A recent report in NDTV quoted Omar Abdullah defending an administrative order in Jammu and Kashmir regulating the collection of charity during Ramzan, and the development has prompted a debate that extends far beyond one district or one month. Some have characterised the measure as unnecessary interference in religious practice, while others have welcomed it as a corrective step towards accountability in faith-based giving. My own position cannot be reduced to either reaction, because I support transparency in religious charity, yet I remain wary when reform appears to be applied selectively or disproportionately.
Personal Lessons on Charity and Due Diligence
My support for regulation is grounded in personal experience rather than abstract theory. A few years ago, individuals approached us claiming to be reverts to Islam who had allegedly been ostracised by their families and left without financial support, and their account was sufficiently compelling to move us into action. With sincerity and urgency, we mobilised friends and relatives and raised a substantial sum to assist them with accommodation and subsistence, believing that we were fulfilling both a moral and religious duty. Subsequent inquiries exposed inconsistencies in their documentation and narrative, and it gradually became clear that the emotional appeal had masked factual irregularities that we should have verified earlier.
In another instance, funds were collected in the name of a masjid renovation and a madrasa expansion, yet the collectors were unable to provide registration details, audited accounts or formal receipts when reasonable questions were raised. The response suggested that seeking documentation reflected a lack of trust, as though procedural clarity were incompatible with piety. These experiences convinced me that informal systems, however well intentioned, create opportunities for misuse and misunderstanding, and that transparency in religious charity enhances rather than diminishes the moral authority of faith-based institutions.
Why Ramzan Charity Needs Transparency
It is therefore legitimate for an administration to require registration, documentation and oversight for public collections conducted in the name of religion, particularly during Ramzan when charitable giving intensifies and large sums are mobilised within a short period. Donors deserve assurance that their contributions reach intended beneficiaries, and genuine institutions benefit when their credibility is reinforced through proper compliance. The sanctity of zakat and sadaqah is preserved through integrity and clarity, not weakened by procedural safeguards.
Waqf Reform and Fears of Selective Enforcement
The debate, however, acquires a more complex dimension when placed alongside discussions surrounding the Waqf Amendment Bill and the broader framework of the Waqf Act, where sections of the Muslim community have questioned not merely the substance of proposed reforms but also the pattern within which they appear. Reform of waqf governance is necessary, as digitisation of records, professional auditing and protection of assets from encroachment are long overdue, yet concern arises when scrutiny appears disproportionately concentrated upon one community’s institutional ecosystem while others function without comparable legislative intensity.
If transparency is presented as a principle of governance, it must operate uniformly rather than selectively, because selective enforcement undermines the legitimacy that reform seeks to establish. The controversy surrounding the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 illustrates why legislative intent is closely examined, as the introduction of religion as an explicit criterion in fast-tracking citizenship marked a departure from the traditionally religion-neutral character of Indian citizenship law. While the government defended the Act as a humanitarian measure addressing persecution in neighbouring countries, many Muslims perceived the exclusionary structure as a signal that legislative reform was not being framed on equal constitutional terms.
Similarly, property demolitions in Uttar Pradesh under the administration of Yogi Adityanath have attracted scrutiny where demolitions followed communal tensions and were perceived to disproportionately affect Muslim homes and commercial establishments. Officials have defended such actions as enforcement against illegal constructions, yet the timing and pattern in certain instances have led civil society observers to question whether administrative power is being exercised evenly. Even when legality is asserted, perception of asymmetry affects public trust in neutrality.
CAA, Hijab, Triple Talaq: Pattern of Anxiety
The hijab controversy in Karnataka further intensified anxieties regarding selective focus, as Muslim female students became central to a policy debate framed around uniformity and discipline in educational institutions. While the state emphasised institutional order, critics questioned why visible expressions of minority religious identity were subjected to regulatory intervention in a society otherwise marked by plural cultural practices. The issue extended beyond attire to the symbolic message conveyed when minority identity becomes the focal point of administrative discipline.
The enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, which criminalised instant triple talaq, also generated debate regarding legislative symmetry, because although the objective of protecting Muslim women’s rights was widely acknowledged, the decision to criminalise a marital practice within one personal law framework raised questions about comparative treatment of matrimonial disputes in other communities. When civil disputes in one context are treated as criminal offences in another, legislative intent inevitably becomes a subject of scrutiny.
Investigative actions by agencies such as the Enforcement Directorate have, in certain high-profile cases involving Muslim political figures or charitable bodies, been interpreted through a communal lens, particularly when comparable intensity is not perceived in relation to similarly placed entities outside the community. Communal violence investigations in Delhi have likewise produced contested narratives about the distribution of prosecutorial focus and the invocation of stringent statutory provisions. Even if each action is defensible on legal grounds, the cumulative pattern influences how subsequent reforms are received.
Public discourse around halal meat sellers provides another example of perceived asymmetry, as small Muslim vendors often encounter administrative scrutiny and social pressure, whereas large-scale beef export enterprises operate through formal approvals, export licences and economic clearances. The contrast creates an impression that regulatory attention descends more readily upon economically vulnerable actors than upon structurally embedded commercial networks, and such disparities reinforce suspicion that reform is not always neutral in its practical application.
Equal Standards for All Religious Institutions
My earlier writings on Muslim empowerment have consistently argued that the community must invest in civic literacy and legal awareness rather than rely solely upon emotional mobilisation, because institutional strength is built through compliance, documentation and strategic engagement with constitutional frameworks. Masjid committees, madrasa boards and waqf bodies should maintain audited accounts, digitise property records and train administrators in governance standards so that their operations withstand legal scrutiny without hesitation. Legal compliance is not submission to authority but an assertion of institutional maturity, and internal reform should be embraced as a means of strengthening collective credibility.
At the same time, equality before the law requires that comparable standards of disclosure and accountability apply across religious institutions, including temple trusts, mutts and church bodies, so that transparency is understood as a constitutional norm rather than a communal measure. Empowerment cannot be delivered through suspicion, nor can dignity be secured without internal discipline, and therefore both the state and the community bear responsibility for ensuring that integrity is pursued consistently and visibly.
Administrative regulation of Ramzan charity collections may prevent fraud and protect donors, just as waqf reform may secure valuable assets for future generations, yet the credibility of such measures ultimately depends upon whether they are embedded within a framework of equal standards. Transparency must function as a universal governance principle rather than a targeted instrument, and accountability must strengthen institutions across communities without reinforcing perceptions of selective scrutiny. Only when reform is applied consistently, and when legislative intent reflects constitutional equality in both substance and perception, can regulation transform from a source of distrust into a foundation of shared institutional confidence.
