J&K Waqf Board: Has Political Influence Overshadowed Its Original Purpose?
Ahmad Ayaz
The Jammu and Kashmir Waqf Board is entrusted with the management of religious endowments, shrines, mosques and other properties dedicated to religious, charitable and community welfare purposes. Its responsibilities extend far beyond the administration of buildings and land. It holds a position of public trust, with a duty to protect religious heritage, preserve endowments and ensure that their benefits reach the people for whom they were intended.
Yet, the institution’s history raises a question that deserves serious public debate: has political influence, exercised under successive political dispensations, at times overshadowed the original purpose of Waqf administration in Jammu and Kashmir?
This is not a question directed exclusively at the present chairperson, the current political establishment or any single party. It concerns the institutional history of Waqf administration in Kashmir, the relationship between political power and religious institutions, and the need to ensure that an organisation entrusted with community assets remains accountable to the law and the people it is meant to serve.
The issue has acquired renewed relevance following the controversy surrounding the proposal to introduce common themes for Friday sermons across mosques and shrines in Jammu and Kashmir. However, the debate must not begin and end with one announcement. A more meaningful examination requires us to look at the institution’s origins, its transformation over the decades, its relationship with successive governments and the standards of accountability expected of it today.
From a Community Initiative to a Statutory Institution
The history of organised Muslim endowment management in Kashmir is rooted in efforts to bring religious properties under collective management and ensure their preservation for the benefit of the community.
The establishment of Idara Auqaf Islamia and its subsequent evolution into the All Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Auqaf Trust reflected the idea that mosques, shrines, khanqahs and associated properties should be managed systematically, with their resources directed towards religious, charitable and community welfare purposes.
Over time, the administration of these properties underwent significant legal and institutional changes. The role of the erstwhile Trust was subsequently replaced, in respect of specified Waqfs and properties, by a statutory Board established under the applicable legal framework. Following the constitutional and administrative changes in Jammu and Kashmir, the present Waqf Board came to operate under the applicable central Waqf legislation.
These successive changes took place under different political dispensations and administrative arrangements. However, the fundamental responsibility remained the same: to protect religious endowments, preserve their assets, manage their income transparently and ensure that their benefits reach the intended beneficiaries.
This institutional evolution provides an important context for examining the relationship between political authority and Waqf administration. Regardless of the legal framework or political dispensation under which it operates, the institution’s performance must ultimately be judged by how faithfully it fulfils its original purpose.
The Political Dimension of Waqf Administration
The relationship between the Waqf establishment and political power in Kashmir is not a new subject. Historical reporting has examined the influence of the National Conference leadership over the Auqaf Trust and the subsequent transition to a statutory Board under the PDP-Congress coalition government.
An investigation published by Scroll examined longstanding concerns surrounding political influence in Waqf administration, including allegations of mismanagement, disputes over property rents and questions about financial transparency. It also highlighted concerns that political intervention could complicate efforts to manage properties on appropriate commercial terms.
Such reporting does not establish that every administration or office-bearer acted improperly. Nor does it justify treating allegations as proven findings. It does, however, demonstrate that questions concerning political influence and institutional independence have persisted across different periods.
There have also been concerns that, at certain places, Waqf properties were allegedly allotted or leased to individuals considered close to, or favoured by, political parties, without adequate transparency or a clearly demonstrated public-interest rationale. Where such practices have occurred, they raise serious questions about the possible misuse of community endowments for political patronage and personal benefit.
Waqf properties cannot legitimately become instruments for rewarding political supporters or extending favours to influential individuals. They are endowments dedicated to specified purposes, not political assets to be distributed at the discretion of those exercising authority.
Every allotment or lease must comply with the applicable law, follow a transparent and defensible procedure, and protect the financial interests of the endowment. The terms of allotment, the rent charged, the selection criteria and the authority approving the transaction should be properly documented and open to appropriate scrutiny.
The Board should undertake a comprehensive review of property allotments and leases, particularly those made under previous administrations. Any evidence of preferential treatment, revenue loss, unauthorised occupation or deviation from prescribed procedures should be independently examined, and responsibility fixed wherever irregularities are established. Political affiliation must neither confer entitlement to Waqf property nor provide protection from accountability.
Such a review would help establish whether properties have consistently been managed in the interests of their intended beneficiaries or whether, in some instances, administrative discretion has been exercised in ways that warrant investigation. Where irregularities are established, corrective action should follow in accordance with the law.
The broader concern is straightforward. Whenever an institution controls valuable properties, manages significant revenue streams and exercises influence over religious establishments, its governance becomes particularly important. Appointments, leases, contracts, rents and administrative decisions must be governed by transparent procedures rather than informal political considerations.
