The Waqf Amendment Bill 2024 has ignited a lively debate surrounding the management and oversight of Waqf properties. Critics argue that the bill could centralize control and diminish local oversight, potentially affecting the beneficiaries and undermining the intent behind Waqf.
By Mohd Naushad Khan
The Waqf Amendment Bill 2024 has ignited a lively debate surrounding the management and oversight of Waqf properties. Critics argue that the bill could centralize control and diminish local oversight, potentially affecting the beneficiaries and undermining the intent behind Waqf. The critical question remains: will this amendment genuinely serve the purpose for which Waqf was established? Can the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC), now tasked with examining the bill, assess it judiciously?
The response from the Muslim community to the Bill has been mixed, with opinions shaped by various factors such as the bill’s provisions and their impact on the local management of Waqf properties. There is a growing perception that the bill aims to centralize control over Waqf properties, potentially reducing the role of local Waqf Boards. This could lead to a disconnect between the administration of Waqf properties and the communities they are meant to serve, potentially undermining the autonomy of local Waqf Boards and diminishing the representation of Muslim communities in managing their religious and charitable assets.
Proponents of the amendments believe that the bill will enhance transparency and efficiency. However, there are concerns that the new mechanisms may not be effectively implemented, leading to bureaucratic hurdles and inefficiencies. Changes in the management of Waqf properties could have a significant impact on local charities and institutions that rely on these assets for their operations.
Najeeb Jung, former Lt.-Governor of Delhi and Vice Chancellor of Jamia Millia Islamia, said, “The Bill needs a lot of change in its current state, it is neither here nor there and therefore the government must consult all stakeholders and then put up a bill that incorporates the views of all stakeholders that is largely the Muslim community.”
On the question, will JPC look into it judiciously, the former Lieutenant Governor said, “Of Course, the JPC will look into it judiciously and that is why it has been set up.”
Addressing the misconceptions, controversies, and modalities surrounding Waqf, Jung emphasized, “The understanding of Waqf is largely flawed. Waqf is not a recent concept; it is 1,400 years old, dating back to the advent of Islam. Waqf properties belong to Muslims and can take the form of a charitable trust, Waqf alal aulad, or a combination of these, but it remains a Muslim trust. The government has proposed a singular Waqf Board comprising Sunni, Shia, Bohra, Ahmadiyya, and others.”
He added, “The question arises: how will it affect the Shia community, which also has its own Waqf Board? Will they agree to be part of a larger board? The Bohras, an elite, small, well-educated community that owes allegiance to the Syedna, may not want to be included in this larger group of Sunnis and Shias. Moreover, I do not understand the basis for including non-Muslim members who are unfamiliar with Muslim law and whose property is not at stake. It should not be something imposed on any community.”
Jung further said, “Let us not embarrass the community needlessly. The community must be supported, and affirmative actions towards Muslims today are necessary rather than bringing about changes that will only cause embarrassment to the government. However, I believe the JPC will set it aside.”
Regarding the government’s approach towards Muslims, Jung remarked, “Actions taken by this government over the past ten years, concerning the Muslim community, create a sense that Muslims are being needlessly targeted. The community feels a sense of dismay and concern. Why create such concern in a community that needs support? Muslims today are poorly educated, financially and economically backward, and politically marginalized. The government should help them gain confidence rather than interfere in their affairs.”
Professor Faizan Mustafa, a renowned constitutional expert and Vice-Chancellor of Chanakya National Law University in Patna, elaborated on the fundamentals of Waqf in Islam. He stated, “Waqf is Islam’s unique contribution to charity, aimed at helping the poor and underprivileged. Once a property becomes Waqf, its corpus cannot be alienated, gifted, or sold; only its usufruct or use can be utilized. There are various types of charity in Islam, such as sadaqah (voluntary giving), zakat (mandatory 2.5%), and Waqf (voluntary and generally involving immovable properties). Waqfs are of three types: waqf khari (public Waqf) devoted entirely to welfare, waqf al-ahli or waqf alal-aulad (family Waqf), and al-waqf al-mushtarak (a combination of public and family Waqf).”
Professor Mustafa noted that some provisions might be considered noteworthy, while others require closer examination, revision, and improvement by the JPC. He emphasized that misconceptions have spread over the years, with some falsely claiming that any property can be designated as Waqf by the Waqf Board. In reality, it requires a rigorous exercise.
Professor Mustafa also reflected on the historical context, stating, “During British rule, all Bills were sent to Select Committees because debates in Parliament were live telecasted, and parliamentarians often took party positions. However, when they sat in a committee, they worked sincerely away from media attention. Experts are invited, and I have also appeared before Select Committees.”
He added, “I believe the broader engagement that should have taken place before the Bill’s presentation did not occur. It was only at the very end that we saw a few representatives from various madrasas and dargahs meeting with the prime minister. To serve the purpose, we need the objective reasoning of experts, who may or may not be Muslims. What matters is not the expert’s religion, but his competence and expertise and whether the broader Indian community values it. It is also believed that some government allies were not keen on getting the Bill passed immediately.”
