Darakhshan Andrabi Says No Mandatory Order Was Issued as Omar Abdullah, Mehbooba Mufti and Religious Leaders Raise Concerns Over Religious Autonomy
By: News Desk | 13 October 2026
Srinagar: What began as a proposal to coordinate the themes of Friday sermons at Jammu and Kashmir Waqf Board-managed mosques and shrines has quickly turned into a wider debate over religious autonomy, administrative authority and the political control of Muslim institutions in the Union Territory.
The controversy erupted after the Jammu and Kashmir Waqf Board, chaired by senior BJP leader Dr Syed Darakhshan Andrabi, announced plans to constitute a core committee of Muftis, Imams and Khateebs to identify and finalise common topics for Friday congregational prayers, commonly known as Juma or Khutbah.
The Board presented the initiative as an effort to bring religious scholars together and use the mosque pulpit to address social problems, including drug abuse, declining moral values, family difficulties and the need for greater social harmony.
But the announcement prompted a sharp response from the Muttahida Majlis-e-Ulema (MMU), led by Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, Peoples Democratic Party president Mehbooba Mufti and other political and civil society figures.
Their objection was not necessarily to discussing social problems in mosques. It was to the possibility that a statutory body linked to the government could begin determining what religious scholars should address in their sermons.
On Tuesday, October 13, Andrabi clarified that the Board had issued no order making common Friday sermons mandatory. She maintained that the initiative originated from discussions among religious scholars and that Imams and preachers would remain free to decide their sermon content.
That clarification has added a new dimension to the dispute. The original announcement explicitly referred to finalising topics in advance and communicating them to religious scholars for implementation. The subsequent clarification stressed that no mandatory directive had been issued.
The question now is whether the proposal will remain a voluntary exercise in coordination among religious scholars or develop into an administrative mechanism that critics fear could influence religious discourse.
What Triggered the Friday Sermon Controversy?
The controversy began with a meeting held on Saturday, October 10, at the Waqf Board’s central office in Sonwar, Srinagar.
According to the Board’s announcement, the meeting brought together Maulanas, Muftis, Imams and Khateebs associated with religious institutions under its administration. Board members Dr Ghulam Haleem and Syed Mohammad Hussain Haqani also attended, while representatives from the Jammu Division participated through video conferencing.
The meeting discussed greater coordination among religious scholars and consistency in the subjects addressed during Friday sermons.
The Board subsequently announced that a core committee would be constituted to identify and finalise common sermon topics in advance. These would then be communicated to scholars associated with Waqf-managed mosques, shrines, Jamia Masjids and other religious institutions.
The stated objectives included:
- Promoting religious awareness and moral responsibility.
- Encouraging social harmony and community unity.
- Addressing drug abuse and other social problems.
- Bringing religious scholars from different traditions onto a common platform.
- Using religious guidance to respond to contemporary social concerns.
At first glance, these objectives may appear uncontroversial. Drug addiction, family problems, youth distress and social fragmentation are genuine concerns in Kashmir, and religious leaders have long participated in discussions about them.
The difficulty arose from the proposed method.
The announcement did not merely suggest that religious scholars discuss common problems. It said a committee would finalise topics in advance and communicate them to the concerned scholars for implementation.
That wording raised a fundamental question: would the committee simply recommend themes, or would the topics become an expectation that affiliated religious institutions were required to follow?
The Board’s subsequent clarification addressed this concern by denying that any mandatory order had been issued. However, the exact operational framework, including how the committee would function and whether participation would be entirely voluntary, remained unclear in the reports available on October 13.
Why the MMU Objected: The Mosque Pulpit as a Religious Trust
The strongest religious opposition came from the Muttahida Majlis-e-Ulema, a coalition of Muslim religious organisations in Jammu and Kashmir led by Mirwaiz Umar Farooq.
In its response, the MMU argued that the mosque pulpit, known as the Mimbar, is a sacred trust and that religious guidance belongs to qualified Ulema, Imams and recognised religious institutions.
The organisation rejected the idea that a statutory administrative body should determine or regulate the content of sermons.
Its objection also drew attention to the diversity of Islamic scholarship. Religious institutions in Kashmir represent different schools of thought and traditions, each with its own scholarly practices and approaches to religious instruction.