The answer is not to presume wrongdoing by every political party that has exercised authority over the institution. It is to establish safeguards that make partisan interference difficult, expose irregularities where they occur and ensure that responsibility can be fixed on the basis of documented evidence.
A Trust Is Not a Political Inheritance
The central principle governing Waqf administration must be clearly understood: Waqf properties are not the personal possessions of the people appointed to manage them. Nor are they the political assets of the government in office.
They are endowments dedicated to religious, charitable and other purposes recognised under the applicable legal framework. Their administrators are custodians, entrusted with preserving those assets and ensuring that they are managed responsibly.
This distinction between ownership and custodianship is fundamental. A chairperson or Board member does not acquire unrestricted discretion over property merely by occupying an official position. Every decision must be consistent with the law, the terms governing the endowment and the institution’s public responsibilities.
A property dedicated to a religious or charitable purpose cannot legitimately be treated as a source of political patronage. Similarly, the income generated from shops, buildings, land and other assets must be properly accounted for and applied in accordance with applicable legal obligations.
The public is entitled to know whether properties are being maintained, whether rents reflect appropriate and lawful arrangements, whether arrears are recovered, whether encroachments are addressed and whether income is being used efficiently.
These are not merely accounting questions. They determine whether an institution is fulfilling the purpose for which it exists.
Financial Transparency and Public Accountability
One of the most important tests of the Board’s performance is the quality of its financial and property management.
The Board should maintain accurate and updated records of its properties, leases, rental income, expenditure, liabilities and charitable commitments. Its accounts should be audited in accordance with applicable requirements, and audit observations should be followed by corrective action.
A comprehensive, publicly accessible account of its assets and performance would help dispel suspicion and establish a clearer basis for evaluating its work. Such disclosure should include, subject to lawful privacy and security restrictions, the number and categories of properties under its management, their revenue-generating potential, outstanding rent, encroachment cases, major expenditure and the welfare programmes funded through Waqf resources.
Particular attention should be given to the history of property allotments and leases. The Board should disclose, to the extent permitted by law, the relevant terms, rental arrangements, selection procedures and duration of leases. Any concessions or allotments made without open competition should have a recorded legal basis and a defensible justification.
A review of past transactions should identify properties leased below appropriate rates, rent arrears that remain unrecovered, unauthorised concessions and cases in which prescribed procedures may not have been followed. Where evidence points to financial loss or preferential treatment, the matter should be referred for independent examination.
This is not a demand to cancel every existing lease or presume that every concession is improper. Some arrangements may have legitimate legal or charitable grounds. The requirement is that each should withstand scrutiny, protect the endowment’s interests and comply with the applicable law.
Where properties are occupied without authorisation, the Board should act through due process. Where revenue has been lost through established mismanagement or unauthorised concessions, responsibility should be fixed wherever warranted.
The same standards must apply to every administration, irrespective of its political affiliation.
It would also be useful to publish an annual performance report explaining not only how much revenue the Board has collected, but how that revenue has been used. The public should be able to assess the support provided to educational institutions, the needy, healthcare initiatives, religious establishments and other authorised welfare activities.
The institution’s success cannot be measured simply by the number of renovated shrines or the announcements made by its leadership. Physical improvements matter, but they are only one part of a much wider responsibility.
The decisive questions are whether assets are being protected, whether resources are being used efficiently, whether the accounts are credible and whether the community is receiving the benefits intended under the relevant endowments.
The Khutba Controversy: Where Should Administrative Authority End?
The controversy over proposed common themes for Friday sermons has brought another dimension of Waqf governance into public discussion: the boundary between administrative coordination and religious autonomy.
Media reports have described a proposal to form a committee of religious scholars, imams and khateebs to identify common themes for sermons across mosques and shrines. The stated objectives included religious awareness, moral values, social harmony and community welfare.
The proposal attracted criticism from religious organisations and political leaders, including the Mutahida Majlis-e-Ulema and Chief Minister Omar Abdullah. Critics questioned whether a statutory body responsible for Waqf administration should seek to prescribe or standardise religious discourse.
The chairperson subsequently clarified that no order making uniform sermons mandatory had been issued and that imams and khateebs remained free to decide the content of their sermons.
That distinction is important. A proposal to encourage voluntary coordination among religious scholars is not the same as a binding directive compelling mosques to follow prescribed content. The two should not be conflated.
