The recently enacted Waqf (Amendment) Act raises certain critical questions about the viability of waqf as an institution. While we have gone on strengthening the compliance, monitoring, coordinating and financing mechanism for auqaf (plural of waqf), over the past seven decades, there are apparently few positive indicators. The mechanism itself appears to have become part of the problem, rather than being part of the solution. Was an alternative course possible?

Way back on March 13, 1953, Syed Mohammed Ahmad Kazmi, who represented a curiously named Parliamentary Constituency called Sultanpur District—North cum Faizabad District—South West moved a Private Member’s Bill viz. Muslim Wakfs Bill, 1952 in the 1st Lok Sabha (1952-1957). The aim was to streamline the management of waqf properties, being misused by the mutawallis (nominated caretakers). The Bill had already been publicised to elicit responses from State governments, legislators and members of the public.

Kazmi informed that the only section of the general population that opposed the Bill were the mutawallis or caretakers of waqf properties. Kazmi’s views were supported by M.H. Rahman, representing Moradabad District—Central, who accused the mutawallis of wasting crores of rupees given by people for the noble cause of waqf, and spending large amounts of money to prevent the Bill from being enacted.

As independent India considered its first central law on waqf, Lok Sabha had to countenance a couple of dilemmas. The first was the advisability of enacting a central law when a few states like Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and West Bengal already had their waqf boards/legislation. However, in principle, the most important objection came from Bombay State (comprising today’s Maharashtra, Gujarat, and seven Kannada-speaking districts later incorporated in Karnataka). We know its details from the speech of Hari Vinayak Pataskar, the Congress leader representing the Jalgaon constituency.

Pataskar informed that Bombay already had religion-neutral legislation viz. Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (Act XXIX of 1950) which was based on the recommendations of a committee headed by an eminent High Court judge. All possible religious trusts whether Hindu, Jain, Sikh, Muslim or Christian were covered under this Act of 1950, whose constitutional validity had already been upheld........

© News18