Profiling mosques in J&K is a practical necessity to understand community needs better, maintain public order, and streamline welfare initiatives
The controversy and criticism surrounding the data collection and profiling of mosques, masjids, their imams, muezzins, and other administrative representatives, including their families in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), appears to be much ado about nothing. Opposition political parties and religious and social entities have criticised this initiative as “intrusive” and “threatening”, claiming it violates the fundamental right to religious freedom and privacy. However, the counterargument that these measures are necessary for security, accountability, and curbing the spread of anti-social radical ideology is compelling.
Though the first of its kind, this initiative is in the public interest, as it aims to enhance the overall efficiency of the socio-economic, administrative, and developmental framework that has defined the Union Territory (UT) in the last six years. A comparative analysis shows that the Centre and UT administration’s actions in J&K are neither new nor outlandish but rather a rational exercise. Critics should look at Saudi Arabia, which has one of the most centralised systems of mosque oversight in the Muslim world. The Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs, Dawah, and Guidance issues licenses for mosques, appoints and pays imams, muezzins, and khateebs, and monitors the content of sermons and other religious activities, preventing mosques from being misused for anti-state or anti-social activities.
The Saudi government drafts and approves all sermons, including the “Khutbah” on Fridays, and ensures imams adhere to approved themes, especially on sensitive topics like politics, jihad, obedience to the state, and sectarian issues. Any deviation results in suspension, dismissal, or even legal consequences. Similarly, the Government of India and the UT administration are conducting background checks, ideological vetting, and training of imams, muezzins, and other mosque administrative staff to ensure moderation and discipline in J&K and other parts of the country.
The aim is not to interfere or curb religious activities but to audit, surveil, and enforce measures to prevent religious institutions from being used as platforms to spread disharmonious political and social ideologies. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) also follows a centralised form of mosque management, with mosques supervised by the General Authority of Islamic Affairs and Endowments (Awqaf) and local religious departments like the Islamic Affairs Department in Dubai. Imams are government employees, and the text of sermons is uniform across all mosques in the country, leaving no room for personal interpretation or political commentary. The UAE uses digital technology to promote accepted religious messaging and actively promotes interfaith dialogue, anti-extremism narratives, loyalty to the state, and social harmony.
Critics of the oversight process should consider how unregulated religious discourse in neighbouring Pakistan has created conflicting ideologies that promote intolerance and violence. According to a 2023 internal economic census, there are more than 600,000 mosques in Pakistan, far exceeding the number of factories. Most of these mosques are privately funded, linked to religious sects or seminaries, and operate independently of the state, making enforcement of government policies on activity and content control unfeasible. Centralised control of sermons is not possible in Pakistan, necessitating the use of intelligence agencies and informants to launch reactive rather than preventive religious crackdowns. Governments in Pakistan often avoid confrontation to prevent unrest, further emboldening fundamentalists.
Therefore, profiling mosques in J&K is a practical necessity to understand community needs better, maintain public order, and streamline welfare initiatives. It is not an attempt to target or conduct surveillance with malicious intent. Religious institutions need to be more organised centres of community interaction, where infrastructure needs are met, crowd capacities are managed, and safety regulations are observed. Mosques can assist local authorities in identifying areas that require support to provide worshippers with safe and organised spaces to pray.
Vigilance against the misuse of religious institutions is essential. Allowing hostile public discourse creates risks that compromise trust between communities and government agencies. The government has emphasised transparency and clear communication in the mosque profiling exercise to ensure communities understand the neutral and nuanced intent behind it. When done transparently and responsibly, profiling is not a threat but an opportunity to enhance welfare and safety and build more inclusive communities. Many have welcomed the initiative, describing it as a positive step to prevent mosque caretakers from embezzling funds or doctoring income and expenditure statements for personal gain. Some have said it is high time that accountability is enforced.
The overall objective of the mosque profiling exercise is to create an environment that balances security, religious freedom, and political realities. However, its success also depends on education, economic stability, and credible religious scholarship to counter radicalised narratives from within and beyond.
