Leila Khan
When religious authority, political influence, and control over money rest in the same hands, who can demand accountability? Around Pakistan’s shrines, this question raises serious concerns. Devotees may hesitate to challenge a spiritual authority; officials may be reluctant to confront a politically connected custodian. This results in silence, which leads to financial abuse.Buy Maps
A shrine’s donations and endowed properties carry obligations to the institution and its beneficiaries. Custodianship cannot, by itself, establish ownership or entitlement to income. Yet where administrative authority and personal interests become difficult to distinguish, religious devotion can become a source of private wealth.
The federal setup deserves credit for the recent action by the CDA and Islamabad administration to seal Bari Imam House, which the authority says stood on government-owned land. Enforcement against a property associated with an influential custodian sends a necessary message.
Unfortunately, the issue extends from Islamabad to Lahore, Multan and Sindh. Punjab Auqaf lists the shrines of Bahauddin Zakariya and Shah Rukn-e-Alam among its institutions. Sindh Assembly records document departmental responsibilities at Abdullah Shah Ghazi, Lal Shahbaz Qalandar and Shah Abdul Latif Bhittai. Alongside Data Darbar, these institutions raise an essential question: how effectively does existing government oversight protect their resources?
Answering that requires looking beyond donation boxes. Shops, rented premises and other commercial facilities on shrine-associated land can produce continuing revenue. Punjab Auqaf’s published auction schedule includes leases and contracts for Data Darbar and its administrative zones. Commercial management is already an established part of the system.
Anyone able to select tenants, award contracts and collect payments exercises considerable economic power. Without effective checks, that authority creates opportunities for cheap leases to associates, unauthorised subletting, concealed receipts and benefits directed towards relatives or connected businesses.
The distinction between institutional revenue and personal earnings must therefore be clear. Who owns each property? Who authorised its use? Who receives the rent? Any claim to retain that income personally should require a documented legal basis.
These questions must be answered through records. Every business near a shrine cannot automatically be attributed to its management. Authorities need to establish ownership, examine agreements and trace payments to their actual recipients.
There is documented reason for concern. A special audit report of Punjab Auqaf declared alleged losses involving rental income from more than 600 commercial shops in Jhang and Okara, alongside questions about unusually favourable long-term leases. These findings underline how valuable assets can be compromised through weak property administration.
At Data Darbar, five former officials and caretakers faced departmental penalties in 2026 over donation-related misconduct and embezzlement findings. The public deserves to know what was recovered, how appeals were decided and what changed afterwards.
Sindh presents another warning. Business Recorder reported audit findings of more than Rs423 million in irregularities in the Auqaf Department for the financial year 2023-24. These included approximately Rs75.94 million retained in bank accounts rather than deposited into the treasury as required. The receipts examined included rents, contracts, and religious offerings. Such findings demand investigation and published outcomes.
Simply bringing more shrines under Auqaf will not resolve these weaknesses. Departments entrusted with supervision must themselves disclose their decisions and expenditure. Otherwise, formalisation changes the administrator while leaving the underlying discretion intact.
Reform should begin with a verified public register identifying each shrine’s management, legal status, land, buildings and leases. It must distinguish endowed assets, state property and verified private holdings, with disputed claims resolved through lawful procedures. This would establish both the institution’s resources and the limits of its administrators’ authority.
