Abolish Waqf Act

In March 1947, M K Gandhi met Viceroy Mountbatten and requested him to dismiss Jawaharlal Nehru as interim Prime Minister and appoint M A Jinnah as the Prime Minister. Further, Gandhi requested Mountbatten to allow Jinnah have an all-Muslim cabinet. This was a Gandhi who was at the end of his tether having failed in all his efforts—since his ill-advised ‘Khilafat’ movement which had nothing to with India—to cobble a contrived unity between the ‘two nations’ failed. Had he been successful, Hindus would not have been ruing their second-class citizen status now. They would have been second-class citizens! The demographics would have ensured that.  

It was not even necessary! Ever since independence illegal immigrants have been pouring into India from her porous eastern borders. According to some estimates, by the nineties, there were already twenty million illegal immigrants in West Bengal and the border districts of Assam. The net effect of allowing illegal immigrants into the country would certainly skew the demographic balance in less than a generation if the present trend continues. It is already evident in India's eastern border states. The ill effects of harbouring illegal immigrants are well known. Illegal immigration would alter the cultural and social landscape and dilute employment opportunities for the local population. A population with no roots in the soil and no loyalty to the local culture would have scant regard for law and order. It is a potentially rich source for crime.

It was not enough for the Congress party to divide the nation and give away large chunks on either side to the Muslims in 1947. In 2013 it signed sealed and delivered the rest of the nation to the Muslims as a gift of lebensraum in return for their votes. Thanks to the pandering for vote bank politics by self-serving politicians, large swathes of land are already passing into the hands of usurpers. 

A Note On The Map 

The map shows the India that we inherited at the time of partition; except the extra-territorial rights we had in southern Tibet. If we closely the observe the map, we can see that we not only shared a border with Afghanistan, but Tajikistan (then in the USSR) was only a few miles away from the frontier. This meant we were in close proximity to Central Asia.

In October 1947 Pakistan illegally occupied 72,935 sq km in Jammu and Kashmir. [Of the total of 2,22,236 sq km of Jammu and Kashmir state we are now in possession of only 1,06,566 sq km.] There was a brief war in October-November 1947. The Indian army was on the verge of recapturing the territory occupied by Pakistan. Surprisingly and inexplicably the Nehru government not only called for a unilateral ceasefire but against sage advice by its own Home Minister referred the matter to the UNO. Experts in strategic affairs believe that our pusillanimity in not wresting back the portion of Jammu and Kashmir illegally occupied by Pakistan in October 1947 led to the belief that India was a soft state and later invasions and illegal occupations.  

In 1955-57 China occupied 37,555 sq km of Aksai Chin in Ladakh, the eastern part of Jammu and Kashmir. In 1962 China invaded the Northeast Frontier Agency (NEFA), now renamed Arunachal Pradesh and occupied 38,000 sq km. 

................................................ 

The Chairperson, 

Joint Parliamentary Committee — Waqf Amendment Bill,

Sansad Bhavan,

NEW DELHI

Honourable Chairperson!

The Waqf Acts, originally passed in 1923, amended in 1954, 1995 and 2013 are not only iniquitous but directly contravene Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. You are of course aware that Art. 14 enunciates the concept of equality before law for all citizens of India that is Bharat 

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐰 𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐰𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚.

In essence it means that the State shall not discriminate between citizens on the grounds of caste, religion, race, sex or place of birth. However, despite public veneration and ritual celebration of Constitutional principles, the reverse has been practised by most political parties and alas, the State itself, since the dawn of independence. As an illustration, let me put in perspective the contrasts between the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Acts and the Waqf Acts. The ‘Secular’ State usurped complete control of Hindu religious institutions and their properties running into millions of acres of land and billions of rupees in collections from devotees. On the other hand, the Waqf Acts, over time leached the authority of the State in the affairs of Waqfs making them, with the latest amendments, supra-judicial bodies a la ‘a State within a State’!  

Tracing the history of the Waqf Acts P R Ramesh (“Waqf Act: A Legacy of Appeasement and Aggrandisement”, Open Magazine, August 16, 2024) wrote:

The Nehru government supposedly allowed the Muslim community to manage its insti­tutions, including the Waqf Boards, to impart confidence to the community. Seen in isolation, many continue to believe this myth. But it is a myth nonetheless. For if one examines a very different set of events—the constant illegal migration of Muslims from the then East Pakistan—a very different hue is cast on Nehruvian secularism. The reality is that the Nehru regime and its succes­sors continued to appease Muslims for political purposes. This included their approval of illegal migration into Assam where the very demography of the Brahmaputra Valley changed beyond recognition.

 

The story of the Waqf Boards, the steady gathering of judicial powers in the hands of the Muslim community with respect to Waqfs, and appeasement are thus not isolated issues: they were part and parcel of assiduously building a vote bank in a ‘secular’ republic at the cost of other communities that were deprived of similar rights and powers to manage their religious institutions. That this process was begun during the Nehru years makes the entire project insidious. By 2013, when the 1995 Act was amended in the dying days of the UPA-II regime, the process was complete. Today, any property belonging to any person or community can simply be declared a Waqf by a mere notification. The courts can come to your aid. But good luck with that. As liberals are so fond of saying, “The process is the punishment.”

