Backlash in Kashmir over proposal for uniform Friday sermons across mosques

A uniform Friday sermon means mosques across Kashmir would recite the same pre-approved khutba, or Friday sermon. The proposal matters because sermons currently allow individual clerics to address topics they choose. Critics see a single script as government-backed control over religious speech.

The Waqf Board said a committee of senior scholars would identify issues and prepare the sermon. Darakshan Andrabi said religious scholars, not government officials, would approve the content. A scholar who attended the meeting said Andrabi instructed that only the approved sermon would be delivered from mosque pulpits.

The proposal had not yet become an established practice across Kashmir in the article. Religious leaders objected because they feared sermons could conflict with Islamic teachings or restrict local expression. Andrabi defended the plan as a way to address social problems, including drug abuse. Its future depends on whether the board proceeds despite the backlash.

About 1,500 top scholars and preachers were summoned by the Jammu and Kashmir Waqf Board to discuss the proposed uniform Friday sermons. The scale of the meeting shows that the plan affects religious leaders across the Kashmir region, rather than only one mosque or district.

The board held the meeting on Sunday. Some scholars attended at the venue, while others joined online from remote areas. One participating scholar came from Rajouri, a mountainous district about 180 kilometres from Srinagar, the region’s biggest city.

The meeting did not settle the controversy. A scholar said Andrabi instructed participants that mosques would use a sermon drafted by a committee of senior-most scholars. Leaders objected that they did not know who would sit on that committee. The article does not state how many supported the proposal or whether the board later implemented it.

The Jammu and Kashmir Waqf Board oversees Muslim religious endowments, or waqf. These are charitable bequests that Muslims dedicate to wider communal welfare. The board’s basic role is managing these religious assets and institutions under arrangements governed by Islamic law.

The controversy began when the board proposed uniform Friday sermons. Darakshan Andrabi, who heads the board, said a committee under its auspices would identify issues for a common sermon. Nayeem Akhtar argued that the board’s job is managerial, not to tell clerics how to preach. This distinction is central to the dispute.

The board is operating under a system that gives broad powers to federally controlled bureaucracy in managing local religious boards. Local leaders have repeatedly accused it of interfering with traditional religious practices. Andrabi said scholars would approve sermons without government officials deciding their content. The article does not describe any final legal ruling on the board’s authority.

Politicians and religious leaders called the proposal interference because it could replace locally chosen religious speech with one centrally approved message. They argue that clerics should be free to discuss topics of their choice. For them, the issue involves both religious practice and freedom of expression.

The concern became sharper because the board is headed by Darakshan Andrabi, a local leader associated with Prime Minister Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party. A scholar said objections about possible conflict with Islamic teachings were brushed aside. Nayeem Akhtar also said the board was exceeding its managerial remit by guiding clerics.

The proposal follows India’s 2019 removal of Kashmir’s semi-autonomous status and the replacement of local waqf arrangements with rules used across India. Critics therefore see the sermon plan as part of a wider expansion of federally controlled authority. Andrabi says scholars, rather than officials, will approve the sermons and that the aim includes addressing drug abuse.

Before 2019, Kashmir’s special status allowed Kashmiris to make their own laws and protected land and residency-related privileges. Waqf institutions were managed under Indigenous legal arrangements. These arrangements governed charitable religious endowments and reflected the region’s own institutional framework.

India then scrapped Kashmir’s semi-autonomous status and imposed direct federal rule. Kashmir was also divided into two federally governed territories. The article says local waqf arrangements were replaced by those prevailing across India, creating a system in which federally controlled bureaucracy gained broad powers over religious boards.

That change forms the background to the sermon dispute. Since 2019, local Kashmiri leaders have repeatedly accused the Waqf Board of undermining religious freedom or interfering with practices followed for generations. The article says authority remains de facto with a New Delhi-appointed administrator, even after elections in 2024. It does not state that the sermon proposal has been finally implemented.

If every mosque must deliver one centrally approved sermon, Friday worship would become more standardized across Kashmir. The change could help the board promote common messages about social problems, such as drug abuse. But it could also limit the variety of issues clerics address and weaken local religious judgment.

The proposed mechanism is a committee of senior scholars operating under the Waqf Board. One scholar said Andrabi instructed participants that only a pre-approved sermon would be recited at mosque pulpits. Participants were not told exactly who would serve on the committee. The scholar also said concerns about violating Islamic teachings were dismissed.

The article records opposition, not a confirmed final outcome. Religious leaders may continue challenging the plan as interference in religious affairs and expression. If implemented, the policy would increase the board’s influence over mosque speech. If abandoned or changed, local clerics could retain their existing freedom to choose sermon topics.

Separating government authority from religious teaching matters because a secular state is expected to govern citizens without directing their religious beliefs or speech. In the article, this principle supports the view that clerics should retain freedom to choose what they discuss during Friday sermons. It also limits the risk of political power shaping religious guidance.

Nayeem Akhtar contrasted the proposed centralized sermons with earlier sermons delivered in the name of an Islamic sultan or caliph. He said those had a different basis because Kashmir was then an Islamic state. In the present secular state, he argued, every cleric should be free to speak about any topic while having an audience.

The dispute shows why institutional boundaries matter. If a government-linked board controls sermon content, critics may see that as interference rather than administration. Andrabi says scholars, not officials, would approve the sermons. The article leaves unresolved whether that arrangement would satisfy opponents or protect meaningful independence.