The “Waqf” Controversy and the Silence on “Debutter” Property: A Case of Majoritarianism?

The “Waqf” Controversy and the Silence on “Debutter” Property: A Case of Majoritarianism?

Posted on 17th April, 2025 (GMT 18:58 hrs)

ABSTRACT

The article critiques the asymmetrical treatment of religious endowments in India, highlighting how Waqf properties—Muslim charitable endowments used for mosques, madrasas, graveyards, and other community purposes—have faced intense scrutiny, legal reforms, and public debates, while Hindu Debutter (or Devottara) properties, which serve similar religious functions and are fraught with similar disputes as Waqf, remain largely untouched. The article discusses the recent Waqf (Amendment) Act of 2025, renamed as the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development (UWMEED) Act, which supposedly seeks to modernize and centralize the administration of over 870,000 Waqf properties under state-level Waqf Boards. Although issues like mismanagement, encroachments, and undervaluation plague both Waqf and Debutter assets, legislative attention has been disproportionately focused on Waqf properties. This selective focus raises concerns about majoritarian bias, as it appears to shield Hindu institutions from equivalent scrutiny. The article ultimately argues for equitable and secular governance that holds all religious endowments to the same standards of transparency, accountability, and reform, warning that the current approach may be influenced more by communal politics than by genuine administrative concerns.

AKHAR BANDYOPADHYAY ⤡

DEBAPRASAD BANDYOPADHYAY ⤡

In Continuation With

I. Introducing The Agenda

In India, religious endowments have historically served as foundations for community welfare, philanthropy, and for advancing spiritual practices in terms of a religion-economy interface. Two significant systems, Waqf (Islamic endowments) and Debutter/Devottara (Hindu endowments), oversee extensive properties devoted to supposedly divine purposes, yet both grapple with pervasive issues of mismanagement, corruption, and state panopticonism.

In this context, the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, has recently ignited national controversy, capturing headlines with debates surrounding the questions of autonomy, transparency, and communal politics. In contrast, Debutter properties, despite encountering quite similar challenges, remain largely overlooked in discussions, prompting inquiries into the selective focus of manufacturing public discourse. This article delves into the Waqf controversy, investigates Debutter properties as a comparable, parallel phenomenon, and assesses why one attracts intense scrutiny while the other remains in oblivious shadows. Is this disparity indicative of a religion-driven majoritarianism, and/or are more profound structural and politico-economic dynamics at work?

II. The Waqf Controversy: A Polarized Debate

Waqf properties are charitable endowments dedicated by Muslims to Allah for religious or community purposes as part of their social commitment as included in the notion of “zakat”. They are indeed a significant feature of India’s socio-religious landscape. Numbering over 870,000, spanning 940,000 acres, and valued at ₹1.2 trillion ($14.22 billion), Waqf boards are the third-largest landholders in India, trailing only the Indian Railways and Armed Forces. Managed by state-level Waqf boards under the Waqf Act, 1995, these properties include mosques, madrasas, graveyards, and orphanages, dedicated irrevocably to God under Islamic law. The recent Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, has ignited fierce debates, pitting the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government against opposition parties and Muslim communities over the very constitutionality of the act.

Background on Waqf

Definition

Waqf refers to properties dedicated by Muslims for pious, religious, or charitable purposes, managed by state Waqf boards. Once designated as Waqf, these properties belong to God and cannot be sold or repurposed, ensuring their perpetual use for community welfare/philanthropy/service.

Historical Context

The Waqf tradition dates back to the 12th-century Delhi Sultanate, with significant expansion under Mughal rulers like Akbar and Shah Jahan. Iconic monuments like the Taj Mahal are Waqf properties. The Waqf Act of 1995 formalized their governance, establishing state Waqf boards comprising Muslim lawmakers, scholars, and mutawallis (caretakers).

Issues with Waqf Boards

The 2006 Sachar Committee highlighted systemic problems: mismanagement, undervaluation, and low revenue generation (₹163 crore annually against a potential ₹12,000 crore). 58,889 properties face encroachment by individuals, businesses, and government bodies, with 13,000 under litigation. Corruption scandals, such as the Karnataka Waqf Board land scam, have fueled demands for reform.

