The Jammu and Kashmir Waqf Board is entrusted with managing religious endowments, shrines, mosques and properties dedicated to religious, charitable and community welfare purposes. Its responsibility extends beyond administering land and buildings. It must protect religious heritage, preserve assets, ensure financial transparency and use resources for the benefit of their intended beneficiaries. Yet the history of Waqf administration in Jammu and Kashmir raises an important question: has political influence, exercised under successive dispensations, at times overshadowed the institution’s original purpose? This question is not directed exclusively at the present chairperson, the current government or any particular political party. It concerns the institution’s evolution, its relationship with political power and the need to ensure that an organisation entrusted with valuable community assets remains transparent, independent and accountable. The question has acquired renewed relevance following controversy over proposed common themes for Friday sermons across mosques and shrines. But the debate must not begin and end with one announcement. The fundamental issue is whether the Board is protecting Waqf properties, managing them responsibly, ensuring financial accountability and using their potential for public welfare.
From A Community Initiative To A Statutory Institution: Organised Muslim endowment management in Kashmir developed through initiatives such as Idara Auqaf Islamia and the All Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Auqaf Trust. These institutions reflected the principle that mosques, shrines, khanqahs and associated properties should be managed systematically for religious, charitable and community purposes. The Trust’s role was later replaced, for specified Waqfs and properties, by a statutory Board under the applicable legal framework. Following constitutional and administrative changes in Jammu and Kashmir, the present Board came to function under central Waqf legislation. Across these changes, the core duty remained the same: preserve endowments, manage income transparently and serve intended beneficiaries.
The Political Dimension Of Waqf Admin: The relationship between political power and Waqf administration in Kashmir is not new. Historical reporting has examined the influence of National Conference leadership over the Auqaf Trust and the transition to a statutory Board under the PDP-Congress coalition government. An investigation published by Scroll examined longstanding concerns about political influence, alleged mismanagement, property rents and financial transparency, including questions about the commercial utilisation of properties. Such reporting does not prove wrongdoing by every administration or office-bearer, and allegations must not be treated as findings. It does, however, show that concerns about political influence and institutional independence have persisted. There have also been concerns that certain Waqf properties may have been allotted or leased to individuals considered close to political parties without adequate transparency or a clearly established public-interest justification. Wherever such practices have occurred, they raise serious questions about the possible use of community endowments for political patronage. 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 applicable law, follow transparent procedures and protect the endowment’s financial interests. Terms, rents, selection criteria and approving authorities should be documented and open to scrutiny. The Board should undertake a comprehensive review of property allotments and leases, including those made under previous administrations. Evidence of preferential treatment, revenue loss, unauthorised occupation or procedural violations should be independently examined. Where irregularities are established, responsibility must be fixed in accordance with law. Such a review must not become an instrument of political vendetta. Its purpose should be to determine whether community assets have been managed in the interests of intended beneficiaries or whether administrative discretion has been misused.
A Trust Is Not A Political Inheritance: Waqf properties are neither the personal possessions of those appointed to manage them nor political assets belonging to the government in office. They are endowments dedicated to religious, charitable and other legally recognised purposes. Those responsible for their administration are custodians, entrusted with preserving assets and managing them according to law and the terms governing each endowment. Holding office does not give a chairperson or Board member unrestricted discretion over property. Decisions must comply with the law, the endowment’s terms and the institution’s responsibilities. The public is entitled to know whether properties are maintained, rents are appropriate, arrears recovered, encroachments addressed and income used efficiently. These questions go to the heart of the institution’s purpose.
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. It should maintain accurate, updated records of properties, leases, rental income, expenditure, liabilities and charitable commitments. Accounts should be audited in accordance with applicable requirements, and audit observations should lead to corrective action. A public account of assets and performance would help dispel suspicion. Subject to lawful privacy and security restrictions, disclosures should include property categories, revenue potential, outstanding rents, encroachment cases, major expenditure and welfare programmes supported through Waqf resources. Relevant lease terms, rental arrangements, selection procedures and durations should be disclosed to the extent permitted by law. Any concession or allotment made without open competition should have a recorded legal basis and defensible justification. Past transactions should be reviewed to identify below-market leases, unrecovered arrears, unauthorised concessions and procedural violations. Evidence of financial loss or preferential treatment should be independently examined. This does not mean cancelling every lease: some concessions may have legitimate legal or charitable grounds, but they must withstand scrutiny and protect the endowment’s interests. Where properties are occupied without authorisation, the Board should act through due process. Where established mismanagement or unauthorised concessions have caused revenue loss, responsibility should be fixed wherever warranted. The same standards must apply to every administration, irrespective of political affiliation. An annual performance report should explain how revenue supports education, healthcare, religious establishments, disadvantaged families and other authorised welfare activities. Success is not measured only by renovated shrines or official announcements, but by protected assets, efficient spending, credible accounts and benefits reaching the community.