For the MMU, the issue was therefore not whether Imams should discuss drug abuse, family responsibilities or social harmony. It was whether an administrative institution should be involved in deciding the subjects of religious discourse.
The organisation argued that the Waqf Board should concentrate on its administrative responsibilities, including the management, maintenance and protection of Waqf properties, rather than becoming involved in religious teaching.
It also made an important distinction between scholars voluntarily agreeing to discuss common social concerns and a government-linked body taking the initiative to prescribe sermon themes.
That distinction lies at the heart of the dispute.
If religious scholars independently agree to address a shared concern, such as drug addiction, they retain control over their religious interpretation and the manner in which they communicate with their congregations.
If an administrative body selects the subjects and expects affiliated institutions to follow them, the process can raise questions about institutional independence, even when the subjects themselves are socially beneficial.
Omar Abdullah Calls It BJP Interference in Muslim Religious Affairs
Chief Minister Omar Abdullah strongly opposed the proposal, describing it as an unacceptable attempt by the BJP to interfere in the religious affairs of Muslims.
His criticism was directed at both the proposal and the political identity of the Board’s chairperson, Darakhshan Andrabi, who is associated with the BJP.
For Abdullah, the issue was not simply an administrative disagreement over the functioning of mosques. It represented a larger question about whether a politically appointed or government-linked institution should have a role in shaping religious expression.
The Chief Minister’s position also reflects the broader political contest over the administration of Waqf institutions in Jammu and Kashmir.
The National Conference has repeatedly argued for greater control by an elected government over decisions affecting the region. The sermon controversy has given that debate a new focus by connecting administrative authority with the content of religious practice.
However, the political allegation and the administrative facts must be distinguished. The Board’s initial announcement did propose a mechanism for coordinating sermon themes, but its chairperson subsequently denied issuing a compulsory order. Whether the arrangement would have amounted to actual control over sermons depends partly on how the proposed committee was intended to operate.
That question cannot be settled by political rhetoric alone.
Mehbooba Mufti Questions Who Should Decide What Imams Preach
PDP president and former Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti also criticised the proposal, arguing that sermon content should reflect the circumstances and concerns of the communities being addressed.
Her argument centres on the relationship between local religious leadership and the people attending Friday prayers.
An Imam serving a particular locality may understand the problems confronting its residents, whether those involve addiction, unemployment, family disputes, education or other social pressures. A common theme selected centrally may not always reflect the specific needs of every congregation.
Mufti also raised concerns about political involvement in Muslim religious institutions and argued that Waqf administration should be returned to an elected government rather than used to influence religious expression.
She maintained that if common sermon themes were considered necessary, the initiative should be led by recognised religious scholars and religious organisations themselves.
Her criticism reflects two overlapping concerns: the autonomy of religious institutions and the broader political dispute over who should administer Waqf affairs in Jammu and Kashmir.
The issue is particularly sensitive because Waqf institutions manage religious endowments and associated properties. Questions about their governance can quickly acquire a wider political meaning when administrative decisions appear to touch religious practice.
Other Political and Civil Society Voices Join the Debate
The controversy also drew criticism from other political figures.
National Conference spokesperson Imran Nabi Dar criticised the proposal, arguing that it could allow the BJP to influence which issues preachers discuss and how those issues are presented.
Former Srinagar Mayor Junaid Mattu questioned what the move could mean for religious freedom and constitutional protections.
The criticism from different political quarters has helped transform the issue from a dispute over one proposed committee into a wider debate over the role of the Waqf Board in religious life.
Yet the strength of the political response should not be confused with proof that the Board had already begun controlling sermons. The available reporting establishes that a committee was proposed and that its intended role was to identify common themes. It does not establish that a mandatory sermon script was issued or enforced.
That distinction is important for understanding both the controversy and its possible consequences.
Darakhshan Andrabi Clarifies: No Mandatory Order Was Issued
Facing mounting criticism, Andrabi publicly defended the initiative and clarified the Board’s position on October 13.
She said no order had been issued requiring uniform Friday sermons and maintained that religious scholars were free to decide which subjects to address.
Andrabi argued that the initiative was intended to encourage collective action against social problems, particularly those affecting young people and families. These included drug addiction, mental distress, suicide and difficulties faced by people in their personal lives.
