Kashmir's Faith, Land, And Power Clash
By Mushtaq Ul Haq Ahmad Sikander, New Age Islam
7 January 2026
Dr. Sandeep Mawa's protests against temple encroachments have sparked a public feud with Maulana Ghulam Rasool Hami over alleged illegal use of government land by Karwan-e-Islami.
Mawa accuses Hami of operating institutions on state land and selling portions, labeling him harshly amid social media debates. Hami and supporters defend him through press conferences, highlighting escalating tensions.
Religious leaders build networks of madrasas and trusts funded by donations, often lacking oversight and functioning as family enterprises. State and media enable opacity for stability, while social media demands transparency.
…
The Tussle Between Dr Sandeep Mawa & Maulana Ghulam Rasool Hami: A Deeper Look at Faith, Property and Power in Kashmir
Recent weeks have seen Dr Sandeep Mawa, a Kashmiri Pandit activist-turned-politician, at the forefront of protests against alleged encroachment of temple lands in the Valley. He has led demonstrations at Lal Chowk and historic temple sites, calling for removal of encroachments, a commission of inquiry, and legal protection for what he describes as centuries-old Pandit heritage under siege.
Mawa’s activism has resonated with many displaced and local Pandits who feel that their religious spaces and properties have been neglected or quietly usurped over the decades. His call for freeing encroached temple land and preserving religious sites is, at least in principle, a necessary demand in any rule-of-law society. Yet his frequent shifts in political alignment and emergence as a loud, personalised face of “heritage politics” have also rendered him as “Ponty Chadha of Pandit politics” suggesting that piety and public interest are difficult to disentangle from self-promotion and ambition.
The Charges Against Hami And A Wider Pattern
In his latest salvo, Mawa has accused Maulana Ghulam Rasool Hami—head of the influential Barelwi outfit Karwan-e-Islami—of running institutions on government land and even selling portions of it, branding him publicly as a “Daku Mangal Singh”. Supporters of Karwan-e-Islami have reacted angrily, defending their leader, while Hami has addressed press conferences in his own defence amid heightened tensions.
The specific allegation centres on the Karwan-e-Islami properties, which Mawa claims is situated on state land, an assertion now being widely debated on social media and local platforms. Whether these claims stand legal scrutiny is a matter for investigative agencies and courts, but the issue itself is hardly unique: Allegedly there is an existence of over a thousand illegal religious structures—mosques, temples, shrines and others—across the region. This is part of a broader national pattern in which religious institutions of all faiths, not just one community, have been found on encroached public land.
Encroached Faith: Mosques, Temples and Floodplains
The 2014 Kashmir floods, described as the worst in a century, brought a harsh reminder of the cost of unregulated construction. Expert reports pointed to encroachment on floodplains, riverbeds and government land, including by religious structures, as factors that exacerbated the disaster’s impact. In public conversation, questions were raised about mosques and other buildings built close to or on river channels—but the debate was quickly communalised, with some clerics deflecting criticism by pointing to temples on similarly encroached land.
This logic, however, amounts to little more than competitive wrongdoing. Two violations do not cancel each other out; they merely deepen institutional cynicism and public risk. The ethical model set in Islamic tradition itself runs contrary to such practices: early biographies note that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) ordered the purchase of privately-owned land in Medina—held by orphans—before building the city’s first mosque there, rather than simply occupying it by force or sentiment. That historical precedent, often invoked in sermons, sits uneasily alongside the contemporary reality of shrines and mosques constructed without due legal process.
The Business Model of Piety
The current storm has also reignited scrutiny of what might be called the “religious economy” of the Valley. Maulana Hami, like several prominent clerics, stands at the intersection of pulpit, institution and politics, leading a network that includes religious schools, welfare projects and a loyal base of followers.
Yet critics argue that a broader class of religious entrepreneurs—Muslim and non-Muslim—has emerged, where intelligent madrasa or seminary graduates set up their own institutions and trusts that function as semi-family enterprises funded by public donations. These networks often raise money in the name of safeguarding religion, supporting orphans or defending the community, while their leaders enjoy social privilege and influence without conventional notions of salaried work or institutional oversight. The language of sacrifice, zuhd and simplicity preached from the pulpit often contrasts sharply with visible displays of comfort and status in private life.
For many followers, the relationship with such leaders becomes more emotional than rational. Loyalty to the sect, the pir, or the Maulana is seen as a religious duty, and questioning financial decisions or property dealings is perceived as disloyalty—or even sin. Those who demand transparency risk being labelled troublemakers, side-lined in community spaces or denied access to religious platforms they helped build.