Nevertheless, the episode raises a legitimate question about institutional priorities and the need for consultation. The administration of Waqf properties, the maintenance of shrines, financial accountability and the protection of endowments are core responsibilities. Any initiative touching upon religious practice requires particular sensitivity, clarity about authority and meaningful engagement with the recognised religious scholars and institutions concerned.
There can be value in scholars voluntarily cooperating on matters such as education, social responsibility, public health, communal harmony and charitable work. Such cooperation, however, should emerge from informed consultation and respect for religious scholarship, rather than the perception that an administrative body is seeking to exercise control over the pulpit.
The controversy also illustrates the importance of precise communication. When an announcement gives rise to widespread concern, the institution should explain its intention, the proposed procedure and whether participation is voluntary. Clear communication can prevent misunderstandings and protect public confidence.
The wider principle is that administrative authority should be exercised within its proper limits. The Board must be able to discharge its legal responsibilities effectively, but that does not remove the need to respect religious autonomy and the diversity of local traditions.
The Community Must Also Demand Accountability
Public accountability cannot be the responsibility of the government or the Board alone. Religious scholars, community representatives, civil society organisations and ordinary citizens have a role in demanding transparent management.
That responsibility must, however, be exercised constructively. Criticism should be based on verifiable information, and allegations of corruption or misuse of office should be supported by documentary evidence and referred to the appropriate authorities.
Equally, officials should not treat legitimate questions as hostility towards the institution or the religion it serves. An institution established for public and charitable purposes must be open to scrutiny. Transparency strengthens its credibility; it does not diminish its religious significance.
The Board should facilitate accessible channels for complaints concerning properties, rents, encroachments, public facilities and administrative conduct. Complaints should receive timely responses, and their outcomes should be recorded. Where serious irregularities are established, appropriate legal and disciplinary action should follow.
Community representatives should also be able to seek information about how Waqf income is being spent and whether the needs of the intended beneficiaries are being adequately addressed.
The objective should not be to weaken the institution, but to make it more effective, trusted and independent.
Beyond Political Allegiances
The Waqf Board’s institutional challenges cannot be resolved merely by replacing one chairperson with another or transferring authority from one political establishment to another. If the underlying arrangements remain vulnerable to patronage, opacity and discretionary decision-making, the same questions may arise again.
Reform must therefore focus on systems rather than personalities.
Transparent appointments, clear eligibility criteria, effective audits, updated property records, competitive and lawful leasing procedures, published performance reports and independent scrutiny can help reduce opportunities for political interference. Decision-making responsibilities should be clearly defined, with mechanisms for review and redress.
The Board should also develop measurable welfare objectives. Its annual report should explain what it has achieved, where it has fallen short and what corrective steps it intends to take. Such reporting would allow the public to judge performance on evidence rather than political rhetoric.
The legal framework must be followed in letter and spirit, and any reform must respect the rights of beneficiaries and the lawful interests of those managing or using Waqf properties.
Above all, the institution should not become a battleground in which rival political parties seek advantage while the practical concerns of the community receive insufficient attention.
Restoring the Original Purpose
The historical evolution of Waqf administration in Jammu and Kashmir reflects changing political circumstances, legal frameworks and approaches to the management of religious properties. That history deserves to be examined honestly, without romanticising the past or assuming that every change has necessarily been harmful.
The original purpose remains the most appropriate standard against which the institution should be judged: protection of endowments, responsible management of assets, preservation of religious heritage and service to the community.
The Board’s legitimacy depends not simply on the legal authority under which it operates, but also on public confidence in the way it exercises that authority. Such confidence must be earned through openness, fairness, restraint and demonstrable results.
The people of Jammu and Kashmir deserve a Waqf institution that is neither a political instrument nor an opaque administrative establishment. They deserve one that protects its properties, accounts for its income, consults religious scholars where appropriate and directs its resources towards the purposes for which they were dedicated.
The central question, therefore, is not which political party controls the Waqf Board, but whether the institution is sufficiently independent, transparent and accountable to fulfil its original purpose.
If political influence has at times overshadowed that purpose, the remedy lies in evidence-based scrutiny and durable institutional safeguards, not partisan accusations. Past allotments and leases must be examined fairly, financial records must be open to appropriate scrutiny, and those responsible for established irregularities must be held accountable in accordance with the law.
Waqf is an amanah—a trust. Those entrusted with its management must remember that their authority is temporary, their responsibilities are substantial, and the properties they administer are meant to serve purposes greater than any individual, government or political party.
(STRAIGHT TALK COMMUNICATIONS EXCLUSIVE. The author is a Columnist. He can be reached at ahmadayaz08@gmail.com.)
(Disclaimer: The views are of the author and not of the Straight Talk Communications)