She also said the proposed core committee would consist of religious scholars and that she herself would not be a member.
In defending the initiative, Andrabi rejected Omar Abdullah’s allegation of BJP interference and questioned where such interference had occurred.
Her explanation places the proposal in a different light from the interpretation offered by its critics. According to the Board’s chairperson, the purpose was to facilitate coordination among scholars, not to prescribe religious doctrine.
But the wording of the initial announcement remains relevant. It stated that the committee would finalise sermon topics in advance and communicate them to scholars for implementation.
The later clarification did not erase that original description. Instead, it raised a question about how the Board intended to reconcile advance coordination with the stated freedom of individual preachers.
A clear written explanation of the committee’s mandate, its decision-making process and the voluntary or mandatory nature of its recommendations would help resolve that uncertainty.
For now, describing the episode as a complete withdrawal of the proposal would go beyond what has been established. Andrabi denied that any compulsory order existed, but the precise future status of the proposed committee was not fully clear in the available reports.
The Scope Matters: The Proposal Did Not Cover Every Mosque in J&K
One point deserves particular attention amid the political debate.
The announced initiative concerned mosques, shrines and other religious institutions associated with the Waqf Board. It should not automatically be described as a plan to impose uniform sermons across every mosque in Jammu and Kashmir.
The distinction is significant because the Union Territory has religious institutions operating under different administrative arrangements.
A proposal affecting Waqf-managed institutions does not, by itself, establish authority over independent mosques or religious organisations outside the Board’s administrative structure.
This limitation does not eliminate the concerns raised by critics. A policy affecting a substantial network of religious institutions can still have wider implications for religious autonomy and public confidence.
But accurate reporting requires the scope of the proposed measure to remain clear.
The Board’s initial statement described an initiative covering institutions associated with it. Subsequent reporting also noted that the committee’s composition, timetable and first set of themes had not yet been announced.
Those details will matter if the proposal moves beyond the announcement stage.
Why Friday Sermons Carry Particular Weight in Kashmir
Friday prayers occupy an important place in the religious and social life of Kashmir.
The Khutbah is not merely a weekly speech. It is an established part of Friday congregational prayer through which religious scholars explain Islamic teachings, discuss moral responsibilities and address questions affecting the community.
In Kashmir, mosques have also served as spaces for religious education, social guidance and community discussion. Local Imams often maintain close relationships with residents and are familiar with the problems confronting their congregations.
That makes the choice of sermon topics particularly sensitive.
A discussion about drug addiction in one locality might focus on treatment, family support and rehabilitation. In another, a preacher might emphasise the pressures facing young people, the availability of treatment or the responsibilities of parents and institutions.
Likewise, sermons about marriage, family life or mental health can require sensitivity to local circumstances.
Critics of a uniform approach argue that a centrally coordinated list of subjects risks reducing this flexibility. They fear that a mechanism initially intended to encourage social reform could eventually become a way to influence which issues are discussed and which are left unaddressed.
The Board, meanwhile, argues that coordination can help religious scholars address shared social problems more effectively.
Both concerns are understandable as questions of policy, but neither establishes what the proposed committee would ultimately do. Its actual mandate and working arrangements would determine whether it functions as a voluntary forum or something more prescriptive.
The Larger Waqf Debate Behind the Sermon Row
The controversy cannot be understood fully without considering the wider debate over Waqf administration.
Waqf properties are assets dedicated under Islamic law for religious, charitable or other recognised purposes. Their administration involves questions of property management, public accountability, institutional governance and the responsibilities of the bodies entrusted with them.
In Jammu and Kashmir, the Board’s leadership has also become a point of political contention because Darakhshan Andrabi is associated with the BJP, while several prominent regional parties oppose the party’s approach to governance and religious affairs.
The sermon proposal has brought these tensions into direct contact with a particularly sensitive subject: who has the authority to shape religious communication.
For critics, the issue represents a potential extension of administrative influence from the management of religious properties into religious practice itself.
For the Board, the stated objective is to use coordination among scholars to address common social concerns.
These are different arguments, and they should not be collapsed into a single claim that the Board has already taken control of religious sermons.
