Clearing Waqf corruption & confusion

October 24, 2024 /Posted byEducationWorld

– Mohammad Sajjad is Professor, modern and contemporary Indian history, Aligarh Muslim University Against the backdrop of the Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development Bill 2024 having been referred to a JPC, the author proposes ways and means to fortify it With tabling of the United Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development (UMEED) Bill 2024, in Parliament — since referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for further examination — India’s 32 Waqf Boards have come under public scrutiny. They reportedly control 8.7 lakh properties spanning 9.4 lakh acres countrywide. Linguistically, the word Waqf (tied-up or locked up), also known as habs (locking, selling and purchase of assets earmarked as charitable endowments), or mortmain property, is an inalienable charitable endowment under Islamic law. Typically, it involves donating real estate — land and buildings — for Muslim religious or charitable purposes with no intention of reclaiming the donated assets. It’s important…

If you are already a subscriber - log in

Tags: Access EW, EducationWorld October 2024

Comments are closed

Media Bytes

“An uneducated Indian is not a free Indian. India’s education system remains trapped in regulations that reward compliance over learning and scarcity over opportunity. The solution to exam leaks, coaching factories and unemployability is not more licensing, but more supply. We need more schools, more colleges, more competition and more education entrepreneurs. A 21st-century education must not only impart knowledge but encourage questioning. India does not need fewer cooks in the kitchen; it needs more cooks, more recipes and fewer bureaucrats guarding empty plates.”

- Manish Sabharwal, The Indian Express, (2/6)

India’s examination system rests on a foundational assumption that the process is fair, even when outcomes disappoint, and once that trust erodes, the system loses its legitimacy. This is not merely a technical controversy but a credibility crisis, because digitising evaluation is not the same as reforming it. Technology can assist evaluation, but it cannot replace the intellectual responsibility that fair assessment demands. The controversy has shown that technology has not removed subjectivity or error, it has merely shifted them into a different format. Educational institutions cannot run experiments on students whose futures depend on these results, and the obligation is to anticipate failure before implementation, not offer explanations after the damage is done.

- P John J Kennedy, The Indian Express, (26/5)

Clearing Waqf corruption & confusion

Current Issue

Media Bytes

From The Archives

Good business sense