Biggest Land Mafia: Waqf in India

Waqf, a concept rooted in Islamic law, is one of the most enduring and significant aspects of Muslim charitable giving. However, in contemporary India, it has increasingly been viewed through a critical lens, accused of contributing to land disputes and exacerbating community tensions. Despite its historical significance, the institution of waqf has become embroiled in controversy, with allegations of corruption, mismanagement, and land grabs levied against its administrators. This article explores the complex and contentious history of waqf in India, the challenges it poses, and the debates surrounding its reform.

What is Waqf?

Waqf refers to properties permanently dedicated to religious or charitable purposes under Islamic law. These properties, once designated as waqf, are considered the property of Allah, and thus cannot be sold, transferred, or reclaimed. The individual making the dedication, known as the waqif, relinquishes all rights to the property, which is then managed by a custodian called a mutawwali. Waqf properties in India include mosques, burial grounds, orphanages, schools, and even commercial properties that generate revenue for charitable purposes.

According to estimates, waqf boards in India manage approximately 8.7 lakh properties, covering 9.4 lakh acres, making it the third-largest landholder in the country, following the Indian Railways and the Defence Department. These assets are spread across the nation, often comprising valuable urban real estate, including some high-profile properties like the Tollygunge Club and Royal Calcutta Golf Club in Kolkata, or the ITC Windsor Hotel in Bengaluru. Waqf boards are responsible for overseeing these properties, but their governance has been marred by controversy.

Challenges of Irrevocability and Ownership Disputes

One of the central challenges posed by the waqf system is the irrevocability of waqf properties. Once a property is designated as waqf, it remains so forever, and cannot be sold or transferred, even if circumstances change. This permanence has resulted in numerous ownership disputes. In some cases, waqf boards have laid claim to lands based on centuries-old designations, leading to friction with other stakeholders. A notable example is the Bengaluru Eidgah ground, which has been claimed as waqf property since the 1850s, despite its public use.

The situation becomes even more complicated when waqf boards claim ownership over lands that have changed hands or uses over the years. The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board, for instance, claimed ownership over the entire Thiruchendurai village in September 2022, a village predominantly inhabited by Hindus. Such claims, often involving valuable land, have heightened tensions between communities and led to protracted legal battles.

Evolution of Waqf Laws

The concept of waqf in India dates back to the Delhi Sultanate, with the first recorded waqf being Sultan Muizuddin Sam Ghaor's dedication of two villages to the Jama Masjid of Multan. However, formal regulation of waqf properties began under British rule with the Mussalman Waqf Act of 1923. Post-independence, the Indian government passed the Waqf Act of 1954, which was later replaced by the Waqf Act of 1995. The 1995 Act centralized control over waqf properties, giving waqf boards sweeping powers to manage these properties. However, the 1995 Act has also been criticized for creating opportunities for corruption and misuse of power. Waqf boards have been accused of leasing or selling properties illegally, often to the detriment of the communities they are meant to serve. In 2013, the Waqf Act was further amended, granting waqf boards the exclusive authority to claim properties in the name of Muslim charity, making the sale of waqf properties virtually impossible. These sweeping powers have raised concerns about the potential for abuse and the need for greater oversight.

Reform and the Push for Accountability

To address these concerns, recent proposals for reform have sought to curb the powers of waqf boards and introduce greater accountability. One of the most controversial sections of the Waqf Act is Section 40, which gives waqf boards the power to unilaterally declare properties as waqf. Critics argue that this provision has been misused to grab properties with the help of corrupt waqf officials. The proposed reforms aim to transfer this power to local authorities, such as district collectors, and ensure that any waqf designation is subject to legal scrutiny.

Additionally, the reforms seek to introduce judicial oversight over waqf tribunals, which currently operate without any such checks. Waqf tribunals are notorious for delays, with over 40,000 cases pending across the country. The lack of a clear appeals process further exacerbates the problem, as decisions of waqf tribunals are considered final, leaving affected parties with few options for recourse. The proposed reforms aim to streamline the appeals process and ensure that disputes are resolved in a timely manner.

Waqf and Community Tensions

Beyond the legal and administrative challenges, the waqf system has also been a source of tension between India's Muslim and non-Muslim communities. The large amount of land controlled by waqf boards, coupled with claims over disputed properties, has created fault lines between religious groups. In states like Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal, waqf boards have been accused of mismanaging properties and alienating land from local communities. The Sachar Committee, in its 2006 report, highlighted the inefficiencies of waqf boards and recommended reforms to ensure better management of waqf assets.

One of the key concerns is the disproportionate influence of elite Muslims, particularly the Ashraaf (upper-class Muslims), in waqf boards. Critics argue that waqf boards, like many other Muslim institutions in India, are dominated by Ashraaf, while Pasmanda Muslims—who belong to backward classes—are underrepresented. This has resulted in waqf resources benefiting a small section of the Muslim community, while marginalized groups, such as Dalits, Tribals, and OBC Muslims, remain excluded. The privileges granted to waqf boards under the 1995 Act have also fueled resentment among other religious communities. Unlike Hindu temples, which are often controlled by the state, waqf boards enjoy significant autonomy. This disparity has led to accusations that waqf boards are a tool for the elite to preserve their interests, while ordinary Muslims and non-Muslims bear the brunt of waqf-related disputes.

Opposition to Reform

Despite the widespread recognition of the need for reform, waqf boards and some political parties have opposed the proposed changes. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), for instance, has accused the government of interfering with personal laws and threatened to launch protests against the reforms. AIMIM President Asaduddin Owaisi has also voiced strong opposition, arguing that the reforms are part of a broader Hindutva agenda to weaken Muslim institutions.

However, not all Muslim organizations share this view. The All India Sufi Sajjadanashin Council, which represents Sufi shrines, has welcomed the proposed reforms, accusing waqf boards of operating in a dictatorial manner and neglecting the needs of ordinary Muslims.

Conclusion

The waqf system in India, while rooted in noble intentions of charity and religious devotion, has become a highly contentious institution. Mismanagement, corruption, and the concentration of power in waqf boards have led to numerous disputes and legal challenges. The proposed reforms aim to modernize waqf governance, introduce accountability, and ensure that waqf assets serve the broader community, rather than a privileged few. However, achieving these goals will require navigating the complex intersection of religious law, political interests, and community tensions. As the debate over waqf reform continues, it remains to be seen whether these changes will bring about meaningful improvement or simply add another layer of bureaucracy to an already overburdened system.