I. Ahmed Wani
In the shadow of the snow-capped Himalayas, where the call to prayer echoes through the valleys of Jammu and Kashmir, a pressing question lingers: Why the hesitation to register mosques and madrasas? As a resident of Srinagar, I’ve witnessed our region’s turbulent history—from the abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019 to the fragile peace we’re building. Yet, amid promises of development and security, one critical reform remains stalled: systematic registration and oversight of these religious institutions. Politicians decry it as an assault on faith, but Muslim-majority nations worldwide show it’s standard practice. If Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan can regulate mosques without eroding Islam’s sanctity, why does Kashmir’s political class resist? And why wasn’t this a top priority for the Centre and state police post-370?
The global context debunks claims that registration is a uniquely oppressive Indian idea. In Pakistan, mosques register under the Societies Registration Act of 1860 as societies, trusts, or waqfs. They require proof of land ownership, national ID for committee members, affidavits, and NOCs from provincial Auqaf Departments to combat money laundering. Major sites like Islamabad’s Faisal Mosque receive government funding and imam appointments—without cries of “Islam in danger.”
Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Islamic Affairs micromanages mosques: planning, construction, operations, with state-salaried imams, muezzins, and staff. Late 2025 saw announcements of over 31,000 positions. This is stewardship, not tyranny, aligning faith with national standards.
Turkey’s Diyanet oversees 85,000–89,000 Sunni mosques, funding them, appointing imams, and guiding sermons. Private ones register as associations or foundations under government oversight, curbing extremism without stifling devotion.
Similar systems exist in Malaysia (state Islamic councils require permissions), Egypt (Ministry of Awqaf licenses and monitors to fight radicalism), UAE (emirate bodies demand licenses and financial plans), Indonesia (registrations via foundations), and Qatar (MEIA approves operations). These norms foster accountability, prevent misuse, and integrate faith with governance.
So why the fury in Kashmir? Politicians call it “interference,” yet our history demands it. Unchecked sites have become terror havens: the 1993 Hazratbal siege (militants barricaded for 32 days, holding a sacred relic hostage); the 1995 Charar-e-Sharif burning (Pakistani terrorist Mast Gul used the Sufi shrine as a fortress, escaped after it was torched); 2010 Sopore hideouts; 2016 unrest fueled by radicals in religious spaces; preachers like Abu Dujana and Zakir Musa radicalizing youth from pulpits. Unregistered madrasas, with untraceable funds, have served as recruitment hubs. Religious fanaticism—often Wahhabi-influenced—drives terror here, eroding our tolerant Sufi traditions.
Imams and molvis must answer to nation and society, not just sects. If school teachers register, why not preachers shaping minds? Registration ensures sermons promote harmony, not hate; tracks funding to block terror finance; vets staff against radicals. With intelligence on foreign meddling via waqfs, inaction betrays post-370 promises of integration and security.
The abrogation enabled uniform laws—madrasa registration should have led. The 2020 Waqf Board revamp aimed to map properties and curb misuse, but progress is slow. By 2023, only a fraction of 10,000+ madrasas were surveyed amid resistance. Mosques get sporadic NOCs, no comprehensive registry. Police actions—like 2024 Anantnag arms recovery in a madrasa—highlight issues, yet systemic reform lags.
Recent efforts show movement: As of early 2026, J&K Police are collecting detailed data on mosques and madrasas, including land status (state, milkiyat, or shamilaat), funding, management, and personnel details. This follows busts of terror modules, aiming for transparency.
A key apprehension among common masses: many mosques and madrasas stand on government land, grazing land (kahcharai), or encroached sites—dozens along river banks from Anantnag to Srinagar, often on Jhelum or other waterways. People fear demolition or strict action if registration exposes irregularities. Yet, I remain hopeful: the government could offer a one-time concession or regularization for these existing structures, provided they register voluntarily. This pragmatic approach would address security without disrupting worship, building trust.
Political opportunism stalls progress. Parties like PDP and NC fuel “anti-Islam” fears for votes, ignoring how regulation protects Muslims from radical fringes. Delays embolden separatists; unregistered sites still risk misuse.
Envision registered mosques: licensed imams, audited funds, community boards. Madrasas blending modern education with Deeniyat, producing patriots. This echoes global models—Saudi state imams deter extremism, Egypt curbs radical influence. In Kashmir, it could heal scars from Hazratbal to Charar, prevent future tragedies.
Critics cry “Muslim profiling.” Untrue—Hindus register temples under trusts; Sikhs via SGPC. Equality requires the same here. With ISI’s infiltration history via “charity,” delay is risky. Centre and police: act now—post-370, this was your mandate. Implement before another shrine suffers or terrorist escapes.
Faith in our valley is resilience. Registration honors it, keeping mosques as beacons of peace, not battlegrounds. Molvis: your duty is to God and country. Politicians: drop the drama. Kashmir deserves better.
