Times of India
14 Dec 2007
Stop subsidising religion
by Zaheer Ali
It has been widely reported that the UPA government heaved a sigh of relief when the Supreme Court bailed it out on the issue of Haj subsidy. Last year, too, the Centre had to move the apex court against an order of the Allahabad high court banning subsidies for all pilgrimages irrespective of religion. Though the Supreme Court had lifted the ban for 2006, it did express misgivings about subsidies given to pilgrimages by a secular state.
The fears expressed by the apex court deserve earnest consideration by all those who aspire to make India a truly democratic and secular republic. Should a purely religious activity like a pilgrimage get state patronage? Is financial assistance of a secular state in the performance of religious obligations permissible going by the tenets of that religion?
Although Indian secularism recognises the institution of religion, it does not permit the state to sponsor or promote any religious activity. This finds expression in the Constitution, particularly in Part III that deals with the fundamental rights. Right to freedom of religion, provided in Articles 25, 26, 27 and 28, guarantee religious freedom to all citizens of India. All religions are equal before the state and no religion can be given preference over the other. Imparting of religious education in state-funded educational institutions and levying special taxes to support any particular religion are prohibited The insertion of the word ‘secular' in the Preamble in 1976 was merely a reiteration of the provisions in the Constitution. In view of this, the policy of giving subsidies to religious activities like pilgrimages to Mecca and Kailash Mansarovar yatra amounts to an infringe-ment of the principle of secularism as well as of the Constitution. The Congress and its allies in the UPA, who shout in support of secularism from the rooftops, should realise that by extending subsidies to pilgrimages they are not only tarnishing the secular fabric of the Indian state but, so far as Haj subsidy is concerned, are also falling prey to the bogey of Muslim appeasement.
The government must put an end to the policy of funding religion. Let us consider the Haj, for which the Centre has to shell out a whopping Rs 280 crore this year. Haj is one of the five pillars of Islam. A devout Muslim has to recite with complete conviction the kalima; he must say prayers five times a day; he has to observe rozas (fasting) for a maximum 30 days during the month of Ramzan; he is expected to pay zakat, which is the Islamic concept of tithing and alms; and finally, he should embark on a pilgrimage (Haj) to Mecca.
The first three obligations are binding on almost all devout believers whereas the other two are conditional on those who can financially afford to perform them. Haj falls in the latter category. It is the last obligation to be performed by those Muslims who are financially, physically and mentally sound to undertake the journey to Mecca. A Muslim should not go on pilgrimage to Mecca by way of borrowing money from someone or by seeking financial assistance from the state. Only a Muslim who has fulfilled all his familial responsibilities and has carried out all the financial duties should undertake the pilgrimage of Haj with his hard-earned money.
A trip to Saudi Arabia with state subsidy cannot be called Haj in the strict Islamic sense. The Haj committee that is supposed to manage and facilitate the travel plans of pilgrims should have complete autonomy and be constituted by the community rather than government. A completely autonomous Haj committee can directly negotiate with various airlines for getting the best deals for pilgrims. This would be in accordance with past traditions where a pilgrim going with a caravan would haggle with the leader to get the most economical passage. Such an arrangement would also absolve the government of the charge of Muslim appeasement.
What is true about Haj applies to Kailash Mansarovar yatra too. Although the amount given as subsidy to the Hindu pilgrims is comparatively much less — Rs 32.5 lakh for the current year — it violates the principle of secularism.
The writer is a political commentator.
|
