Swacchata Aandolan drowing in manholes
Two news items were dismissed in the corner of national newspapers on Tuesday. Three pourakarmikas breathed their last in manholes filled with excreta in Loni area of Ghaziabad district or North India. They were entrusted with the job of clearing the manhole of human waste. Their deaths hardly made any news because they mean nothing to political parties. Hence the politicians have also maintained distance from this. At the same time, a Poura Karmika has committed suicide in Bengaluru, over non-payment of his salary for the last six months. Though these are separate incidents, they are connected in many ways.
Ever since Narendra Modi assumed office, he has been talking about ‘Swacchata’ or cleanliness. Crores of money is being spent on this. Government even levies separate taxes on people in the name of cleanliness or Swacchata. When one takes stock of what changes have taken place owing to all this sloganeering and collection of taxes, it is hugely disappointing. Even now, men are made to get into the manholes to clear the debris. And if they die there, no one cares about their loss of life. The life that is lost is never compensated. Government is unable to pay even basic salaries to Poura Karmikas. All this lays bare the failure of swacchata aandolan right before us.
Roads do not clean themselves if one puts out ads worth crores by the road sides. The manholes do not clear themselves of debris if lakhs and lakhs is released to respective departments. All the waste does not dump itself in the bins, as soon as PM Modi delivers a speech about that. If the drains, roads and manholes are neat every morning, lakhs of Poura Karmikas work on that. They have been sweeping our roads since ages. If the roads have not been clean after spending many lakhs, it is because our leaders have ignored the Poura Karmikas who are the spine of our hygienic surroundings. Our leaders possibly think that roads would be clean listening to their speeches on the topic.
Swacchata Andolan has to start from giving basic facilities to Poura Karmikas, and ensuring high end technology is used in cleaning roads and manholes. But the Ghaziabad tragedy shows all the money that was collected, was hardly spent on the sanitation workers. Today we speak of competing with China, Singapore etc. We want the world to look at us because we will soon have a bullet train. But the dead bodies of Poura Karmikas tell a different story altogether. Our ISRO has plans to send humans to Mars and Moon. Soon we will have robots helping us in daily chores.
Prime Minister talks about digital banking regularly. But the machines are not used in cleaning manholes though it is feasible. Singapore has taken technology right into manholes and cleaning them. Why is that not possible for Indians? Because in India, there is a caste that is exclusively made to get into manholes. They have to attain their salvation by getting into manholes and clearing the debris. Our own Prime Minister had said this in a public event. He possibly thinks these people do not have feelings and they are lifeless fools. Which is why the money collected for Swacchata Aandolan is not being used for the purpose.
The case of suicide of Poura Karmika in Bangalore is the heights of cruelty. The BBMP made the life of this Poura Karmika miserable by not paying him for six months. When people who work in dire conditions such as this do not get paid on time, what right do we have to speak about health and sanitation?
These poura karmikas work with their entire life at risk. The government has to give them shoes and gloves. But when officers are hardly bothered about paying them their salaries, how do we expect them to be human and duty bound to do good for the Poura Karmikas or even buy them machines to do their work better?
Today, the sanitation contract has been given to private contractors. Though the government has given some benefits to sanitation workers, the private contractors do not pass it on to the labourers. It would be on record, but would have never reached the beneficiaries.
Now if the sanitation worker stop working even for a week, the whole nation will turn into slums. If this country has to be beautiful and clean, the life of Poura Karmikas needs to get better. If they die cleaning manholes, at least Rs 25 lakh needs to be given as compensation. Their children have to be educated for free and their families should get pensions. Because they are as important as the soldiers who guard our borders. They risk their lives to ensure the city, and its roads remain clean. They get into the manholes, risking their lives and never knowing if they would return alive or not. When they lose lives, we need to understand the sacrifice and we need to pay due respects to them by doing our duty towards safeguarding their lives. We need to take this flag of hygiene in our own hands. Only then, the movement would gain some meaning and depth in its significance.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Explained: What is Waqf by User?
