Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/subscribe/
These days two issues are ruling the roost in the media currently. First, it is Operation Sindoor and the second is the ongoing hearing in Supreme Court (SC) on the modified Waqf Act of 2024. It is very surprising that in both issues, a few important questions are neither being asked nor discussed while both are mired in baseless controversies. Both subjects are of national importance with long-term implications to boot. Therefore, it is important to find answers to these questions and to put the controversies to rest in national interests.
Operation Sindoor
Indian security forces have been on an overdrive in the Kashmir valley ever since the Pahalgam attack to hunt down the perpetuators of this heinous massacre as also to flush out their local collaborators. Operation Sindoor was launched by Indian armed forces on the night of 06/07 May, 2025 to avenge the massacre of 26 Indian tourists by terrorists in Baisaran valley, near Pahalgam in Kashmir, on 22 April, 2025.
India’s dominance in the five days war in nearly all the facets of the conflict and Pakistan’s near ineffectiveness have become a topic of discussion among military circles, war historians and experts across the world. The world has been forced to sit up and take note of India’s military capabilities involving hardware, assimilation and exploitation of technology, political and military leadership, clarity of purpose and the success achieved during the operation. Yet, within the nation, all these achievements are being overshadowed by baseless controversies and a few unanswered questions.
Unanswered Questions: Normally the Baisaran valley is opened for tourists only in early June to coincide with the opening of the trek to Amarnath. All security measures are put in place by the security forces before the first tourist sets foot in that area. This time the armed forces, including CRPF, have stated categorically that they were not aware of the early opening of Baisaran valley. The tour operators were obviously aware and it would be logical to assume that so was the local police. Following questions arise from this that are neither being asked nor answers sought:
- Who gave the permission for the early opening of the Baisaran valley in mid-April for tourists in Kashmir?
- What measures did the local police and administration take to ensure safety of tourists?
- Why were other security agencies not informed and who is responsible for this lapse?
Controversies: The list of controversies, mostly created by the political opposition led by Mr Rahul Gandhi and his party, is rather long. It is obvious these bogies are created mainly to downplay the nation’s achievements, government’s firm handling of the situation and to humiliate the top BJP leadership in particular. It is heartening to see that of late some from the opposition seem to have realised that nation comes first and not their party or their party leaders. A few have even gone beyond all this to appreciate the government’s efforts. Be it Mr Trump announcing the cease fire, deliberately misreading the statement of the Foreign Minister, India’s acceptance of an understanding to cease hostilities despite being on top of Pakistan in more ways than one and the extent of damage inflicted, the opposition has turned all these into controversies where none existed.
The Waqf Act of 2024
Unanswered Questions: This subject has been under discussion in nearly all forums for over a year now. Currently the case is being argued in the SC. On being asked by one Umar Ibn Al Khattab on how to use a piece of land for holy purposes in the Khaibar region, the Prophet advises thus, “Tie up the property and devote the usufruct to human beings and it is not to be sold or made the subject of gift or inheritance; devote its produce to your children, your kindred and the poor in the way of God.”** This advice, in all fairness, does not link Waqf to religion or any of its practices under Islam. It is purely an advice on how to manage the charity work under Waqf and a clear directive that such a property or asset cannot be resold or made part of any inheritance. If some basic questions with respect to Waqf are answered sincerely and honestly, keeping the Prophet’s advice in mind, then the matter becomes very clear. Further, India being a secular nation, equality of all religions and faiths is paramount in all aspects of governance. Some of these questions are:
- How is the Waqf a religious practice?
- Does the Prophet’s advice bar the properties from being registered as per law of the land?
- Does the advice on Waqf lay down any specific criteria for those who should be charged with managing of the properties?
- Is there any bar on such charity work not to follow the laws of the nation as applicable to all others for similar work?
- In a secular democracy, can the government be partial to any one religion?
- Can a sovereign nation afford to have millions of enclaves (Waqf properties), across its length and breadth, that are presumed to belong to God for eternity, where the government has no jurisdiction of any kind? Will the implications of such a situation not be disastrous for any nation in the long run?
- In case the law of the land has no say in Waqf management, then how and to whom will they be accountable to ensure that they carry out their functions efficiently and honestly? Or can a case be made to assume that Waqf Boards are a law unto themselves?
Controversies: There are endless controversies on this issue. Most stem from the basic question of whether or not the concept of Waqf is religious in nature. This despite that fact that Waqf finds no mention in the Quran or any other religious scripture of Islam. Just because it is a Muslim charity, it does not make it part of Islam since all religions run charities in some form or the other.
Conclusion
All land and natural resources that exist on any nation’s territory belong to that nation. This has to be seen as an axiomatic truth. If some or part of these are transferred by the government in favour of any citizen or organisation, it is always for a specific reason. The government does so after due deliberations and documentation as per laws of the land. Those who are beneficiaries of such transfers are always accountable to the nation for the assets held by them. If such assets are required by the nation for larger good at any point of time, it is obligatory on part of such beneficiaries to return the same. The government, on its part, will be obliged to compensate such beneficiaries in a suitable manner. All nations and all societies work on this logic otherwise it can only lead to an unmanageable chaos.
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.