 

In 2015, the NDA government launched a probe into an illegal act by the UPA government whereby it transferred 123 properties in Delhi to the Waqf Board just prior to losing power. Most of these properties were of high market value, including those in Connaught Place, Lodhi Road and Karol Bagh.

 

The Modi government started a dedicated online portal, Waqf Assets Management System of India (WAMSI) for computerisation, digitisation of records of Waqf properties, and their Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping. This was to prevent encroach­ments on these properties but also to prevent the illegal usurping of properties as Waqfs without the completion of statutory pro­cesses. The Waqf property details on WAMSI were entered by the respective State Waqf Boards (SWBs). Until December 2022, a total of 8,65,646 immovable properties and 3,53,850 GIS mapping of Waqf properties were entered on the WAMSI portal. [Italics added.] 

The Keshavananda Bharati case (aka the third fundamental rights case) has been celebrated in public discourse for what it was not originally about. The chimerical ‘basic structure doctrine’ which the judges were supposed to have conceptualized was a charade. If the judges were so concerned about the basic structure of the Indian Constitution, they would have certainly reviewed constant violations of Art. 14 since the 1950s. Even after the judgement was delivered in April 1973, governments trampled upon the sacrosanct ‘basic structure’ with gay abandon. While the 1976 amendment to the Preamble of the Constitution directly altered the basic structure of the Constitution, the Places of Worship Act, 1991 and the Right to Education Act, 2009 certainly violated the letter and spirit of Art. 14.    

The Keshavananda Bharati case was all about nationalizing the properties of Hindu religious institutions under Land Ceiling Acts. The confiscation of the Math's lands by the Kerala government was upheld by the Supreme Court. Clearly confiscation of lands of Hindu religious institutions under secular laws, while making special provisions for protecting lands of other religious bodies flies in the face of Articles 14, 19, 25 & 26 of the Indian Constitution. Here are a few concerns raised by the appellants as cited in the judgement:

The case was filed by His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors. Vs. Respondent: State of Kerala and Anr. under Article 32 of the Constitution for enforcement of his fundamental rights under Articles 25, 26, 14, 19 (1) (f) and 31 of the Constitution. … The respondents claim that Parliament can abrogate fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and expression, freedom to form associations or unions, and freedom of religion. They claim that democracy can even be replaced and one-party rule established. Indeed, short of repeal of the Constitution, any form of Government with no freedom to the citizens can be set up by Parliament by exercising its powers under Article 368. [Italics added.]

The strange irony is that the present opposition raised the same concerns in the run up to the elections to the eighteenth Lok Sabha, which the appellants raised fifty years ago. It was the present opposition that “defaced and defiled” the Constitution (in the words of the eminent Judge H R Khanna), when it was in power. 

The provisions of the Waqf Act raise issues related to property rights, administrative inefficiencies and potential misuse of the law. Further the impugned Act gives Waqf boards supra-judicial powers which flies against the letter and spirit of democratic principles and the Constitution itself. Hence the Act should be abolished forthwith. There are enough civil laws to protect land holding rights of citizens of all communities. 

The current Waqf act is illegal, and such acts do not exist anywhere in the world including Muslim majority countries. Also, Waqf act allowed waqf board to snatch land & property through coercion, deceit and violence, like mafioso. 

In light of the above, I urge the Joint Parliamentary Committee to consider the following recommendations:

1. Abolish of the Wakf Act: The Act should be repealed to ensure that all citizens are treated equally before the law, in consonance with the fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution. 
2. Waqf act should be abolished forthwith and retrospectively from the date it was first introduced in 1923 as Mussalman Waqf Act and subsequent reintroduction in 1954 and amendment in 1995.
3. Any land/property acquired or structure erected under Waqf should be deemed illegal and returned to the rightful Hindu owner before or after 1923.
4. In case, rightful Hindu owner cannot be traced, the Central Govt should take the possession of the land, property and structure, under current Waqf boards. 
5. Strengthening Accountability: Any new legislation should incorporate strict guidelines and accountability mechanisms to prevent misuse and ensure transparency in the administration of properties. 

I do hope my suggestions will be considered by the JPC in the larger interest of our country, that is Bharat. 

Vande Mataram!

...................................................

Cover map courtesy: Vivek Dhankar In Singh, Priyanka. (2017). “Re-Positioning Pakistan Occupied Kashmir On India’s Policy Map—Geopolitical Drivers, Strategic Impact”. Institute For Defence Studies & Analysis, Monograph No. 62, October 2017.

Intellectual Integrity Vs Machiavellian Morality

Intellectuals of a society are its leading lights; not weathervanes!

In a speech delivered in Bristol in 1780, Edmund Burke told his constituents

“I did not obey your instructions: No. I conformed to the instructions of truth and nature, and maintained your interest, against your opinions, with a constancy that became me.”  