The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025

Introduced as the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, on August 8, 2024, in the Lok Sabha, the bill was passed by both houses of Parliament in April 2025 after scrutiny by a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC). Its key provisions include:

Renaming and Structural Changes

• The Waqf Act, 1995, is renamed the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development (UWMEED) Act, 1995, claiming to modernize governance.
• Waqf boards and the Central Waqf Council must include at least two non-Muslims and two Muslim women, supposedly/seemingly promoting diversity and gender equality. Representation from diverse Muslim sects (e.g., Shia, Pashmanda, Bohra) is apparently/allegedly mandated.

Property Registration and Oversight

• All Waqf properties must be registered within six months in a centralized, technology-driven database to supposedly enhance transparency under this renewed framework.
• The “Waqf by user” provision—which allowed properties to be recognized as Waqf based on long-term community use without formal documentation—has now been removed. This change mirrors the documentation burdens seen in the CAA-NRC-DPA processes, disproportionately impacting marginalized communities with oral traditions and limited record-keeping. The new requirement for valid legal documents raises serious concerns about the future of historical mosques and dargahs that lack formal records.
• District collectors are empowered to resolve disputes over Waqf status, reducing the sovereign, self-driven authority of Waqf boards.

Judicial and Financial Reforms

• Judicial intervention is allowed in disputes, replacing the earlier system where Waqf tribunal decisions were final. The Limitation Act, 1963, applies to curb prolonged litigation.
• Waqf institutions earning over ₹1 lakh annually must undergo state-appointed audits, with contributions to Waqf boards reduced from 7% to 5%.
• Section 40, which allowed Waqf boards to arbitrarily declare properties as Waqf, is removed to putatively curb misuse.

Government Role

• The central government gains authority to create rules for Waqf registration, auditing, and accounts, increasing state surveillance.
• Properties identified as government-owned will cease to be Waqf, seemingly addressing disputes over supposedly encroached or contested lands.

Why the Controversy?

The amendments have polarized stakeholders, with the government and opposition presenting starkly different narratives. The opposition’s claims are more-or-less accurately pointing towards the Act’s deliberate attack on constitutional provisions that mandate a secular India.

Government’s Gaze:

• Transparency and Efficiency: The BJP-led government, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah, argues that the bill addresses corruption, mismanagement, and illegal encroachments. Modi called its passage a “watershed moment” for modernizing Waqf administration.
• Inclusivity: The inclusion of non-Muslims and women is framed or projected as promoting diversity and gender equality, aligning with supposedly broader governance reforms.
• Public Interest: The government cites unchecked Waqf board powers, such as the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board claiming an entire Hindu-majority village, including a 1,500-year-old temple, as necessitating reform.
• Revenue Potential: Proper management could unlock ₹12,000 crore annually for community welfare, per the Sachar Committee’s estimate.

Opposition and Muslim Community’s Legitimate Concerns:

• Infringement on Religious Autonomy: Opposition parties (Congress, AIMIM, DMK, AAP, Trinamool Congress) and Muslim groups, including the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), argue the bill violates Article 26 of the Constitution, which guarantees religious communities the right to manage their own affairs. They view it, quite legitimately as per the ongoing context, as a targeted attack on Muslim/minority rights.
• Non-Muslim Inclusion: Critics oppose non-Muslim members on Waqf boards, noting Hindu or other religious trusts rarely include Muslims, raising fairness concerns.

“Will Muslims Be On Hindu Boards? Say It Openly”: Supreme Court To Centre VIEW HERE⤡ (As Reported on 16th April, 2025 ©NDTV)

• Threat to Historical Properties: Removing “Waqf by user” and requiring documentation could jeopardize undocumented historical mosques, dargahs, and graveyards, which are now at serious risk of unwarranted land-grabs and demolitions. Instances like Babri Masjid demolition and rampant bulldozing of selectively Muslim households in Uttar Pradesh raise such concerns.
• State Overreach: Empowering district collectors and the central government is seen as undermining Waqf board autonomy and enabling heightened political interference. Congress MP Khaleequr Rahman called the JPC process on this act to be unconstitutional.
• Majoritarian Agenda: Opposition MPs like Asaduddin Owaisi and scholars like Mujibur Rehman view the bill as part of a BJP agenda to reshape minority institutions, alongside policies like the Uniform Civil Code and Article 370’s abolition. All these mechanisms feed into the BJP’s long-term (self-defeating) goal for a monoreligious, theocratic state of India, thereby undermining core democratic and secular values.
• Community Backlash: Muslim groups have protested, with millions reportedly emailing the JPC. The AIMPLB called the amendments a “severe assault” on Islamic values and communal harmony.

