After Haj Subsidy Scrapped, Spotlight On State-Funded Hindu Pilgrimages, Including Rs 2,500 Crore By UP Govt For Ardh Kumbh
The Indian government on Tuesday withdrew the subsidy to Hajj pilgrims in accordance to a 2012 Supreme Court
|
Showing posts with label subsidy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label subsidy. Show all posts
January 16, 2018
India: After Haj Subsidy Scrapped, Spotlight On State-Funded Hindu Pilgrimages, Including Rs 2,500 Crore By UP Govt For Ardh Kumbh
https://www.outlookindia.com/
After Haj Subsidy Scrapped, Spotlight On State-Funded Hindu Pilgrimages, Including Rs 2,500 Crore By UP Govt For Ardh Kumbh
After Haj Subsidy Scrapped, Spotlight On State-Funded Hindu Pilgrimages, Including Rs 2,500 Crore By UP Govt For Ardh Kumbh
May 09, 2012
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.
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.
April 14, 2012
Madhya Pradesh State Subsidy for pilgrimages
Source: CNN - IBN
Hindutva agenda behind subsidy to visit religious places: Ajay
PTI | 12:04 PM,Apr 06,2012
Bhopal, Apr 6 (PTI) Leader of Opposition in Madhya Pradesh Assembly, Ajay Singh here today said that it appears that there is an "Hindutva agenda" behind the decision of the BJP government to give subsidy to people in the state to visit certain religious places in foreign countries. "It appears that there must be an Hindutva agenda behind giving subsidy to people visiting some religious places belonging to a particular community," Ajay told PTI. "If at all the state government wanted to subsidise such religious visits then it should do it for all the communities of the society," he said. He also said that it would have been better if instead of giving subsidy for such visits, the government could have spent the money on the renovation of dilapidated temples and other religious places of the state. The state government has yesterday expanded the subsidy scheme for pilgrimage to places of religious importance situated in Sri Lanka (Sita Mata Temple and Cambodia (Angkor Wat Temple), official sources said. Such provisions are already in place for pilgrimage to Kailash Mansarovar (China-Tibet), Hinglaj Mata Mandir and Nankana Saheb (both in Pakistan). The State Government will now provide 50 per cent subsidy on expenses (maximum Rs 30,000) to the state's citizens for the journey to pilgrim centres in Sri Lanka and Cambodia.
Hindutva agenda behind subsidy to visit religious places: Ajay
PTI | 12:04 PM,Apr 06,2012
Bhopal, Apr 6 (PTI) Leader of Opposition in Madhya Pradesh Assembly, Ajay Singh here today said that it appears that there is an "Hindutva agenda" behind the decision of the BJP government to give subsidy to people in the state to visit certain religious places in foreign countries. "It appears that there must be an Hindutva agenda behind giving subsidy to people visiting some religious places belonging to a particular community," Ajay told PTI. "If at all the state government wanted to subsidise such religious visits then it should do it for all the communities of the society," he said. He also said that it would have been better if instead of giving subsidy for such visits, the government could have spent the money on the renovation of dilapidated temples and other religious places of the state. The state government has yesterday expanded the subsidy scheme for pilgrimage to places of religious importance situated in Sri Lanka (Sita Mata Temple and Cambodia (Angkor Wat Temple), official sources said. Such provisions are already in place for pilgrimage to Kailash Mansarovar (China-Tibet), Hinglaj Mata Mandir and Nankana Saheb (both in Pakistan). The State Government will now provide 50 per cent subsidy on expenses (maximum Rs 30,000) to the state's citizens for the journey to pilgrim centres in Sri Lanka and Cambodia.
February 02, 2011
Supreme Court has upheld the subsidy given to Haj pilgrims
The Telegraph, January 29, 2011
Secular nod to Haj subsidy
- Small amount doesn’t violate Constitution: Court
OUR LEGAL CORRESPONDENT
New Delhi, Jan. 28: The Supreme Court has upheld the subsidy given to Haj pilgrims, saying the diversion of a small amount from taxes does not violate the Constitution and pointing out that India is a secular state unlike Pakistan.
Such a diversion does not violate Article 27 of the Constitution that bars any person from being compelled to pay any tax that can be used for any particular religion, the court said.
The Supreme Court was disposing of a petition filed by Prafull Goradia, a former BJP MP in the Rajya Sabha who is no longer associated with the party.
He had challenged the Haj Committee Act on the ground that it violated Articles 14, 15 and 27. Goradia had claimed that although he is a Hindu he has to pay direct and indirect taxes, part of which fund the Haj pilgrimage undertaken only by Muslims.
Upholding the legality of the subsidy, the court said that Article 27 would have been violated if a substantial part of the entire income tax or excise or customs duties or sales tax, or any other tax, were to be utilised for promotion of any particular religion.
Suppose 25 per cent of the entire income tax collected was used for promoting or maintaining any particular religion or religious denomination, it would violate Article 27, the bench said.
“… if only a relatively small part of any tax collected is utilised for providing some conveniences or facilities or concessions to any religious denomination, that would not be violative of Article 27. It is only when a substantial part of the tax is utilised for any particular religion that it would be violated,” the two-judge bench said.
In Parliament last year, foreign minister S.M. Krishna had put the Haj subsidy at Rs 611 crore for 2009-10. The figure is just 0.13 per cent of the Rs 4.65 lakh crore (revised estimates) the Centre collected in taxes in the same year.
The Supreme Court bench noted that the central and state governments also incur some expenditure for Kumbh Mela and the pilgrimage to Mansarovar.
