A former Union Minister of Minority Affairs, K. Rahman Khan’s political career spans more than five decades, starting in Karnataka before moving to the national arena. He became a member of the Rajya Sabha in the 1990s, serving four consecutive terms. During this time, he headed two joint parliamentary committees, leading to the amendment of the Waqf Act of 1995. He also served as the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.
In this interview with Frontline, Khan launches a scathing critique of proposed amendments to the Waqf Act, accusing the Modi government of attempting to undermine Muslim control over vast Waqf properties across India. The veteran politician argues that the new Bill, far from improving transparency and accountability as claimed, is a thinly veiled attempt to wrest control of Muslim religious endowments. Excerpts:
Let us start with a basic question: What is the meaning of Waqf?
Waqf means “stop” in Arabic. It refers to the dedication of property for a pious and charitable purpose, given to God. Once a person donates or dedicates property as Waqf, they relinquish ownership, and it becomes God’s property.
The current Union Minister of Minority Affairs stated in Parliament that various Waqf Boards control 8.7 lakh properties spanning 9.4 lakh acres across the country. This would make them the third-largest landholder after the Indian Railways and the Ministry of Defence. How has this large land been used for the benefit and welfare of the Muslim community?
While the exact figures may not be available, there is indeed a huge land bank. However, much of it consists of undeveloped, barren lands that are not protected. This has resulted in numerous issues: Land grabbing by unauthorised occupant; disputes with the government over ownership; lack of proper functioning of Waqf boards; absence of mechanisms to remove encroachers, etc.
These issues were highlighted in the first Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) report in 1990, which addressed the condition of Waqf properties in each state. The report, along with the Parliament Select Committee’s findings, led to considerations for improvement in 2013.
We brought several amendments to the Waqf Act 1995, resulting in a widely appreciated law. Surprisingly, in their 2009 election manifesto, the BJP praised our report and pledged to implement it if they came to power. I involved many BJP members in the committee, and they understood and appreciated our work.
The amendments were well thought-out and thoroughly discussed. However, the problem lies in implementation. All government programs face challenges during execution. After 2014, when the new government came in, our plans were not taken forward.
The main issue is development. Where’s the money? The community and Waqfs have no funds. Both the JPC and Sachar Committee recommended developing these properties, as sitting on such vast undeveloped land is like having a gold mine covered in dust. They proposed creating a government corporation with Rs.500 crore seed capital. As Minister, I established the National Waqf Development Corporation, [which was] inaugurated in January 2013. However, after our government lost in 2014, the corporation was ignored, and nothing has been done in 10 years.
Also Read | Why the proposed amendments to the law governing Waqf properties have triggered a fierce debate
The current rationale for bringing amendments, according to Union Minister Kiren Rijiju and other BJP leaders, is to increase accountability and transparency in managing the Central Waqf Council and Waqf Boards. This is intended to generate income for the Muslim community, which is necessary given their low socio-economic indicators.
I would have been the happiest person if that objective was achieved by this amendment. However, apart from changing the name to something like “transport management” instead of Waqf, there’s nothing substantial. I can challenge that there’s nothing addressing development, efficiency, or the biggest problem of encroachment.
Although they mention 9,000 acres, 70-80 per cent is encroached upon, and 20-25 per cent is with the government. Is there a single word on how to remove encroachments or develop the land? What about transparency? Waqf boards may not be functioning efficiently as government offices, but if they implement the 2013 amendments with government support, progress can be made. We gave powers to district magistrates to immediately remove illegal occupations without following lengthy procedures, but this hasn’t been done.
I can say with all humility that the Minister was mistaken. There’s not a single word about development in these new amendments. If they implement what was amended in 2013 and the government supports such initiatives, real progress can be made.
Let us discuss the specific provisions of the Bill that have been opposed: 1. The Waqf board will lose its power to designate a property as Waqf, 2. The survey commissioner’s role will be replaced by the deputy commissioner, 3. Non-Muslims should be appointed as members of the Central Waqf Council and possibly the various Waqf boards, 4. Women must be appointed as board members, 5. Claimants can appeal the tribunal’s decision in the High Court within 90 days, and 6. Sectarian minorities such as Shiites, Bohras, and Ismailis should be represented on the Waqf boards. What is your response to these provisions?