Specific (Manufactured?) Incidents Fueling Tensions

• Karnataka Land Disputes (2024): The Karnataka Waqf Board issued eviction notices to farmers in Vijayapura, claiming 1,500 acres of ancestral farmland, sparking protests. Chief Minister Siddaramaiah retracted the notices, citing administrative errors and communal sensitivities.
• Tamil Nadu Temple Claim (2022): The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board’s claim over a Hindu-majority village, including a 1,500-year-old Chola temple, shocked residents and fueled reform demands, as Waqf properties are irrevocable.
• Latur Farmers’ Plight: Over 100 farmers in Latur, Maharashtra, faced restrictions on selling land due to Waqf board liens, amplifying perceptions of overreach.

Political and Social Dynamics

• Parliamentary Showdown: The bill passed the Lok Sabha on April 2, 2025 (288-232 votes) and the Rajya Sabha on April 4 after 12-hour debates. The NDA coalition (BJP, JD(U), Shiv Sena, TDP) supported it, while the INDIA bloc opposed it as “anti-Muslim.” Opposition amendments were wholly rejected (without critical consideration!), and JPC proceedings saw tensions, including Trinamool MP Kalyan Banerjee smashing a glass bottle in protest.
• Legal Challenges: AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan, chairman of the Delhi Waqf Board, moved to the Supreme Court in April 2025, arguing the bill curtails Muslim autonomy and enables arbitrary state interference.
• Public Sentiment on X: Posts on X reflect polarized views. Users like @Schandillia highlight Waqf overreach (e.g., temple claims), while @resistanceenjoy alleges threats by Muslim representatives opposing the bill. BJP’s Syed Shahnawaz Hussain claims the amendments benefit poor Muslims by curbing land “loot.”
• Counter-Narratives: Journalist Afroz Alam Sahil debunked claims that Waqf systems are absent in Muslim-majority countries like Türkiye, noting its robust Waqf system supports public welfare, contrasting with India’s mismanagement.

Broader Implications

• Communal Tensions: Critics rightly fear that the bill could exacerbate Hindu-Muslim tensions, especially amid disputes over sites like the Gyanvapi mosque and Mathura’s Shahi Eidgah, where Waqf boards are involved. This is essentially part of the BJP’s delirious project to simply exclude minority voices.
• Economic Potential: Efficient management could supposedly/allegedly/apparently generate significant revenue for Muslim community welfare, but mistrust and legal battles hinder a certain notion of “progress”. However, the real question is: progress for whom, and at the cost of what?
• Political Strategy: The BJP frames the bill as reformist to appeal to its base while addressing governance issues, but opponents correctly see it as vote-bank politics targeting the Muslims.

On the other hand, a confrontation emerges. While Hindutvavadins continue to increase their assets exponentially, followers of Islam reportedly exhibit indifference towards a bank-centric economy, adhering to the principle of riba, which deems any interest on a loan/amount as “haram.” This stark conflict highlights the fundamental difference in worldviews:

Critical Analysis

The government’s apparent push for transparency may reportedly/apparently/allegedly/supposedly address genuine issues such as corruption and mismanagement, yet provisions like removing “Waqf by user” and increasing state control raise valid concerns regarding the worrying erosion of Muslim autonomy and the safeguarding of historical properties. While the inclusion of non-Muslims seems to/appears to promote diversity (from a surface level), it certainly lacks reciprocity in other religious trusts, which fuels perceptions of evident bias. The Sachar Committee recommended community-focused reforms; however, the 2025 amendments prioritize all-out state dominance, potentially misaligning with the community’s self-interests. Comparisons to Türkiye’s Waqf system imply that India could explore state-supported models that maintain autonomy while ensuring accountability simultaneously. The polarized discourse, heightened by incidents such as temple claims and dangerous bulldozer injustices, emphasizes the need for dialogue to balance reform with constitutional protections.

