The comments made during the Muslim conference protesting the Waqf Amendment Bill, held at Talkatora Stadium in Delhi, have sparked numerous controversies. During the gathering, which included Muslim scholars and officials from various regions, as well as the head and other members of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, the government was even urged to show gratitude to the Muslim community.
Image via Dainik Jagran
Former Rajya Sabha MP Mohammad Adeeb stated that the Muslim community had done a favor by ensuring that the border of Pakistan was limited to Lahore, as it could have otherwise extended all the way to Lucknow. He also described the bill as the most significant attack on Waqf. Adeeb, who has lived nearly eighty years and been active in political circles for over fifty years, claimed, “Today we are living like criminals in our area. Now, we have even become traitors. We have seen such people who were with us and then left us to fate to build their lives in politics. We were blamed for those who went to Pakistan.”
He then added, “We believe that those who went to Pakistan made their lives, but we shared our blood, we refused and rejected Jinnah. We did not believe in Liaquat Ali Khan, we believed in Nehru, Gandhi and Maulana Azad. We Muslims did not go with Jinnah, the government should accept this favour of ours. Otherwise, Pakistan would not have been made till Lahore but till Lucknow.”
He claimed that Pakistan's limited growth was due to Muslims, yet the current government has been persecuting and oppressing them. “Of all the attacks on us so far, the biggest attack is on our status. We endured riots and bulldozers were run on our houses, but we (some of us) did not speak because our homes were safe and we lived for ourselves,” he remarked.
Mohammad Adeeb reminisced about the past and commented, “Today we have nothing left. You people are our strength. The biggest problem we have faced is that we no longer have any status. When we were studying in Aligarh, the political parties used to say that the miyan (Muslims) might get angry,” it shows that the political class of the time was constantly afraid of alienating the Muslim vote bank, which led them to avoid taking any actions that might displease it.
The stage was shared by All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) President Khalid Saifullah Rahmani, General Secretary Maulana Mohammed Fazlurrahim Mujaddidi, and Secretary Muhammad Umrain Mahfuz Rahmani, alongside Congress leader and Rajya Sabha MP Imran Pratapgarhi, Samajwadi Party leader and Rampur MP Maulana Mohibbullah Nadvi, and Rajya Sabha MP from Karnataka Syed Naseer Hussain.
On July 28th, the central government introduced the Waqf (Amendment) Bill in Parliament. However, due to opposition party objections, the bill was referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC). The bill seeks to limit the authority of Waqf boards, which currently have the power to designate any property as "waqf property." Additionally, the amendment proposes the inclusion of Muslim women and non-Muslims on state Waqf Boards and the Central Waqf Council.
Historical Background of Waqf
Waqf is regarded as one of the important branches of Islamic jurisprudence, although the term "Waqf" is not directly mentioned in the Holy Qur'an. Instead, its concepts are implied in several verses. The foundational development of the idea can be traced back to the actions and teachings of the Prophet. For instance, when Umar sought the Prophet’s guidance on how to use a piece of land in Khaibar, known as Sammagh, for charitable purposes, the Prophet said: “Tie up the property and devote the usufruct to human beings and it is not to be sold or made the subject of gift or inheritance; devote its produce to your children, your kindred and the poor in the way of God.”
In summary, the Prophet allocated a portion of land he acquired in the canton of Khaibar for the benefit of travelers. Likewise, Abu Bakr established a waqf for the benefit of his children.
As stated by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Vidya Varuthi Thirtha Swamigal vs. Balusamy Iyer (AIR 1922 PC 123), waqf refers to “tying up of property in the ownership of God, the Almighty and the devotion of the profits for the benefit of human beings”.
The concept of Waqf was introduced in India with the arrival of Islamic rule, during which its management was highly centralized in theory. The origins of Waqf in India can be traced back to the Delhi Sultanate, when Sultan Muizuddin Sam Ghaor dedicated two villages to the Jama Masjid of Multan and entrusted their administration to Shaikhul Islam. As Islamic rule expanded, the number of Waqf properties grew.
During this period, Waqf institutions played a crucial role in fostering Islamic scholarship and education. In pre-British India, Waqf was also intertwined with conversion, as well as religious and cultural assimilation. In his book The Preaching of Islam: A History of the Propagation of the Muslim Faith, Thomas Arnold described ‘Sufis’ as Islamic ‘missionaries’ working among non-Muslims. Historian Muzaffar Alam, in The Languages of Political Islam: India 1200-1800, noted that Sufis were involved in converting Hindus to Islam. Richard Eaton, in Approaches to the Study of Conversion to Islam in India, referred to this process as ‘accretion and reform’, where Sufi saints would incorporate Hindu and local customs while nominally converting the population to Islam.
Waqf during the British period
In the early years, British India avoided interfering with Hindu and Muslim endowments. The first regulation, Bengal Code Regulation XIX of 1810, was introduced to manage rents and produce for the maintenance of mosques, temples, and public buildings. Similarly, Madras Code Regulation VII of 1817 addressed the same issue for the Madras Presidency. These regulations gave the British government oversight over religious trusts, ensuring their proper use through strict control.
By 1839, objections from Christian missionaries prompted the British to scale back their control, which led to mismanagement and embezzlement of temple and mosque funds. In response, the Religious Endowments Act of 1863 was passed, removing direct government control and establishing local committees for management, with court intervention when necessary.
