Waqf properties: who should head and how it’s handled
text_fields
The Waqf Amendment Bill 2024, has stirred apprehension across Muslim communities in India, with concerns mounting over potential government encroachment on the longstanding tradition of waqf.
For centuries, the waqf system has provided essential services to disadvantaged Muslim groups through charitable trusts dedicated to public welfare, directing revenues towards poverty alleviation, education, and healthcare.
In India, there are an estimated 490,000 registered waqf properties, which are traditionally managed by government-appointed waqf boards that are tasked with safeguarding the system's religious and community-oriented functions.
These boards oversee thousands of educational institutions and health clinics, particularly benefiting low-income Muslims. Waqf boards operate in 32 states, divided between Sunni and Shia communities, with some states like Uttar Pradesh establishing separate boards for each sect.
The proposed amendment introduces 119 changes, with several intended to enhance operational efficiency and improve the governance of waqf properties. However, certain provisions have raised significant concerns.
One controversial amendment is within Section 23, which removes the requirement that a waqf board’s chief executive officer be Muslim, replacing it with a stipulation that the appointee be a joint secretary-level official without regard to religious affiliation. Critics argue that such a shift could risk eroding the waqf system’s distinct religious and cultural values.
Community leaders highlight that religious endowments across other faiths in India, including Jain, Hindu, and Sikh institutions, require that key administrative roles be held by practitioners of the respective faiths, ensuring alignment with religious values.
Jain endowments, for example, reserve trustee and leadership positions for practising Jains, while Hindu temples and Sikh Gurdwaras similarly restrict certain roles to followers of their faiths. Removing this safeguard from the waqf system, they argue, could dilute the system's religious ethos and compromise community trust.
Concerns are heightened by comparisons to waqf practices in other countries with Muslim minority populations, such as the United Kingdom, Sri Lanka, and Singapore, where Muslim trusts and boards manage waqf assets while respecting religious guidelines within the legal frameworks of their host countries.
Critics contend that the proposed amendments in India risk undermining the autonomy and cultural integrity of the waqf system by permitting non-Muslim appointees who may lack expertise in waqf principles. The push for inclusive representation in waqf management, while intended to streamline governance, has thus raised suspicions about an underlying attempt to weaken the autonomy of Muslim charitable trusts in India.
