personally read all the directives issued by the government to conduct surveys of madrasas and Waqf lands and can say that this issue will be raised ahead of Lok Sabha elections, portraying Muslims as land grabbers and villains. If an honest survey is conducted, the government itself will have to vacate many offices.”

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post UP: After Madrasas, Yogi Govt to Survey Waqf Properties; Muslim Citizens Doubt ‘Intention’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.