The Charitable Endowments Act of 1890 further formalized the role of treasurers for charitable properties. In 1920, the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act allowed any interested party to request judicial oversight, tightening control over trusts.
A landmark judgment in the 1894 case of Abdul Fata Mahomed Ishak v. Russomoy Dhur ruled that trusts primarily benefiting a family were invalid unless dedicated to charity. Dissatisfaction with this ruling led to the Mussalman Wakf Validating Act of 1913, which reversed the decision.
The Mussalman Wakf Act of 1923 introduced requirements for proper accounting, though mismanagement continued. Additional amendments, such as the Bengal Waqf Act (1934) and the Bihar Waqf Act, highlighted the need for specific laws to govern Muslim endowments, marking a departure from earlier secular legislation.
Post-Independence and Post Partition of the country
After 1947, the Mussalman Waqf Act of 1923 continued to govern the management of Waqf properties. However, in 1954, the Congress-led government introduced the Waqf Act, 1954, which centralized the administration of these properties and established powerful Waqf Boards. This move raised concerns about the government’s motivations, particularly in terms of potentially appeasing a specific community. The act also led to the repeal of several pre-independence laws and brought significant changes to Waqf property management.
In 1984, the Waqf Inquiry Committee submitted its findings, prompting the Waqf (Amendment) Act to restructure the administration of Waqfs and address financial and operational shortcomings. However, the Muslim community strongly opposed it, particularly due to the powers granted to the Waqf Commissioner, preventing full enforcement of the Act.
Subsequently, the Waqf Act of 1995 was enacted, consolidating and amending earlier laws while retaining major provisions of the 1984 Amendment Act. Despite this, opposition from the Muslim community continued, leading to the formation of a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) to propose improvements. Based on the JPC’s recommendations, the Waqf (Amendment) Act of 2013 was passed, granting more powers to the Waqf.
Why do the proposed suggestions not violate Articles 25 and 26?
The suggestions put forth in the Act do not violate Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution, as waqf is not governed by these provisions. Article 26 relates to religious denominations, which are defined as groups sharing a common faith, organization, and a distinct name. In the case of Bramchari v. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court clarified that a religious denomination must possess these characteristics. The Waqf Board, however, is a statutory body and not a representative or religious denomination of Muslims. As such, any amendments to waqf regulations do not infringe upon the fundamental rights safeguarded by Articles 25 and 26.
International Perspective on Waqf
The Waqf Act of 1995 in India grants significant authority to the Waqf Board, including broad definitions and the power to conduct suo motu surveys. This sets India apart from other countries in terms of waqf administration. In many predominantly Muslim nations, a mix of historical and modern practices shapes their legal and administrative frameworks.
For instance, Turkey centralises waqf management under the General Directorate of Foundations, modernising and secularising its administration after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Similarly, Kuwait and Syria maintain centralised systems through their respective ministries, prioritising transparency and efficiency.
Indonesia has a centralised approach under the Indonesian Waqf Board, with a strong emphasis on digitalisation and governance improvements. Lebanon and Saudi Arabia also adopt centralised frameworks through their ministries and authorities, ensuring effective waqf utilisation.
Singapore’s waqf administration, overseen by the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura, is centralised to ensure streamlined management while adhering to Islamic principles. The UAE has a federal, centralised system that focuses on modernisation and integration with national development efforts.
In contrast, Iraq's waqf system is divided along sectarian lines, with separate offices for Sunni and Shiite endowments, unlike India’s non-sectarian yet decentralised structure.
Oman, in recent years, has centralised its waqf administration under the Ministry of Endowments and Religious Affairs, focusing on professionalisation and investment.
In contrast, India’s decentralised system, with state-specific boards, results in varied management practices and differing levels of effectiveness.
The proposed amendments in the Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2024
The Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2024, introduced in the Lok Sabha today, proposes several significant revisions to the Waqf Act. One of the key changes is the removal of contributions by non-Muslims. It revises the definition of ‘Waqf’, specifying that it refers to the dedication of any movable or immovable property by an individual who has been practising Islam for at least five years.
Additionally, the amendment clarifies that the creation of waqf-alal-aulad (endowments for the donor's family) will not negate the inheritance rights of the donor’s heirs, including women. The amendment also expands the use of waqf proceeds to include the maintenance of widows, divorced women, and orphans.
A new provision introduces the role of a Collector who will assume some powers previously held by the Waqf Board. The amended law requires all registered waqfs to submit details of the waqf and the properties dedicated to it.
To prevent the misappropriation of government land as waqf property, the amendment establishes that any government land ‘identified’ or ‘declared’ as waqf, before or after the amendment, will not be considered waqf property. In case of a dispute, the Collector will carry out an enquiry.
Under the current law, the Tribunal’s decision in waqf property disputes is final and non-challengeable. The amendment alters this by allowing a suit to be filed within two years from the publication of the waqf property list.
Section 40 of the Waqf Act, which previously permitted the board to collect information on any property it believed to be waqf, has been removed.
The amendment also mandates the appointment of two non-Muslim members, in addition to two women members, to the Waqf Board. Furthermore, it prohibits the creation of waqf without a proper waqf deed, and the Collector will investigate the legitimacy of such applications. If the property is found to be disputed or government-owned, it will not be registered.
Comentarios