The practical test will be whether religious scholars retain genuine freedom to select their topics, interpret religious teachings and decide how to address their congregations.
Religious Autonomy and the Constitutional Question
The controversy also raises broader questions about religious freedom in India.
Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, health and the other provisions of Part III.
Article 26 provides religious denominations and sections of them certain rights to manage their own affairs in matters of religion, subject to constitutional limitations.
These protections do not mean that every activity connected with a religious institution is beyond public regulation. Property administration, financial accountability, public safety and other secular functions can be subject to applicable laws.
The important distinction is between regulating the secular administration of a religious institution and exercising authority over religious teaching or practice.
The Waqf Board’s role in managing properties and associated institutions does not automatically answer whether it should determine sermon themes. Nor does the existence of a committee composed of religious scholars automatically resolve every concern about institutional independence.
A legal assessment would require examination of the relevant legislation, the Board’s statutory powers, the proposed committee’s mandate and whether any directions would be binding.
As of October 13, the reports reviewed did not establish that a formal mandatory order had been issued. It would therefore be premature to declare that the proposal had definitively violated the Constitution.
At the same time, the controversy demonstrates why administrative clarity is essential when public authorities or statutory bodies take initiatives involving religious practice.
Can Common Sermon Themes Help Address Kashmir’s Social Problems?
There is a legitimate social question beneath the political confrontation.
Kashmir faces serious concerns involving drug dependence, youth distress, family difficulties and mental health. Religious leaders can play a constructive role by encouraging people to seek treatment, supporting families and challenging stigma around addiction and psychological illness.
A voluntary initiative that brings religious scholars together to discuss these subjects could help spread useful information and encourage community support.
For example, a sermon about substance dependence could explain that addiction is a health problem requiring appropriate treatment rather than simply moral condemnation. Religious leaders could encourage families to seek professional help, support recovery and avoid humiliating people who are struggling.
Similarly, sermons addressing suicide and mental distress could encourage compassion, early intervention and access to qualified mental health professionals.
But the effectiveness of such an initiative would depend on how it is designed.
If religious scholars jointly agree on themes while retaining complete freedom over interpretation and delivery, coordination may support community outreach. If the process is perceived as an administrative attempt to dictate religious discourse, it may undermine trust and provoke resistance.
The challenge is not merely to identify socially important topics. It is to establish a process that religious leaders and their congregations consider legitimate.
What Happens Next?
Several questions remain unanswered.
Will the Waqf Board formally constitute the proposed core committee? Who will select its members? Will its themes be recommendations or binding directions? Will scholars be free to reject or adapt them? And how will the Board ensure that a voluntary initiative is not interpreted as a requirement imposed on affiliated institutions?
The answers could determine whether the controversy subsides or continues to deepen political and religious tensions.
The Board could reduce uncertainty by publishing the committee’s terms of reference, clarifying the limits of its authority and confirming in writing whether participation and adoption of proposed themes would be voluntary.
Religious organisations could also clarify whether they object to coordination itself or specifically to a statutory body initiating and overseeing the process.
Such distinctions would help separate the shared objective of addressing social problems from the disputed question of who should control religious communication.
Beyond Friday Sermons: A Test of Trust
The dispute over common Khutbah themes has become a test of confidence between the Waqf Board, religious scholars and political leadership in Jammu and Kashmir.
The Board says it wants to encourage social reform through cooperation among religious scholars. The MMU and regional political leaders fear that a government-linked institution could gain influence over religious discourse.
The initial announcement described a committee that would finalise topics in advance and communicate them for implementation. The chairperson’s subsequent clarification stressed that no mandatory order existed and that scholars remained free to decide their sermons.
Both developments are part of the story.
The issue will not be resolved simply by choosing between the labels of social reform and political interference. It requires a clear understanding of the Board’s authority, the committee’s actual mandate and the degree of independence retained by individual religious scholars.
If the initiative remains voluntary and scholar-led, it may provide a forum for addressing shared community concerns. If it evolves into a mechanism that prescribes religious discourse, the objections raised by the MMU and political leaders are likely to remain.
For now, the central question is straightforward: can the Waqf Board encourage common action against social problems without appearing to assume authority over what Imams preach?
The answer will depend less on political assurances than on the rules, safeguards and actual practices that follow the announcement.