_vb_52_vb_41.jpeg)
The Supreme Court on Thursday resumed hearing petitions that have challenged the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, with key concerns raised about the removal of the concept of ‘waqf by user’. This clause, which has been part of Waqf property recognition in India for decades, was omitted in the latest amendment, raising fears that thousands of longstanding religious properties may lose their legal status.
Appearing for the Central government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the new amendment, saying there was growing concern over large portions of land being declared as Waqf without proper documentation. He said such declarations had created confusion and controversy in many parts of the country.
However, the Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) expressed strong reservations about the deletion of ‘waqf by user’. On Wednesday, the bench had clearly warned that the change in law could impact the status of thousands of properties that have been used for religious or charitable purposes for decades—especially those in villages and older urban areas where formal land documents were never created.
During Thursday’s hearing, the Court granted seven days’ time to the Centre to file a detailed preliminary response on the matter.
"Genuine Properties Will Be Affected Too": Supreme Court’s Concern
Raising a crucial question, the CJI asked the Centre, “How will you register such waqfs by user? What documents will they have? It will lead to undoing something. Yes, there is some misuse. But there are genuine ones also.”
The bench highlighted that many waqf properties have been recognised by courts based on long-standing use, not on paper deeds. It added that any move to undo this recognition—by de-notifying such properties—would not be right while the matter is still being heard.
The top court made it clear that waqf properties already declared by courts—whether through written deeds or based on usage—should not be touched until the challenge to the Waqf Amendment Act 2025 is fully examined.
What is ‘Waqf by User’?
In this context, the idea of ‘Waqf by user’ becomes important to understand.
‘Waqf by user’ refers to properties that may not have formal Waqf deeds or registration but have been in continuous public use for religious or charitable purposes—such as mosques, dargahs, graveyards, madrassas, or wells—often for several generations. These properties are treated as Waqf based on usage, not documents.
This concept allowed many old religious properties, especially in rural and semi-urban India, to be protected under Waqf laws, even if no official records were available. The logic was that community usage and religious practice over time was enough proof of the property's nature.
But the Waqf Amendment Act 2025 proposes to remove this recognition, stating that only those waqfs that are properly documented should be registered. This has now led to a legal challenge in the Supreme Court.
Legal Backing in India
The concept of Waqf by user is recognised under The Waqf Act, 1995, and earlier under The Mussalman Waqf Validating Acts during British rule.
Under the Waqf Act, 1995, the State Waqf Boards are allowed to identify, survey and register Waqf properties. While some Waqf properties have formal written deeds, others are registered based on field surveys, public evidence, and usage patterns.
This is particularly important in villages and older towns, where many mosques, dargahs, and graveyards were built centuries ago without formal registration.
Examples of Waqf by User
A small mosque in a village has been used for namaz for over 100 years, but there is no official document showing who donated the land. It is still considered Waqf by user.
A piece of land is being used as a Muslim graveyard for decades. Even if there is no title deed in the Waqf Board's name, the Board can register it as Waqf by user.
A dargah visited by people for generations without any formal land record can be listed as Waqf by user during official surveys.
How is ‘Waqf by User’ Recognised?
The process usually involves the following steps:
Waqf Survey Commissioner conducts a detailed survey in each state.
During the survey, locals and community leaders are consulted.
Properties that have been in religious or charitable use over time are identified.
These are registered under the State Waqf Board, even if no one comes forward as the donor.
The property is then protected under Waqf law.
The registered name in revenue or municipal records may still show as “government land” or “public land”, but once it is declared Waqf by user, it cannot be sold, transferred, or misused.
Why the Controversy?
The Centre argues that many properties have been wrongly declared as Waqf under the ‘waqf by user’ category, leading to land ownership disputes and encroachments. Critics, however, say the removal of this clause could wipe out legal recognition of genuine Waqf properties, especially in areas where such assets were created generations ago without written donations.
The Supreme Court’s current observation suggests that the court may lean towards a more balanced approach—recognising that while there may be misuse, the removal of ‘waqf by user’ entirely would also harm legitimate religious institutions and community properties.
What Next?
The Supreme Court has asked the Centre to clarify how it plans to deal with such properties in the absence of ‘waqf by user’ recognition. The next steps in the hearing will determine whether the amendment stands or whether changes will be suggested to protect historically used religious lands.