“Waqf is a sacred trust whose managers hold temporary authority over properties meant to serve the greater public good. They are accountable for managing these substantial responsibilities beyond individual, governmental, or political interests, with success measured by public benefit rather than controversy.”
Waqf Properties Must Serve The Wider Public Good: Waqf properties should not be viewed merely as sources of rental income. Properly managed, they can support education, improve healthcare, assist vulnerable families and address pressing community needs. Where the terms of an endowment and applicable law permit, suitable properties could be developed for schools, healthcare facilities, vocational training centres and other socially beneficial initiatives. Each asset should be assessed by location, legal status, financial viability and original purpose: some may be best used to generate rent, while others may support direct public-service projects. Underutilised properties should be identified for productive use. Where development is feasible, the Board could consider transparent partnerships with credible educational, healthcare or charitable organisations, subject to law and safeguards protecting the endowment. A long-term development plan should identify suitable properties, required resources, expected outcomes and monitoring mechanisms. The Board should explain how commercial income is channelled towards authorised religious, charitable and welfare activities. A well-managed Waqf property should contribute to education, healthcare, poverty alleviation and social welfare. Waqf is an amanah—a trust whose value lies in the good its assets enable.
The Khutba Controversy: Where Should Administrative Authority End? The controversy over proposed common themes for Friday sermons has raised questions about 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 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 matters: voluntary coordination among scholars is not the same as compelling mosques to follow prescribed content. The episode nevertheless raises questions about institutional priorities, authority and consultation. Managing properties, maintaining shrines, ensuring financial accountability and protecting endowments are core responsibilities. Initiatives touching religious practice require sensitivity, clarity about authority and meaningful engagement with recognised religious scholars. Voluntary cooperation on education, public health, communal harmony and charitable work can be beneficial, but it should emerge from informed consultation and respect for religious scholarship—not create the perception that an administrative body is seeking control over the pulpit. When announcements generate concern, the Board should explain its intentions and clarify whether participation is voluntary. Religious matters deserve attention, but sermon coordination should not distract from substantial property-management and welfare responsibilities. The Board must fulfil its legal duties while respecting religious autonomy, scholarly diversity and local traditions.
Beyond Political Allegiances: The challenges facing the Waqf Board cannot be resolved merely by replacing one chairperson or transferring authority from one political establishment to another. If arrangements remain vulnerable to patronage, opacity and arbitrary decision-making, the same questions will arise again. Reform must focus on systems rather than personalities. Transparent appointments, clear eligibility criteria, effective audits, updated property records, lawful and competitive leasing procedures, published performance reports and independent scrutiny can reduce opportunities for political interference. Decision-making responsibilities should be defined clearly, with mechanisms for review and redress. The Board should set measurable objectives and report achievements, shortcomings and corrective measures annually. Protecting properties, recovering revenue, preventing encroachments and developing suitable assets for education and healthcare require sustained attention. Reforms must respect individual endowments, beneficiaries’ rights and lawful interests of those managing or using Waqf properties. Religious scholars, community representatives, civil society and citizens all have a role in demanding accountability. Criticism should rely on verifiable information, and allegations of corruption should be supported by evidence and referred to appropriate authorities. Officials, in turn, should not treat legitimate questions as hostility towards the institution or the religion it serves. Accessible complaint mechanisms, timely responses and action on established irregularities would strengthen public confidence.
Restoring The Original Purpose: Waqf administration’s history reflects changing political circumstances and legal frameworks. It deserves honest examination without romanticising the past or assuming every institutional change was harmful. The original purpose remains the appropriate standard against which the institution should be judged: protecting endowments, managing assets responsibly, preserving religious heritage and serving the community. The Board’s legitimacy depends not simply on its legal authority, but also on public confidence in how 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 establishment. It should protect properties, account for income, consult religious scholars where appropriate and direct resources towards their intended purposes. Better schools, hospitals, healthcare, educational opportunities for disadvantaged children and effective charitable programmes would demonstrate that Waqf resources are being used meaningfully. The central question is whether the Board 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 safeguards, not partisan accusations. Past allotments and leases must be examined fairly, financial records opened to appropriate scrutiny, and those responsible for established irregularities held accountable in accordance with law. Waqf properties must be recognised not merely as administrative assets, but as resources capable of generating wider social good. Their value should be reflected in the welfare they provide, the institutions they support and the opportunities they create.
Waqf Is An Amanah—A Trust: Those entrusted with its management must remember that their authority is temporary, their responsibilities substantial, and the properties they administer are meant to serve purposes greater than any individual, government or political party. The ultimate measure of Waqf administration should not be the controversies it generates, but the public good it delivers.
(The author is a top political commentator and a freelancer. The views, opinions and conclusions expressed in this article are those of the author and aren’t necessarily in accord with the views of “Kashmir Horizon”)
[email protected].