It is to be noted here that Islam itself is composed of heterogeneous sects, groups, cults and communities with varying interpretations of law and the Holy Koran (e.g., Zahir and Batin). Nevertheless, this diversity does not prevent the state apparatus from imposing (from without) a national law on the said religion. Conversely, Hinduism, which lacks the structure of an organized religion and is rife with internal contradictions and/or paradoxes, is inaccurately projected as entirely dispute-free. Is this truly the case?

III. Debutter/Devottara Property in India: A Parallel Phenomenon to Waqf

Debutter property refers to assets dedicated to Hindu religious or charitable purposes, typically for deity worship or temple maintenance (an idolatrous, heathen practice, obviously). Derived from Sanskrit, meaning “given to God,” Debutter properties are inalienable endowments vested in the deity as a juristic person, managed by a shebait or trust for the deity’s benefit. Governed by Hindu personal law, the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, and state-specific endowments acts (e.g., Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959), these properties include temple lands, buildings, jewelry, and offerings.

Key Features of Debutter Property

Nature and Purpose

• Dedicated to deities (e.g., Lord Venkateswara in Tirupati, Lord Jagannath in Puri) for temple maintenance, rituals, or charitable activities like feeding the poor or running schools.
• Ridiculously enough, the deity is here taken to be a legal entity, with shebaits or committees acting as representatives.
• Properties are irrevocable once dedicated to the divine agency.

Legal Framework

• Governed by customary Hindu law, judicial precedents, and state legislation (e.g., Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987).
• Shebaits manage properties but do not own them, ensuring the deity’s interests are upheld. What a heathen state of affairs!
• Unlike Waqf’s centralized Waqf Act, Debutter properties lack a uniform national law, leading to fragmented regulation.

Historical Context

• Originating centuries ago, rulers like the Cholas, Vijayanagara kings, and Marathas granted vast lands (inam lands) to temples. The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) manages thousands of acres donated over centuries.
• This system further derives from around the 3rd century AD (when both monetary and urban anemia began after the failure of Second Urbanization, as noted by historian Ram Sharan Sharma) Agrahā Vyāvasthā. During this period, within the Agrahā system, land was granted (non-taxable) to Brahmins for religious and educational purposes by the King, especially for temple maintenance and the sustenance of Brahmin families through the cropping up of ancillary industries centering the temple-space. This land, along with the royal income derived from it, was intended to support the religious activities and livelihoods of those affiliated with the temple. Essentially, it represented a form of land ownership linked to temple property and religious duties. The Sangh’s current attempts at temple nationalism are merely a reiteration of this very agrahā system of transactions and property-relations.
• British colonial authorities regulated these temple endowments, a practice continued by post-independence state governments.

Scale and Economic Significance

• Debutter properties are vast, though decentralized management obscures exact figures. Major temples like TTD, Shree Siddhivinayak (Mumbai), and Shirdi Sai Baba Trust control thousands of acres and billions in assets (e.g., TTD’s annual revenue exceeds ₹5,000 crore, ~$600 million).
• They rival Waqf holdings (872,351 properties, 940,000 acres, ₹1.2 trillion) in scale, making temple trusts among India’s largest non-government landowners.

Parallels with Waqf Properties

Debutter and Waqf properties share striking similarities, which are as follows:

• Religious Endowment: Both are irrevocable dedications to God (Allah for Waqf, Hindu deities for Debutter) for worship or community welfare, with divine ownership and human custodians (mutawalli for Waqf, shebait for Debutter).
• Management Structure: Waqf boards and temple trusts oversee properties, often with state nominees, and face mismanagement, corruption, and encroachment. The Sachar Committee noted Waqf’s low revenue (₹163 crore vs. ₹12,000 crore potential), as noted earlier, while temple properties suffer similar losses.
• Legal Disputes and Encroachment: Waqf faces 58,889 encroachments and 13,000 litigations, while Debutter properties, like Tamil Nadu’s 47,000 acres of encroached temple land, are similarly disputed.
• State Oversight: Waqf’s 2025 amendments increase government control, paralleling state endowments departments’ oversight of temples (e.g., TTD’s government-nominated board), with both facing accusations of overreach.
• Historical Land Grants: Both attained systemic legitimacy from medieval rulers’ donations, inheriting complex land records post-independence.

