 |
|
The Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2024 has ignited passionate debate in India, dividing society and the political landscape. While the official narrative emphasizes efficiency, transparency, and community empowerment, underlying concerns about state control and the disempowerment of the Waqf institution are brewing beneath the surface.
The proposed amendments, currently under review by a Joint Parliamentary Committee, aim to regulate waqf property, which is considered a matter of piety and charity specific to Muslim communities. The bill advocates for gender, sectarian, and caste diversity in the composition of State Waqf Boards, seemingly promoting inclusivity.
However, alternative narratives circulating in the public sphere, even originating within state quarters, challenge this purported intent. The most prevalent view posits that the Waqf Board, empowered by the 2013 amendment, had the authority to claim non-waqf property, which the current amendments seek to curtail.
This perspective suggests a hidden agenda, aiming to weaken the Waqf institution. Critics argue that the bill fuels misconceptions about waqf property, including an inflated estimation of its extent and its alleged illegitimate acquisition. They emphasize that a significant portion of registered waqf property is rendered unusable due to alienation, encroachment, and legal disputes.
Despite the stated goal of effective management, the amendments diminish the autonomy of Waqf institutions, stripping them of their ability to appoint survey commissioners and reclaim encroached property. This, coupled with the replacement of elected members of the Waqf Boards with government appointees, further undermines democratic principles and representation.
The proposed Act, in its attempt to streamline and control waqf property, raises concerns about state overreach and the potential for misuse. Critics highlight the inherent conflict of interest in appointing government officials to determine the legitimacy of waqf property claims, given the state's history of encroachment on such lands.
While the bill ostensibly promotes diversity within Waqf Boards, it does so at the cost of their autonomy and decision-making power. This undermines the very principles of representation and empowerment that the bill claims to uphold.
The article critiques the purported justification for the amendments, arguing that the stated principles of transparency and efficiency are merely a façade. The true motivation, it suggests, lies in the implicit aim to control and weaken the Waqf institution, ultimately leading to the vulnerability of historic waqf property.
The author concludes by highlighting the incongruity between the stated purpose of the amendments and the actual impact on the Waqf institution. The proposed Act, he argues, deviates from the recommendations of previous committees, which aimed to empower the Waqf Boards and ensure effective management of waqf property. Instead, the amendments create a moral universe where state control takes precedence over community autonomy and the rights of Muslim communities.