I read an article right after the Waqf (Amendment) Bill was passed in Parliament. ‘Wet land can no longer be called Waqf land, thank you Central Government…’ It was written by someone who said: Is this true? If we say that wet land is Waqf land, does it become Waqf land? Will it go to Muslims? How did such a lie originate? How did it gain publicity… If we are looking for an answer to this question, the question goes to Union Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju. When this amendment bill was initially introduced in Parliament, he told some stories. One of them was the story of a village called Tiruchirapalli in Tamil Nadu. He had told all the members in Parliament that this village, which is spread over thousands of acres, has been declared as Waqf by the village itself.
After that, the members of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) visited that village. The District Collector visited there. Various officials went to the village and inspected it. But it was found out after inspection that what Kiren Rijiju said in Parliament was a complete lie. This is what MP D. Raja said to Kiren Rijiju in the debate on the bill earlier.
Actually, there are some reasons to question the Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2024.
- The previous Act had a rule called ‘Waqf by Users’. According to which, if there was a mosque or a graveyard on government land for years and if the people were getting huge benefits from it, it could be considered a Waqf land. However, this opportunity was not limited to Muslims. All other religious trusts were also allowed to use it in this way without any document based on tradition and usage. This has been given legal recognition in the third clause of Article 13 of the Constitution. But now this opportunity has been taken away from Muslims. Through this, the District Collector will get an opportunity to suddenly take possession of the graveyard and mosque, which have been used by the Muslim community for hundreds of years, claiming that it is a government land. At the same time, this opportunity has not been taken away from other communities.
- According to the previous law, a complaint could be filed in court against those who encroached on Waqf property at any time. But in this new law, a limit has been imposed on this. A person who has encroached on Waqf property for more than 12 years and is using it cannot be challenged in a court of law. A complaint can be filed only if such an encroachment has taken place within 12 years. This will give huge benefit to the encroachers of Waqf land. In this country, there are people who have encroached on Waqf land for 15, 20, 30, 40, 50 years… and so on and have built bungalows, hotels, and various flats on it. This Act protects all of them and prevents any legal action against them. At the same time, there is no such law for religious trusts of other religions. They can go to court anytime.
- If you read the law on Waqf by Users and the law that no case can be filed after 12 years together, it becomes clear that thousands of acres of land will definitely be lost from the Muslim community.
- Another rule of this Amendment Act is to include two Non-Muslims in the Waqf Board. But there is no such rule for any other religious institutions and boards, including Hindus. At least there is no provision to include two Muslims in the Ram Janmabhoomi Trust. As far as the local District Magistrate is concerned, there has to be a meeting of the Ram Janmabhoomi Trust. But it has been made a rule that he should also be a Hindu. Also, there is a rule that not only the members of the Tirupati Tirumala Temple Trust, but also the sweepers should be Hindus. However, the central government has maintained a deep silence on this.
You should know that waqf properties are not public properties. They are private properties. The property made into a waqf cannot be sold. The Waqf Board is not the owner of these properties either. It is a regulatory body. Its only job is to manage the waqf properties. Just as we register our property with the revenue department, the property made into a waqf should be registered with this Board. It functions like an office. Mosques are the owners of the waqf property. But the beneficiaries of this property do not have to be Muslims. For example, if a person makes a condition while making a waqf of a part of his land to a mosque that a well should be dug in it and water should be provided to everyone without any religious discrimination, then it is the responsibility of that mosque to do so. It cannot be changed. But this property is not public. Only its beneficiaries are public.
In Karnataka, we have an Endowment department. The Waqf Board is almost similar to this Endowment Department. There is a rule that the chairman of this Endowment Department should be a District Collector and he should be a Hindu. Why has the government, which has not changed this rule, made it mandatory for two non-Muslims to be on the Waqf Department? At least this amendment could have been brought in the Endowment Department first and gained the trust of the public and then brought about such a change in the Waqf Department? How right is it to make a rule that non-Muslims should be in-charge of managing a private property belonging to Muslims and not allowing Muslims to do so, and to justify this by saying that this is being done for the welfare of Muslims? How can a government that claims that one country must have one law do this?
- The funny thing is that the same government that has made a rule that there should be two non-Muslims in the Waqf Board has also made a rule that the person who transfers his property to the Waqf should be a practising Muslim. That is, he will have to show a certificate that he has been living as a Muslim for at least five years. This means that non-Muslims should not make Waqf. But the same government has made a rule that non-Muslims should be on the Waqf Board. So, if a Muslim wants to donate his land to a Hindu temple, there is no obstacle. Let alone a Muslim, if a Hindu wants to donate his land to a Hindu temple, there is no obstacle for him either. Unlike Muslims, he does not have to submit a certificate that he must be a practising Hindu for five years. What is to be said about this dichotomy?
- According to the previous Act, the Waqf Boards were allowed to function independently. But in this Bill, there is a rule to subject them to audit by the state government. Due to this, the independence of the Waqf Boards will be reduced and government interference will increase. Also, the responsibility of surveying and managing disputes of Waqf properties has been given to the District Collector in this Bill. According to the previous Act, these disputes were resolved by the Waqf Tribunals. Now, since this power has been given to the District Collector, the power of the Tribunals will be curtailed. A new rule has been made through this Bill that the matter should be taken to court only after the District Collector has examined it. This may lead to a situation where the Tribunals do not even exist.
- From now on, the Minister of Waqf of the Central Government will be the Chairman of the Central Waqf Board. For example, this time, Union Minister Kiren Rijiju will be the Chairman of the Waqf Board. This will allow direct political interference and the Waqf Board will have to act according to the whims of the government at the Centre.
- According to the current Act, the Central Waqf Board will have two non-Muslim members, two women members, two Lok Sabha members and one Rajya Sabha member. Also, there will be an economist, a legal expert, a health expert and an engineer. Similarly,there will be representatives of Muslim organisations, Shia and Sunni representatives, etc. It is believed that there will be a total of 20 to 22 members. Overall, the law has been drafted so that the entire Board will come under the control of the Central Government. Almost the same rules will apply to the State Waqf Board as well.
- Section 40 has been deleted in the current amendment. This Section 40 means that if there is a mosque or graveyard under an institution or society and it is not yet registered as a waqf, then the Waqf Board has the power to send a notice to that institution and the society. The Waqf Board can send a notice to such societies and institutions asking why you have not registered it. The Board also has the power to take legal action against them if they do not register. Now it has been removed. Through this, any society or institution will be outside the jurisdiction of the Waqf Board and all mosques and graveyards will be considered individually. Through this, the Board has been transformed into a toothless snake. A conspiracy is being hatched to destroy the Waqf system itself. When institutions and societies start managing the mosque and the graveyard, the waqf property itself gradually disappears and the existence of the waqf ceases. Also, the waqf property cannot be sold for any reason. But the property under the trust is allowed to be sold. Although a bye-law can be made not to sell, it is not as strong as the waqf.
- As per the previous Act, the Chairman of the Waqf Board was elected democratically. The one who gets the most votes is the Chairman. In the current Act, this democratic method has been ended. All 22 people, including the Chairman, are appointed by the Central Government. The Central Government also selects the representatives from the Muslim organisations. In such a situation, it is needless to say that the Central Government can only choose those who listen to it.
By the way, this is the reason why there is mounting opposition to the Waqf Amendment Act.
[The writer is Editor Sanmarga Weekly and Sanmarga News Channel]