12-01-2006, 09:59 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->*Balbir Punj*
<b>*Why is the UPA Government bent on forcing sops on an unwilling, even protesting, minority community?</b>
*
Even as the Supreme Court considers whether subsidising the Haj pilgrimage is constitutional in a secular state, the UPA Government has gone ahead and raised the same subsidy. Against the budgetary provision of Rs 279 crore for
the current year, the actual outgo now stands at Rs 385 crore.
*The Haj subsidy controversy has helped underline the ugly reality that the so-called secular parties are a sham.
* How else do you explain a 'secular' state financing the religious activities of one group, out of the taxes collected from the entire country? Hindus go to Kailash-Mansarovar in Tibet, Sikhs to Nankana Sahib in Pakistan and Christians to erusalem and pay for the pilgrimage from their pockets.
Mr Anand Sharma, Minister of State for External Affairs, told Parliament in August that during 2005, 529 pilgrims had gone to Kailash-Mansarovar and the Union Government had spent Rs 17.2 lakh in making the arrangements connected with the *yatra*. The number of people who had gone to Pakistan to pay obeisance at various gurudwaras and temples stood at 8,179. The number of Haj pilgrims during this year was 83,279 and it cost the exchequer Rs 179.66crore.
*The "secularists" are misleading the country by claiming that the Government expenditure on festivals like the Kumbh Mela is a subsidy to the majority community. But the state expenditure on law and order is not a subsidy to individuals. Is it not the obligation of the state to maintain law and order? Whether it is the deployment of police for Ajmer Sharif or
the Kumbh Mela, arrangements for sanitation, drinking water and other public conveniences are all part of the state's obligation.*
Besides providing subsidy running into crores of rupees for Haj, the Union Government forces Air India not only to have special flights from international airports in the country, but it also compels it to pick them from other airports across the country's geographical spread, thus raising the cost to the national carrier. Muslim leaders themselves say that instead of keeping the Haj airlift as a monopoly of Air India, the community would benefit more if it is opened to competition between various airlines.
Why, then, does the Government force a monopoly and then subsidise the sole airline for the costs incurred? *Obviously, the intention is not only to facilitate the pilgrimage but also to project to the community that it is the Congress-led Government's grace that helps its pilgrimage possible. It is interesting that no Muslim country, not even Pakis-tan, subsidises Haj expenditure. *
*Now that the apex court has asked the Government to clarify whether such subsidy violates the basic feature of a secular constitution, the vexed issue is in the public domain.
* Even within the Muslim community, voices are rising about the way the money is spent. Recently, the Minister of State for External Affairs E Ahmed was accused by Muslims of States other than Kerala that he pressurises the Haj committee to extend disproportionate privileges to Muslims from his home State in selecting the beneficiaries. Similar accusations have been made against the Congress Chief Minister of Jammu & Kashmir.
It is obvious that the 'secular' parties are not true to their proclaimed creed of secularism. But why are Indian Muslims, who are otherwise very touchy on issues relating to their faith such as the triple talaq, Uniform Civil Code, family planning, etc, conveniently accepting the subsidy against the tenets of the Shari'ah?
*As per Islamic injunctions, the Haj obligation has to be met by a Muslim out of his own resources.
*There have indeed been occasional protests from within the community on this count as well. A recent report in a newspaper quoted several Muslim authorities who stated that they considered such subsidy "un-Islamic" . The report quoted Maulana Mehamood Madani, MP, general secretary of Jamiat-e-Ulema- e-Hind, "It is against the Shari'ah to be under any kind of obligation while undertaking Haj." The report also quotes SQR Ilyas, a senior member of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board as characterising the subsidy as "a sop to gain political mileage". Even Haj Committee CEO Mohammad Owaisi says that the subsidy is "un-Islamic" .
At least a section of the community is saying that the Haj subsidy is a political sop against its own religious injunctions. The question, therefore, is why is the current political dispensation persisting with this practice and even extending it? The answer is clear.
*"Secularists" would go to any extent to exploit public funds to purchase vote-banks in the name of benefiting the Muslim minority.
*
The practice of Haj subsidy and other sops for Muslims have been going on for decades. However, none of these facilities seems to have really benefited Muslims. These sops mislead them and are in no way related to the basic problem of a mindset that refuses to reform the community along the lines of a modern secular state. Such gestures only lull them into the belief that whatever practices they are undertaking now, like preferring * madarsa*s to regular schools, keeping women under wraps and denying them the right to be employed, etc., are the right things to do. Such Government policies embolden the ghetto mentality of Muslims and the community is pushed further into backwardness.
In a secular state, each community must manage its own religious affairs - with the Government only facilitating public order. That applies as much to temples as to mosques and pilgrimages of any community. Instead of following a truly secular path on such matters, several pretentiously secular parties have only sought to interfere with religious funds and foundations to gain political mileage.
<b>*The DMK Government, for example, has forced temples in Tamil Nadu to follow the party's philosophy, denying the right of followers to conduct rituals in the language of their tradition, appointing priests with scant regard for the sensitivities of devotees and imposing the DMK's anti-Hindu, anti-Sanskrit policies on the protesting public.</b>
*
*The DMK claims to be a 'rationalist' party that does not believe in God and the sanatan dharma. But surely in a 'secular' state, the fact that it has gained control of the Government machinery through an election does not legitimise its trampling over the sensitivities of millions of Hindus. Similarly, the Devaswom Boards in Kerala are now getting packed with Communists who are atheists. Thanks to sham secularism, the State is funding overseas pilgrimages of Muslims and denying Hindus the right to administer their shrines as per their traditions. Can any civil society live with this glaring contradiction?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>*Why is the UPA Government bent on forcing sops on an unwilling, even protesting, minority community?</b>
*
Even as the Supreme Court considers whether subsidising the Haj pilgrimage is constitutional in a secular state, the UPA Government has gone ahead and raised the same subsidy. Against the budgetary provision of Rs 279 crore for
the current year, the actual outgo now stands at Rs 385 crore.
