Pilgrims’ progress - Indian Express, Editorial on court ruling against Haj Subsidy

The Indian Express, Editorial

Pilgrims’ progress


May 10 2012

The Supreme Court is right to ask for an end to the Haj subsidy, unloved by all

The Haj is both a pilgrimage and an annual congress of Islam. Rooted in scripture, its rituals have been enacted for 14 centuries, as believers assemble in a specified place in a specified season. And yet, this journey, meant to forge the faithful together, has been used instrumentally by nations with Muslim populations, sponsored by governments, and politicised through subsidies and services. India’s Haj subsidy is the government’s airfare concession for pilgrims who go through the official Haj technocracy.

It has been opposed across the board — by those who believe the state should not insert itself into religious activities apart from providing logistical support, by those who consider this pandering to Muslims, and — most significantly — by Muslim clerics and MPs who oppose it on religious, political and practical grounds. The government has itself been contemplating a set of Haj Committee reforms, including a scheme where better-off pilgrims subsidise the others. In August 2010, the ministry of minority affairs had also argued that the subsidy be ended, on the grounds that it violated Islamic stricture. Now, the Supreme Court has directed the Centre to reduce and eliminate the Haj subsidy over 10 years. It observed that though the subsidy was not a constitutional breach, given that the Indian state funds other religious events, it was a misguided policy. The Quran states that the pilgrimage is an obligation only on those who are financially and physically able. Many Muslim groups have claimed that the Haj subsidy also allows the taunt of “Muslim appeasement” to flourish, while providing no real benefit. Others have argued that all it does is give Air India a ticket monopoly, that the subsidy amounted to a discount on an overpriced good, and that removing it would bring down the exorbitant prices for travel.

Instead of this misdirected and patronising subsidy, the government would do better to channel its resources towards genuine welfare schemes for Muslims and address the disproportionate disadvantages they face.