Mismanagement and Corruption in Debutter Properties: Recent Instances

While the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, dominates headlines, Debutter properties face parallel issues but never reach the headlines in a deliberate act of communally-driven political foreclosure.

Below are key instances highlighting these challenges across India:

Tamil Nadu Temple Land Encroachments (2019–2021)
The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department reported 47,000 acres of temple land, worth thousands of crores, illegally occupied. In 2021, 3,000 acres were reclaimed, including lands tied to Kapaleeswarar Temple in Chennai. Encroachers, often real estate developers, leased lands at nominal rates or without permission, facilitated by HR&CE officials who allegedly took bribes to falsify records or ignore violations. The absence of a centralized database exacerbated the issue, leading to an estimated ₹6,000 crore loss in potential annual revenue for Tamil Nadu’s 38,000 temples.
Source: The Hindu (2021)

Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) Gold Scam (2018)
Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, with annual revenues exceeding ₹5,000 crore, uncovered a gold scam involving officials and private jewelers. Audits revealed 5,000 kg of gold ornaments were undervalued or siphoned off, with losses amounting to crores. Private firms substituted pure gold with inferior materials, while officials accepted kickbacks for dubious contracts. The scandal prompted a CBI inquiry and eroded public trust, impacting TTD’s charitable initiatives. This mirrors Karnataka’s ₹2 lakh crore Waqf land scam.
Source: The Times of India (2018)

Karnataka Temple Land Misuse (2020)
The Karnataka Muzrai Department identified thousands of acres of temple land, including those of Kukke Subrahmanya Temple, illegally leased or sold for commercial purposes like hotels. Muzrai officials falsified records or delayed action for bribes, causing financial losses worth crores. The mismanagement reduced funds for temple maintenance, sparking protests by groups like the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP).
Source: Deccan Herald (2020)

Sabarimala Temple Fund Diversion (2019–2021)
The Travancore Devaswom Board diverted approximately ₹1,000 crore in Sabarimala Temple donations to state projects, such as flood relief, violating Debutter principles. Gold and cash offerings were mismanaged, with board officials criticized for lacking transparency. This prompted protests and legal challenges over excessive state control, drawing parallels to Waqf fund misuse.
Source: The Indian Express (2021)

Puri Jagannath Temple Land Disputes (2022–2023)
The Shree Jagannath Temple in Puri reported 40,000 acres of its land under dispute or encroached, resulting in annual revenue losses of ₹1,000 crore. Irregular records and collusion between administrators and land mafias, enabled by non-digitized documentation, fueled the issue. This reduced funds for rituals and temple trusts.
Source: The New Indian Express (2023)

Maharashtra Temple Trust Mismanagement (2021)
The Shree Siddhivinayak Temple Trust in Mumbai, managing assets worth ₹1,000 crore, faced allegations of financial irregularities. Inflated renovation contracts and underreported donations were uncovered, with trust members accused of awarding contracts to favored vendors. The scandal, echoing Waqf mismanagement in Tamil Nadu, led to public demands for stricter audits.
Source: Mid-Day (2021)

These cases underscore the urgent need for transparency, digitized records, and robust oversight to protect Debutter properties as well from mismanagement and corruption. Hindu extremist groups like the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) demand “freeing temples from government control,” arguing state oversight (e.g., diverting temple funds) undermines autonomy, akin to Muslim objections to Waqf amendments. No national legislation targets Debutter properties, but state reforms (e.g., Karnataka’s 2011 Hindu Religious Institutions Act) spark debates over interference, yet again.

