The changes proposed in the Waqf Amendment Bill, 2024, have sparked concerns over increased government control and the erosion of community autonomy.
The waqf system in India is a longstanding tradition rooted in Muslim endowment practices that has played a significant role in alleviating poverty and enhancing literacy among marginalised Muslim groups. Established as a charitable trust, the waqf system dedicates property or income-generating assets to public welfare.
India has an estimated 490,000 registered waqf properties. They are traditionally managed by waqf boards with expertise in Muslim principles, directing revenues toward poverty relief, education, and healthcare.
These waqf boards are established by the government and operated and overseen by government appointed officials. There are 32 state waqf boards, divided between Sunni and Shia waqfs. Some states like Uttar Pradesh have separate boards for each sect.
These boards run more than 2,000 educational institutions and hundreds of health clinics, primarily for members of lower-income groups.
There are 119 amendments in the proposed Act. Perhaps most of them could be helpful in supervising operations more efficiently and enhancing the benefits of the waqfs. Some may be acceptable with changes. But unless the problematic amendments are removed from the proposed Waqf Act, there can be no negotiations even on the acceptable amendments.
One such unacceptable amendment is in Section 23 of the Act. The section currently mandates that the chief executive officer of a waqf board be a Muslim, appointed from a list provided by the waqf board, ensuring a leader with knowledge of Muslim values and a vested interest in waqf principles. The proposed amendment removes the term “Muslim” from the section.
It states only that the appointee be at the rank of joint secretary, with no reference to religious affiliation. This raises pressing questions about its intent.
By contrast, Jain endowments typically require that trustees, administrators, and key officials be practicing Jains to ensure they uphold Jain religious values and traditions. High-level roles, such as president or head trustee, are reserved for active followers of Jainism.
Similarly, in Hindu endowments, only practicing Hindus are permitted to serve as trustees, board members, and administrators ensuring alignment with Hindu religious principles. Key administrative positions, like temple trustees and executive officers, are also reserved for Hindus to maintain adherence to Hindu values.
In addition, employees directly involved in religious functions, such as priests, must be Hindus, as these roles require deep knowledge of Hindu rites and traditional practices.
Under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, only practicing Sikhs who affirm and follow the Sikh faith are eligible for roles within Gurdwara Management Committees, including significant administrative positions such as president and secretary. Key religious positions, such as granthis and ragis, are also strictly reserved for Sikhs to ensure that the endowments remain aligned with Sikh religious values.
By allowing government-appointed non-Muslim officials who may lack specialised knowledge to be appointed to boards, the Waqf Amendment Act risks diluting the historical and religious ethos of the waqf system.
This has created the suspicion that the government aims to weaken the autonomy of Muslim charitable trusts.
In countries where Muslims are a minority, such as the United Kingdom, Sri Lanka, Singapore and Canada, Waqf properties are typically managed by specialised community organisations or Muslim trusts that operate within the legal frameworks of those nations.
In the United Kingdom, for example, waqf properties are often managed by registered Muslim charities or trusts, such as the UK Muslim Mission and local mosque boards. These trusts follow UK charity law, which emphasises transparency and accountability, while directing waqf revenues toward social, educational, and religious services for the Muslim community.
In Canada and the United States, Muslim organisations manage waqf properties, usually as part of registered non-profits. These organisations provide social services and fund educational initiatives, while ensuring compliance with local non-profit regulations.
In Sri Lanka and Singapore, waqf administration is overseen by state-sanctioned Muslim boards, such as the Muslim Religious Council of Singapore. These councils ensure the preservation and strategic allocation of waqf assets for community development, often with government oversight to align with national regulations.
In these countries, waqf management involves balancing religious objectives with local laws, ensuring that waqf assets serve the welfare of the Muslim minority within the legal parameters of the host country.
A country as religiously diverse as India should ensure respect for each faith’s unique institutions. Removing the word “Muslim” from a position essential to the waqf’s function may compromise not only the effectiveness of waqf governance but also the trust of the community it serves.
Rasheed Ahmed is the executive director of the Indian American Muslim Council.