He was elected to the parliament from the city in 1774 and was seeking reelection. Bromwich, Burke’s biographer observed: 

“Like Shakespeare, Burke knew the glamour and influence of the Machiavellian morality, in politics and in smaller-scale, human wheeling and dealing.” 

Leadership literature has an unverified story that explains the seamy side of leadership of mass movements. During the days of the French revolution, so goes the story, a newspaperman was having a tête-à-tête with a leader of the revolution in a Paris café. As they were sipping coffee and chatting, a wildly howling mob screaming slogans stomped by. The newspaperman wondered what the procession was all about. On hearing this, the ‘leader’ shouted “Oh my God, I am supposed to the lead the procession” and ran out! 

Burke risked his electorate’s possible displeasure in choosing intellectual integrity. In a benign era in which the electorate was not corrupted by Machiavellian morality, his candour was appreciated! In a polity as fractured by caste and creed as India’s, with rare exceptions, politicians tend to choose Machiavellian morality over intellectual integrity. 

The biggest failure of ‘public intellectuals’ in India is their inability to forge national unity based on a society that does not think in terms of castes and creeds. In a 1954 judgement, the Supreme Court expressed its fervent hope that the Indian Constitution would bring about a 

“[…] new order … with its new allegiance springing from the same source for all, grounded on the same basis: the sovereign will of the peoples of India with no class, no caste, no race, no creed, no distinction, no reservation.” 

The Supreme Court, it appears, was carried away with its own rhetorical flourishes in pluralizing ‘people’, and the reinforcing qualifier at the end of the sentence. 

The phrase ‘public intellectual’ was coined by Russell Jacoby in his 1987 book, “The Last Intellectuals”. Absorbed as the Indians were in ‘divisive’ versus ‘integrative’ polemics, there has not been much debate on the role of ‘public intellectuals’ or rather the sad scarcity of balanced public intellectual discourse. The words ‘divisive’ and ‘integrative’ too have diametrically opposing connotations based on from which perspective they are looked at! Jacoby observed 

“[…] intellectuals, if noticed, are usually blessed or subsidized…and one consequence—at least—unnoticed and profoundly damaging: the impoverishment of public culture”.  

A scan of the articles on ‘public intellectuals’ in India leads one to believe there are public intellectuals only on one side of the ideological divide. For some strange reason, even the thought of ‘public intellectuals’ throws up unintelligible gobbledygook. Just look at this passage from an article on the subject in an Indian daily: 

“[…] public intellectuals in India need to challenge the traditional assumptions that have reinforced positivistic methodologies, apathetic scholarship and an increasing fascination with a calculative leadership”! 

Whatever did it mean! The picture that accompanied the article leaves no one in doubt about ‘the necessary and sufficient condition that should be satisfied to earn the label ‘public intellectual’. Indeed, intellectuals have to be blessed or subsidized to be noticed! A far more serious problem as Richard Posner observed is with ‘public intellectuals’ who “bend facts and law to fit their political preconceptions”.  

There are several issues over which ‘public intellectuals’ could have educated, enlightened and shaped public opinion. On the issue of forging unity of castes and creeds, making splintering a virtue as ‘unity in diversity’ appears a bit tenuous or worse disingenuous. It suits the politicians to reap electoral dividends by manipulating divisions, fueling dissensions, pitting one group against the other, or by incentivizing divisions, but why should ‘public intellectuals’ legitimize the political line with tortuous Op-Eds?  There are internal divisions in many countries but they do not go to town preening about diversity. They function as a united nation within and outside and not as a ‘united nations organization’! 

Or take the current craze of electoral sops. Politicians do not mind the long-term damage their promised sops are likely to do to the economy as long as they help them to win. When revenues plummeted during the Covid pandemic, a regional politician who made a fine art of governing his state through sops asked “Why doesn’t the Central government print more currency to meet the demand?” Consumed by the desire to perpetuate his rule he offered a sop for every conceivable section of society that can vote in bulk. As a result, the state is languishing without development or servicing of infrastructure projects. This is the same case in several states where politicians usurped power by offering sops. Their leaders now lament that they are not able to answer their publics on the lack of development. 

The Indian government must be commended for its fiscal prudence in not succumbing to the temptation of issuing paper money. On the other hand, the USA—whose nationals earned the maximum number of economics Nobels—put the idea into practice by printing an additional $3 trillion! The government hoped it would help borrowers by easing interest rates. It did for a while. Stock market indices zoomed. But the extra money supply could be helpful only if there is a corresponding increase in production. It was too late for the decision makers to realize that too much money chasing too few goods would result in high inflation in the long-term, consequent rise in interest rates (negating their original intention) and market volatility. In fact, following the infusion of paper money into circulation the United States saw the highest inflation rate in four decades. Does the American experience hold any lessons for the Indian politicians? Going by the vigour with which most Indian politicians are indulging in competitive populism they do not seem to be even aware of it.    

This article was first published in the Times Of India Blogs