IV. Why Is Debutter Property Not Being Talked About as Much?

Despite PRETTY CLOSE parallels with Waqf, Debutter issues receive less attention due to the following:

1. Political Polarization and Communal Narratives:
   • Waqf controversies are framed as Hindu-Muslim conflicts (e.g., Tamil Nadu temple claim), fueling media and X posts by BJP leaders like Tejasvi Surya. Debutter disputes, being intra-Hindu or bureaucratic, lack communal traction.
2. Lack of a Unified National Law:
   • Waqf’s 2025 amendments created a national flashpoint, while Debutter’s state-specific laws (e.g., Tamil Nadu’s 1959 Act) make issues less visible. No “Debutter Amendment Bill” exists to galvanize debate.
3. Media and Political Prioritization:
   • Waqf’s passage in April 2025 (Lok Sabha: 288-232, Rajya Sabha: April 4) and incidents like Karnataka’s 1,500-acre claim dominate headlines. Debutter issues, like Tamil Nadu’s 47,000 acres, are reported as local failures.
4. Perceived Majoritarian Bias:
   • The BJP prioritizes Waqf reforms to appeal to its Hindu base (and Hindu rhetoric cum polemic), framing Waqf boards as encroaching on non-Muslim lands. Highlighting Debutter mismanagement risks alienating voters by exposing failures in Hindu institutions. Opposition parties avoid temple reforms to sidestep accusations of pandering to the Hindu Right.
5. Community Mobilization:
   • Muslim groups, like the AIMPLB, mobilized millions against Waqf amendments. Hindu groups (e.g., VHP, RSS) focus on specific temples (e.g., Tirupati, Sabarimala), lacking a unified “Debutter crisis” narrative, given that the “Hindu” umbrella is rife with its own disunity or lack of a sense of belongingness (a la Ambedkar!).
6. Historical and Legal Sensitivities:
   • Waqf disputes involve post-partition or colonial-era records, making them communal flashpoints. Debutter disputes, rooted in pre-colonial grants, lack partition-related baggage.
   • Waqf’s pre-2025 ability to claim properties arbitrarily fueled outcry, unlike Debutter’s stricter dedication requirements.
7. Scale of Public Perception:
   • Waqf boards’ status as the third-largest landowner and claims on landmarks (e.g., Taj Mahal) draw scrutiny. Debutter properties, fragmented across temples, lack centralized data to highlight their scale.

The Mitakshara-Dayabhaga Dissonance: An Unresolvable (Self-)Contradiction for the Hindutvavadins?

More importantly, a “uniform” Hindu law for resolving Debutter disputes is unattainable, despite the desires of Hindutva advocates, due to the diverse property inheritance frameworks encompassed by the umbrella term “Hindu,” which include systems like “Mitaksara,” “Dayabhaga,” and others such as Marumakkatayam.

The application of property rights concerning Devottara/Debutter property under the Mitaksara and Dayabhaga schools of Hindu law differs significantly due to their distinct approaches to property ownership, inheritance, and control.

Mitaksara School and Devottara/Debutter Property

The Mitaksara school, dominant across India except Bengal and Assam, governs joint family property with inheritance by birth. Key aspects of Devottara (property dedicated to a deity) under this school include:

• Limited Alienation Power: The Karta or coparceners cannot alienate joint family property for Devottara without other coparceners’ consent, as property is collectively owned by male coparceners (up to four generations). Alienation is allowed only in emergencies (Apatkale), for family benefit (Kutumbarthe), or religious purposes (Dharmarthe). Unauthorized dedications are invalid.
• Endowment Creation: A coparcener cannot unilaterally dedicate ancestral property for Devottara due to undefined shares until partition. The Karta needs family consent and alignment with religious/charitable goals to create a valid endowment.
• Management: Devottara property vests in the deity (a juristic person) and is managed by a shebait/trustee for worship or endowment purposes. The Mitaksara’s patriarchal system historically limited women’s roles in management, with shebaitship typically passing through male lines. Post-2005 Hindu Succession Amendment Act, daughters gained coparcenary rights.