*The Haj subsidy controversy has helped underline the ugly reality that the so-called secular parties are a sham.
* How else do you explain a 'secular' state financing the religious activities of one group, out of the taxes collected from the entire country? Hindus go to Kailash-Mansarovar in Tibet, Sikhs to Nankana Sahib in Pakistan and Christians to erusalem and pay for the pilgrimage from their pockets.
Mr Anand Sharma, Minister of State for External Affairs, told Parliament in August that during 2005, 529 pilgrims had gone to Kailash-Mansarovar and the Union Government had spent Rs 17.2 lakh in making the arrangements connected with the *yatra*. The number of people who had gone to Pakistan to pay obeisance at various gurudwaras and temples stood at 8,179. The number of Haj pilgrims during this year was 83,279 and it cost the exchequer Rs 179.66crore.
*The "secularists" are misleading the country by claiming that the Government expenditure on festivals like the Kumbh Mela is a subsidy to the majority community. But the state expenditure on law and order is not a subsidy to individuals. Is it not the obligation of the state to maintain law and order? Whether it is the deployment of police for Ajmer Sharif or
the Kumbh Mela, arrangements for sanitation, drinking water and other public conveniences are all part of the state's obligation.*
Besides providing subsidy running into crores of rupees for Haj, the Union Government forces Air India not only to have special flights from international airports in the country, but it also compels it to pick them from other airports across the country's geographical spread, thus raising the cost to the national carrier. Muslim leaders themselves say that instead of keeping the Haj airlift as a monopoly of Air India, the community would benefit more if it is opened to competition between various airlines.
Why, then, does the Government force a monopoly and then subsidise the sole airline for the costs incurred? *Obviously, the intention is not only to facilitate the pilgrimage but also to project to the community that it is the Congress-led Government's grace that helps its pilgrimage possible. It is interesting that no Muslim country, not even Pakis-tan, subsidises Haj expenditure. *
*Now that the apex court has asked the Government to clarify whether such subsidy violates the basic feature of a secular constitution, the vexed issue is in the public domain.
* Even within the Muslim community, voices are rising about the way the money is spent. Recently, the Minister of State for External Affairs E Ahmed was accused by Muslims of States other than Kerala that he pressurises the Haj committee to extend disproportionate privileges to Muslims from his home State in selecting the beneficiaries. Similar accusations have been made against the Congress Chief Minister of Jammu & Kashmir.
It is obvious that the 'secular' parties are not true to their proclaimed creed of secularism. But why are Indian Muslims, who are otherwise very touchy on issues relating to their faith such as the triple talaq, Uniform Civil Code, family planning, etc, conveniently accepting the subsidy against the tenets of the Shari'ah?
*As per Islamic injunctions, the Haj obligation has to be met by a Muslim out of his own resources.
*There have indeed been occasional protests from within the community on this count as well. A recent report in a newspaper quoted several Muslim authorities who stated that they considered such subsidy "un-Islamic" . The report quoted Maulana Mehamood Madani, MP, general secretary of Jamiat-e-Ulema- e-Hind, "It is against the Shari'ah to be under any kind of obligation while undertaking Haj." The report also quotes SQR Ilyas, a senior member of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board as characterising the subsidy as "a sop to gain political mileage". Even Haj Committee CEO Mohammad Owaisi says that the subsidy is "un-Islamic" .
At least a section of the community is saying that the Haj subsidy is a political sop against its own religious injunctions. The question, therefore, is why is the current political dispensation persisting with this practice and even extending it? The answer is clear.
*"Secularists" would go to any extent to exploit public funds to purchase vote-banks in the name of benefiting the Muslim minority.
*
The practice of Haj subsidy and other sops for Muslims have been going on for decades. However, none of these facilities seems to have really benefited Muslims. These sops mislead them and are in no way related to the basic problem of a mindset that refuses to reform the community along the lines of a modern secular state. Such gestures only lull them into the belief that whatever practices they are undertaking now, like preferring * madarsa*s to regular schools, keeping women under wraps and denying them the right to be employed, etc., are the right things to do. Such Government policies embolden the ghetto mentality of Muslims and the community is pushed further into backwardness.
In a secular state, each community must manage its own religious affairs - with the Government only facilitating public order. That applies as much to temples as to mosques and pilgrimages of any community. Instead of following a truly secular path on such matters, several pretentiously secular parties have only sought to interfere with religious funds and foundations to gain political mileage.
<b>*The DMK Government, for example, has forced temples in Tamil Nadu to follow the party's philosophy, denying the right of followers to conduct rituals in the language of their tradition, appointing priests with scant regard for the sensitivities of devotees and imposing the DMK's anti-Hindu, anti-Sanskrit policies on the protesting public.</b>
*
*The DMK claims to be a 'rationalist' party that does not believe in God and the sanatan dharma. But surely in a 'secular' state, the fact that it has gained control of the Government machinery through an election does not legitimise its trampling over the sensitivities of millions of Hindus. Similarly, the Devaswom Boards in Kerala are now getting packed with Communists who are atheists. Thanks to sham secularism, the State is funding overseas pilgrimages of Muslims and denying Hindus the right to administer their shrines as per their traditions. Can any civil society live with this glaring contradiction?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->