Kerala Chief Minister V. D. Satheesan blamed the Waqf Board constituted by the previous government for the Munambam issue—a dispute over 404 acres of land where more than 600 families reside, but is claimed by the Waqf Board—remaining unresolved.
Satheesan said there had been an attempt to turn two religious communities into enemies and accused the former government of doing exactly that by registering the disputed land on the UMEED portal.
The Chief Minister said the outgoing Waqf Board intended to “leave after causing serious trouble.” However, he assured that the present government would protect the current residents of the disputed property in Munambam.
When he was Leader of the Opposition, Satheesan had claimed that the issue could be resolved by the government within 10 minutes. He alleged that steps were deliberately taken to prevent the new government from arriving at a permanent solution. Satheesan also said the Sangh Parivar had tried to create communal division over the issue and that, through the Waqf Board’s actions, it had become clear that the CPI(M) was also attempting the same.
Satheesan said the registration of the land on the portal was effectively an effort to declare it Waqf property. The Chief Minister added that, through that stance, the previous government had effectively treated the residents as encroachers. He also promised that the issue would be resolved.
Earlier, Deepika, the mouthpiece of the Catholic Church, had published an editorial against the registration of the disputed land on the UMEED portal. The editorial said the Waqf Board was challenging the families—mostly Christians—living on the disputed land and demanded that the UMEED notification be cancelled.
The editorial further stated that, by registering the Munambam land as Waqf property on the UMEED portal, the Waqf Board had challenged the secular fabric of Kerala. It also claimed that the Waqf Board would have a place in history for contributing to the rise of aggressive Hindutva politics in India.
Although the central government amended the law, the editorial noted that the amendment did not contain any provision to protect Munambam residents who had already been trapped under religious law before the changes came into effect. It said this effectively enabled the Board to continue its “hunt” in Munambam. While acknowledging that the Pinarayi government had made some efforts, the editorial said it failed to resolve the issue.
It was against the backdrop of this editorial that the Chief Minister reacted to the Munambam issue. Satheesan maintained that the Waqf Board formed during the previous Left government still continues, and therefore the Left government is responsible for the UMEED notification.
Meanwhile, the protest committee has decided to intensify its agitation over the disputed land. The committee’s position is that registering the land on the UMEED portal does not change the arguments it has raised regarding ownership of the land. Committee members pointed out that, for registration on the UMEED portal, the land must be one for which the Waqf Board has been paying land tax, must have a possession certificate, and must have completed transfer procedures. According to the committee, the WAQF Board does not have these three documents, yet it was still registered as Waqf property.
The committee said it would urge the Chief Minister to dissolve the current Waqf Board for adding the land to the register without following legal procedures. Since the current board was appointed by the Left government, the committee expressed hope that the demand would be accepted.
Meanwhile, the CPI(M) blamed the new government for the issue remaining unresolved. Former law minister P. Rajeeve said the Munambam issue cannot be solved through “10-minute” political claims and should instead be resolved using the Justice C.N. Ramachandran Nair Commission report prepared by the previous government.
Rajeeve argued that the legal status of the land is still unresolved, with conflicting court observations and the matter pending before the Waqf Tribunal. He also noted that the previous government’s position was that, regardless of whether the land is ultimately declared Waqf property or not, the priority should be protecting the rights of residents.
“One option is to hold discussions with Farook College and arrive at a solution. Another option is to register, as Waqf property, the land purchased by Farook College using the money obtained from selling this land, and then remove this land from the Waqf register. If this land is indeed Waqf property, then alternative land should be provided to the Waqf Board in exchange for removing it from the register, and the necessary commitments for this should be obtained from Farook College,” he said.
“These are very reasonable recommendations in the commission report. Whether it is Waqf land or not, the residents should be given complete protection of their rights. That was the stand taken by the previous government,” Rajeeve added.
He also urged the current government to revive and fast-track the committee set up to implement those recommendations instead of engaging in political blame game.