Dayabhaga School and Devottara/Debutter Property

The Dayabhaga school, prevalent in Bengal and Assam, emphasizes individual ownership and inheritance upon death, offering more flexibility for Devottara property:

• Absolute Alienation Power: Individuals, including fathers, have full control to dedicate self-acquired or inherited property as Devottara without needing family consent. This stems from defined property rights during the owner’s lifetime, unlike Mitaksara’s collective ownership.
• Endowment Creation: A coparcener can unilaterally dedicate property for Devottara, as shares are defined. This simplifies creating religious/charitable endowments, with property vesting in the deity upon dedication.
• Management: Devottara property is managed by a shebait/trustee for the deity’s benefit, with Dayabhaga allowing flexibility in appointing shebaits, including women, due to its relatively progressive stance on female inheritance.
• Women’s Role: Dayabhaga grants widows and daughters inheritance rights, even pre-2005, enabling them to inherit, dedicate, or manage Devottara property as shebaits, especially without male heirs, unlike Mitaksara’s restrictions.  

  Key Differences in Devottara/Debutter Property Rights: In A Nutshell  

• 
  
  

  UNIFORM CIVIL CODE FOR THE HINDUS? REALLY SO? VIEW HERE ⤡ 

  
  

• V. Conclusion: Critical Analysis

  The Waqf controversy’s prominence highlights India’s polarized political fault lines, where reforms are debated through the communal lens of Hindutva Majoritarianism.

  Debutter properties face crucial issues—encroachment (Tamil Nadu’s 47,000 acres), corruption (TTD’s ₹5,000 crore losses), and state overreach (Sabarimala’s fund diversion)—but their fragmented governance and lack of a national legislative trigger limit visibility. Moreover, the current ruling party’s partisan approach targets minorities without addressing their own religious community’s inner contradictions and disputes. The scale of Debutter mismanagement suggests a crisis as severe as that of Waqf; however, political incentives prioritize Waqf reforms for communal and vote-bank gains by leveraging religion time and again. A unified Hindu endowments law could streamline management but risks further state control, which concerns both communities. The selective focus on Waqf reflects a discourse where communal narratives overshadow shared governance challenges, hinting at a form of majoritarianism that amplifies minority issues while sidelining those of the majority.

  A balanced approach requires addressing both systems’ inefficiencies through transparent, community-driven reforms. Harmonious dialogue, rather than violent, state-backed polarization, is essential to uphold constitutional protections while unlocking the economic potential of Waqf (₹12,000 crore) and Debutter (₹6,000 crore in Tamil Nadu alone) for community welfare. Until then, the conspiracy of silence on Debutter properties underscores a missed opportunity to tackle parallel crises in India’s religious endowments.

  The Supreme Court of India is currently evaluating (even critiquing) the Waqf Amendment Act, and the hearings are ongoing; consequently, the existing Waqf administration has not been denotified. It remains to be seen what outcomes will emerge from this process of judicial scrutiny, particularly in an era when the judiciary is perceived to be increasingly aligned with the Saffronized political executive.

  It is observed that, even in laypersons’ gaze, the Waqf controversy is nothing more than a step towards a Hindu Rastra by annihilating the “other.” Though organized, institutionalized Hindutva serves as a mirror image of Judeo-Abrahamic religions, yet, out of anxiety over termination, it annihilates the “other” as a form of psychic self-defense. When the manufacturing industry is at stake in the context of a banana republic, the Hindu governmentality insists on building up religion as an industry/business, from which they can elicit profits. The rem(a)inder is that the inhabitants of Ayodhya collect the residue of lamp oil to prepare their food. The lamp of hunger has been switched off. What is to be done with temples, mosques, cathedrals, etc., during times of hungry generations, the “other” 98%?

• https://youtu.be/aaFNdpu9tU8

• 

  Sources

  • Waqf: BBC, Frontline, Wikipedia, India Today, PIB, Sachar Committee (2006).
  • Debutter: Tamil Nadu HR&CE Department, The Hindu (2021), The Times of India (2018), Deccan Herald (2020), The Indian Express (2021), The New Indian Express (2023), Mid-Day (2021).

  SEE ALSO:

• Islamophobia: The Manufactured Illness of Sick Indian Hindutvavādins VIEW HERE ⤡

https://youtu.be/270pVuZ7wxU

https://youtu.be/ec3xmyXDoZA

https://youtu.be/c0rudYxoD80

https://youtu.be/kjQAtF-1lZo