State, Media and The Politics of Clerical Legitimacy
Successive governments have rarely been innocent bystanders in this process. In conflict-ridden regions such as Kashmir, religious leaders with significant influence over public sentiment can serve as useful intermediaries for the state. A fragmented clerical landscape—with multiple sects, organisations and personalities—may help prevent the emergence of united, independent religious leadership capable of mobilising large-scale dissent. In such a framework, strict financial or land-related accountability is often quietly sacrificed for short-term stability and control.
Media platforms, especially television and social media channels, have further reshaped this dynamic by frequently featuring high-profile clerics as representatives of “the community” or “religious opinion”. This visibility grants them a disproportionate voice in public debates on morality, politics and policy, even as their own financial and institutional structures remain opaque. What the camera captures is the sermon or the protest; what it rarely explores is the spreadsheet behind the sermon.
When History of Accountability Meets Present-Day Intolerance
Islamic historical narratives, especially in Friday sermons and public lectures, are replete with stories of accountability: the Bedouin woman correcting Caliph Umar (RA), or companions questioning how a ruler’s garment seemed longer than his allotted piece of cloth. These stories are often cited to demonstrate the egalitarian and transparent nature of early Islamic governance. Yet their contemporary application is selective at best.
In practice, anyone raising similar questions today about donations, land titles, trust deeds or property sales is more likely to face intimidation than engagement. Whisper campaigns, character assassination and mobilisation of loyal followers against critics are common tactics in many religious ecosystems. The irony is inescapable: the same narratives used to legitimise religious authority are sometimes deployed to shut down the very spirit of questioning they praise.
Social Media’s Unruly Mirror
One striking aspect of the current Mawa–Hami tussle has been the public’s response online. Rather than automatically taking sides based on sectarian identity, many social media users—across ideological lines—have begun asking pointed questions about land records, ownership documents and financial transparency. Videos, press clips and old statements are being shared and dissected, with both men subjected to a form of open-source scrutiny that was harder to sustain in the pre-digital era.
This is not to romanticise social media, which can also amplify rumours and deepen polarisation. But in this instance, it has nudged parts of the public away from blind allegiance towards a more demanding citizenship, where religious figures are expected to answer questions, not just ask for trust. For religious institutions that have historically operated behind opaque walls, this represents a significant cultural shift.
Religious Trusts and The Case for Transparency
The structural problem beneath many of these controversies is the absence of robust, enforceable norms governing religious trusts and institutions. Across India, courts have repeatedly dealt with disputes where mosques, temples, churches or deras have been erected on public land or where religious bodies have encroached upon government property or commons. In some instances, high courts and the Supreme Court have ordered demolition, relocation or regularisation subject to strict conditions, emphasising that no faith can claim immunity from civil law.
Yet at the day-to-day level, most local religious trusts do not publish audited financial statements, do not voluntarily share details of revenue and expenditure, and do not follow uniform standards of governance. This opacity makes them vulnerable both to internal misuse and external political manipulation. A framework requiring regular audits, public disclosure of accounts and clear separation of personal and institutional assets would not only protect donors, but also shield genuine religious service from being tainted by scandal.
Beyond Personalities: What This Moment Demands
The present confrontation between Dr Sandeep Mawa and Maulana Ghulam Rasool Hami will, in time, move from headlines to archives. Investigations may confirm or dismiss specific claims, and both sides will claim vindication, as political actors invariably do. What must not be allowed to fade, however, is the larger conversation this episode has forced into the open.
Reclaiming encroached temple lands is a legitimate cause—but so is questioning whether mosques, khanqahs, shrines and graveyards have respected legal and ethical boundaries. Protecting the rights and sentiments of Kashmiri Pandits is essential—but so is ensuring that Muslim religious institutions operate with accountability and fairness. The law cannot, and must not, be communal; it must be consistent.
For newspapers and newsrooms tracking this story, the real value lies not only in reporting the slogans and counter-slogans of rival camps, but in asking harder questions: Who owns the land under our religious structures? How are religious donations managed, audited and disclosed? Which institutions are prepared to open their books—and which are determined to hide them? The answers to these questions will say far more about the health of public life in Kashmir than any single press conference or protest ever can.
…
M.H. A. Sikander is a Writer-Activist based in Srinagar, Kashmir.
URL: https://newageislam.com/islam-politics/kashmir-faith-land-power-clash/d/138336
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism