Waqf in India: Clearing Misgivings While Confronting Real Issues
- Ganadhish Kamat
Public debate around waqf properties in India has intensified in recent years, often accompanied by suspicion, misinformation, and genuine governance concerns. For many, especially among Hindus, waqf is perceived as a mechanism through which vast tracts of land can be arbitrarily claimed. At the same time, sections of the Muslim community fear that recent legal changes undermine their constitutional rights.
The truth lies somewhere in between: waqf is a legitimate religious institution with deep historical roots—but one that has suffered from serious administrative failures and now faces contentious reform.
What is Waqf? A Simple Explanation
Waqf is derived from Arabic word Waqufa and it literally means confinement and prohibition or full stop. In the context of Waqf board it refers to a permanent charitable endowment under Islamic law, where a person dedicates property for religious, educational, or social welfare purposes. Once declared waqf, the property:
- Cannot be sold or transferred
- Is meant to serve the community in perpetuity
- Is managed by Waqf Boards under Indian law
India has one of the largest waqf asset bases in the world—running into hundreds of thousands of properties and vast land holdings . These include mosques, graveyards, schools, and income-generating assets meant to fund welfare.
Where Misgivings Come From
1. Perception of Arbitrary Land Claims
One of the biggest concerns is that waqf boards can “declare” land as waqf, sometimes including government or private land.
This concern is not entirely baseless. Under earlier provisions, Waqf Boards had powers to survey and identify waqf properties, which led to disputes where ownership was contested. In some cases, claims emerged without clear documentary evidence, fuelling public mistrust.
However, it is important to clarify:
- Waqf Boards cannot simply take over land without due process
- Ownership disputes must ultimately be settled legally
- Many claims arise from historical endowments lacking formal records
So while the perception of unchecked power exists, the reality is more complex and often tied to poor record-keeping rather than deliberate encroachment.
2. Lack of Transparency and Accountability
This is a genuine and widely acknowledged problem.
Government assessments and audits have pointed to:
- Poor accounting and auditing systems
- Administrative inefficiencies
- Weak oversight mechanisms
Digitisation efforts have also faced criticism, with reports of missing data and inconsistencies in property records .
In short, waqf administration has often failed to match the scale and value of the assets it controls.
3. Encroachment and Misuse
Ironically, a major issue is not expansion—but loss.
- Large portions of waqf land are under illegal occupation
- Revenue potential is underutilised
- Benefits often do not reach intended beneficiaries
This weak governance creates a vacuum where both misuse and suspicion thrive.
What the 2025 Waqf Amendment Tries to Fix
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 attempts to address these systemic issues.
Key Reform Objectives
- Improve transparency and accountability
- Streamline property registration and records
- Introduce better coordination with government authorities
- Use technology for asset management
Specific Changes
- Greater role for government officials (e.g., district collectors) in determining property ownership
- Inclusion of non-Muslim members in Waqf Boards
- Changes to board composition and appointment processes
The intent, according to the government, is to curb corruption, prevent arbitrary claims, and ensure proper utilisation of assets.
How the Bill Addresses Public Concerns
Some reforms directly respond to widespread misgivings:
✔ Checks on Arbitrary Declaration
Shifting decision-making power to district authorities reduces unilateral control by Waqf Boards.
✔ Better Documentation
Digitisation and formal registration aim to reduce disputes arising from unclear ownership.
✔ Improved Oversight
Greater state involvement is intended to enforce accountability and auditing.
These measures are meant to reassure the public that waqf properties cannot be expanded or managed without scrutiny.
But There Are Serious Concerns Too
While reforms address governance issues, critics argue that some provisions go too far.
1. Erosion of Religious Autonomy
Allowing non-Muslim members—and even majority representation—in Waqf Boards raises constitutional questions about minority institutions managing their own affairs .
2. Increased Government Control
Giving district collectors authority over disputes shifts power from religious bodies to the state.
Critics warn this could:
- Lead to political interference
- Undermine community trust
- Centralise control over religious assets
3. Removal of “Waqf by User”
Earlier, long-term religious use could establish a property as waqf. Removing this provision may:
- Disqualify historically used properties without formal deeds
- Trigger fresh disputes and litigation
4. Property Rights Concerns
Applying general limitation laws could allow long-term encroachers to claim ownership, weakening protection of waqf assets .
5. Judicial Scrutiny Ongoing
The law’s constitutional validity is under challenge, especially regarding:
- Religious freedom
- Minority rights
- State overreach
The Real Problem: Governance, Not Concept
The core issue is not the idea of waqf itself—it is how it has been managed.
- Poor governance has created mistrust among non-Muslims
- Heavy-handed reforms risk alienating Muslims
Both realities can coexist.
What Balanced Reform Should Look Like
A sustainable solution would require:
1. Independent Regulatory Oversight
Not complete government control, but transparent and professional regulation.
2. Digitisation with Accountability
Accurate, publicly accessible records to reduce disputes.
3. Judicial Safeguards
Clear, fast dispute resolution mechanisms independent of both boards and political authorities.
4. Community Participation
Reforms should involve Muslim stakeholders to retain legitimacy.
5. Protection Against Encroachment
Stronger legal tools to reclaim illegally occupied waqf land.
Conclusion
Waqf is neither a conspiracy to grab land nor an institution beyond criticism.
Public concerns—especially about land claims and transparency—are rooted in real governance failures. At the same time, sweeping state control risks undermining constitutional protections for minority institutions.
The challenge for India is not choosing between reform and rights—but ensuring both.
Comments
Post a Comment