“The Kerala Wakf Board is a body established under Section 9 of the Wakf Act 29 of 1954. It is not a collection of individuals or a body having a common faith and organisation. It has been established for the purpose of carrying out the function of supervision and control over the Wakfs in the State. Its functions are delineated in Section 15 of the Wakf Act as the general superintendence of all Wakfs in a State. The provision also specifies that it shall be the duty of the Board so to exercise its powers as to ensure that the Wakfs under its superintendence are properly maintained, controlled and administered and the income thereof duly applied to the objects and for the purposes for which the Wakfs were created or intended”
— Kerala High Court, in the Syed Fazal Pookoya Thangal vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. On March 17, 1993
The Waqt of arbitrary land-grabbing and misuse of property for amassing wealth in the name of Waqf is over. The historic UMEED bill passed by the Parliament is a step forward in liberating ordinary Muslims from the clutches of the Waqf Boards that are non-inclusive and non-transparent. There are misleading objections raised by fundamentalist organisations, such as the All India Muslim Personal Law Board and many opposition parties. Before continuing their blackmailing approach of non-compliance with the law passed by the Parliament and resorting to street agitation against it, we need to debunk the misinformation campaign run by vested interests.
The concept of “Waqf” originates from the Arabic word “Waqufa”, meaning to detain, hold, or tie up. It is a ‘permanent dedication by a person professing Islam, of movable or immovable property for any purpose recognised by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable’. The land is tied up to the Almighty and not to a board, and it is expected to be used for the welfare of human beings. As per the Waqf Assets Management System of India (WAMSI) portal, there are 8.72 lakh properties covering an area of more than 38 lakh acres. Of the total properties, 4.02 lakhs are Waqf by the user, which means not donated but by the use they have become Waqf. As per the WAMSI portal, the ownership deeds and Waqf deeds are uploaded only in 9279 and 1083 cases, respectively. This data indicates that all the properties claimed by the Waqf are not donated by a person professing Islam’, which itself is unIslamic. In most of the cases, as disputed by the Muslim complainants themselves, the properties donated for a specific purpose are being used for something else, even commercial (non-religious) purposes. This misappropriation and misuse of land by the Waqf Boards has necessitated the reforms.
The charge of religious rights is all the more baseless. The rights under Article 26 to establish and maintain religious institutions, manage their affairs, own and acquire property, and administer it according to law are meant to protect the religious rights of all denominations. That does not mean a dominant denomination among minorities will grab the properties of other religious denominations and claim its religious right. In several cases, courts have remarked that Waqf is a Government body created to manage assets and not a religious one. Representatives of high-caste Sunni denomination dominate these boards. The original act created these Government bodies through a Parliament act; Governments have every right to restructure and reform them.
Another allegation of claiming this amendment being unconstitutional was repeatedly used.. The original spirit of the Constitution was killed by creating a central Waqf council in 1954 with the right to manage the properties with the pre-Independence claim. Since then, all the amendments have been discussed to improve administration and transparency, but the results have been counterproductive. With such a powerful land-holding body meant to work for the welfare of a community, why is that particular community still categorised as backward by various reports? Bringing in the claims of Mughal farmans and pitching Waqf above the Constitution is the most unconstitutional aspect. The permission to capture forest land trampling the rights of Scheduled Tribes and archaeological sites having shared cultural heritage, that also without any recourse in the civil court, were the most draconian provisions earlier. Being discriminatory towards other religious communities, Scheduled Tribes and women among the ‘second largest majority’ by denying their representation is against the spirit of equality.
The arbitrary powers to Waqf like boards or bringing in reservations on communal lines are outcomes of the same mindset to use the Muslim community as a vote bank while depriving the people of a dignified life. The UMEED bill is a constructive step toward social inclusion and harmony. The discussion on the same has again brought out the historical wrongs done in Bharat in the name of ‘secularism’ and nurtured the ideas of separatism, undermining the civilisational values. We should not allow a dominant, manipulative minority within the second-largest majority to deny the rights of the majority of needy people.