The idea that Waqf boards can arbitrarily claim any land as Waqf property is an imaginary scenario created to instill fear. The process is not arbitrary. If a property meets the characteristics of Waqf—dedicated for charitable purposes—the Waqf board can initiate action to declare it as such, but only after due inquiry. There’s a tribunal to examine the claim, and even after declaration, there’s time for appeal. This process isn’t new; Waqf properties have been dedicated for centuries, some with inscriptions on stone serving as documentation.
Regarding women as board members, this is already in place. Every Waqf board has two women members, as per the 1995 provision. When I headed the Central Waqf Council, there were women members, and this continues today.
A view of HITEC City in Hyderabad, in April 2020. K. Rahman Khan said that the entire land of HITEC City belonged to a dargah but within three years, the government took it over as enam land and developed the tech industry hub. | Photo Credit: NAGARA GOPAL
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board has opposed these amendments, citing interference in Muslim personal law. However, the All India Sufi Sajjada Nashin Council, representing the dargahs, has welcomed the Bill. How do you view this divide?
This divide has existed from the beginning. The dargahs are occupied by sajjadas (custodians) who control vast lands. For instance, in Hyderabad, there are two or three dargahs with land extending to 5,000 acres. The sajjadas are functional caretakers, not owners. They’re losing control and have aligned with the BJP. Some, like in Ajmer, lack popular support. The reason behind this divide is complex and rooted in the management and control of these vast Waqf properties.
Do you see this proposed amendment as another step in the BJP’s Hindutva agenda?
The proposal to include non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Council and boards seems intended to create tension and communalism. When we oppose having two Hindus, they’ll project us as being against Hindu inclusion. But the question is, how many Muslims are allowed on temple, gurdwara, or other religious boards? You can’t even go near them. How many non-Hindus are on the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams board, which is also a statutory body?
There’s no apparent reason for suddenly bringing in two Hindus. It seems designed to portray Muslims as communal for opposing Hindu members. Is this rational?
Regarding Islamic sects like Aga Khanis and Bohras, they’re part of the Shia community. Shia and Sunni boards are already separate. If there aren’t enough Sikhs, every board can have a representative. Including specific sects like Aga Khanis or Bohras could lead to further community division. Bohras are part of the Shia community already.
“The proposal to include non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Council and boards seems intended to create tension and communalism... How many Muslims are allowed on temple, gurdwara, or other religious boards?”
There are concerns that this amendment might encourage claims by Hindu right-wing groups on historical sites, alleging pre-existing temples were destroyed to build mosques. Do you think these amendments will aid such claims?
Definitely. They’re violating established principles, and the judiciary remains silent. Parliament had decided that whatever places of worship existed on August 15, 1947, would remain as they were. They’re violating this by raising land disputes.
The intention behind these changes seems questionable. Replacing the survey commissioner with collectors is problematic. Previously, the survey commissioner, though appointed by the government, was independent, like the Election Commission. Now, with multiple collectors in each state, the Waqf board will have to deal with numerous officials. With hundreds of Waqfs to manage, nothing will be properly attended to. It’s a retrograde step that they’ve introduced by involving these collectors.
The BJP introduced this Bill, and the Union Minister promptly referred it to the JPC. What do you think about this?
He knew there would be opposition. In Parliament, I didn’t see much opposition from allies. The TDP welcomed the move to send it to the JPC, and everyone has welcomed that. The JPC process allows people and institutions to approach the committee, present their cases, submit memorandums, and argue their points. It’s more detailed than parliamentary discussions.
Also Read | The Muslims who stayed back
In 2012, Anwar Manippady, chairman of the Karnataka State Minorities Commission, submitted a report alleging that 27,000 acres of Waqf land in Karnataka had been misappropriated or illegally allocated. This raises concerns, does it not?
Yes, there are many concerns, as highlighted in the JPC report. For example, the entire land of Hyderabad’s HITEC City belonged to a dargah. Within three years, the government took it over as enam land and developed the HITEC City. Now, the tribunal has held that it’s Waqf land.
In Karnataka, there are thousands of acres in Vidya Nagar, including about 300 acres in a prime area. These issues were addressed in the Bill I piloted in Parliament on the removal of encroachments. It made encroachment without documentation a non-bailable criminal offence with severe punishment. Now, they’ve changed it to a bailable offence with ordinary punishment.
So there’s no justification for these new amendments?
Absolutely no justification. They’ve brought it with vengeance, unable to accept that so much land belongs to the Muslim community. Instead of helping, they’re trying to limit the board’s powers to identify Waqf properties. They’re saying [that] even if land is declared Waqf, it goes to the government. This violates Articles 25, 26, and 30 of the Constitution.
COMMents
SHARE