Some states provide facilities to Hindu and Sikh pilgrims to visit temples and gurdwaras in Pakistan. “These are very small expenditures in proportion to the entire tax collected,” the court said.
The court lauded the central government’s stand that it was not averse to the idea of granting support to any pilgrimage conducted by any community.
“In our opinion, we must not be too rigid in these matters, and must give some free play to the joints of the state machinery. A balanced view has to be taken here, and we cannot say that even if one paisa of government money is spent for a particular religion there will be violation of Article 27,” the bench said.
There was “no discrimination”, the court observed, as facilities are also given and expenditures incurred by Central and state governments for other religions, too.
The bench then referred to the origins of the Indian nation state in 1947 to drive home the point that the founding fathers of the country had consciously chosen to declare India a secular state while Pakistan declared itself a Muslim state.
“It is because of the wisdom of our founding fathers that we have a Constitution which is secular in character, and which caters to the tremendous diversity in our country,” Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra said.
“…when India became independent, there were partition riots in many parts of the subcontinent, and a large number of people were killed, injured and displaced. Religious passions were inflamed at that time, and when passions are inflamed it is difficult to keep a cool head,” the bench noted.
“It is the greatness of our founding fathers that under the leadership of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru they kept a cool head and decided to declare India a secular country instead of a Hindu country. This was a very difficult decision at that time because Pakistan had declared itself an Islamic state (it became an Islamic republic in 1956) and hence there must have been tremendous pressure on Nehru and our other leaders to declare a Hindu state. It is their greatness that they resisted this pressure and kept a cool head and rightly declared India to be a secular state.
“This is why despite all its tremendous diversity India is still united. In this subcontinent, with all its tremendous diversity (because 92 per cent of the people are descendants of immigrants) the only policy which can work and provide for stability and progress is secularism and giving equal respect to all communities, sects, denominations, etc,” the court counselled.
The bench iterated the sentiments expressed in an earlier decision which said: “Since India is a country of great diversity, it is absolutely essential if we wish to keep our country united to have tolerance and equal respect for all communities and sects.”
o o o
The Times of India
SC upholds central subsidy to Haj pilgrims
TNN, Jan 29, 2011, 03.28am IST
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the constitutional validity of the central government assistance to subsidise air fare of Haj pilgrims which amounted to Rs 300 crores every year.
A Bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra said the amount given as subsidy for Haj was too meagre and could not be termed as a diversion of a major chunk of the income tax to fall foul of Article 27 of the Constitution.
Article 27 says: "No person shall be compelled to pay any taxes, the proceeds of which are specifically appropriated in payment of expenses for the promotion and maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination."
Petitioner Prafull Goradia had complained that though he was a Hindu, he had to pay direct or indirect taxes, part of which were utilised by the government to subsidize Haj, which was done by Muslims alone.
Dismissing the petition, the Bench said: "In our opinion, if only a small part of any tax collected is utilised for providing some conveniences or facilities or concessions to any religious denomination, that would not be violative of Article 27 of the Constitution."
"Article 27 would be violated if a substantial part of the entire income tax collected in India, or a substantial part of the entire central excise or the customs duties or sales tax or substantial part of any other tax collected in India, were to be utilised for promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination," it said.
Referring to the counter affidavits filed by the Centre, the court said the governments incurred some expenditure for the Kumbh Mela and facilitating Indian citizens' pilgrimage to Mansarovar as well as visit to temples and gurudwaras in Pakistan.
For the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra, the Centre gives a subsidy of Rs 3,250 per pilgrim totalling its expenditure to Rs 32.5 lakh. In contrast, it gives a subsidy of Rs 28,000 towards air fare of each of the one lakh Haj pilgrims entailing a total expense of Rs 280 crores on this count alone.
o o o
The Hindu, 29 January 2011
Supreme Court: Haj subsidy not discriminatory
J. Venkatesan
If we wish to keep country united, we need to have tolerance
Spending small part of tax for concessions is not violative of Article 27: Bench
Rs. 280-crore expenditure on Haj, a drain on taxpayers' money: Prafull Goradia
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Haj Committee Act, which provides for grant of a government subsidy for pilgrimage every year.
A Bench of Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra rejected the contention by Prafull Goradia, former BJP Rajya Sabha member, who said such a grant violated Articles 14 and 15 and in particular Article 27 (freedom as to payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion).
“Severe drain”
The petitioner said he was a Hindu but he had to pay direct and indirect taxes, part of whose proceeds went for the Haj pilgrimage, which was done only by Muslims. For the Haj, “the Indian government grants a subsidy in air fare,” which it could not do. An estimated Rs. 280 crore annually incurred by the government for the pilgrimage was not only unconstitutional but also a severe drain on the taxpayers' money.
Rejecting this argument, the Bench said India was a country of great diversity and “if we wish to keep our country united, we need to have tolerance and equal respect for all communities and sects. It is due to the wisdom of our founding fathers that we have a Constitution, which is secular in character and which caters for the tremendous diversity in our country.”
Secular state
The Bench said: “When India became independent in 1947 there were partition riots in many parts of the subcontinent, and a large number of people were killed, injured and displaced. Religious passions were inflamed at that time, and when passions are inflamed it is difficult to keep a cool head. It is the greatness of our founding fathers that under the leadership of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru they kept a cool head and decided to declare India a secular country instead of a Hindu country. This was a very difficult decision at that time because Pakistan had declared itself an Islamic state and hence there must have been tremendous pressure on Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and our other leaders to declare [India] a Hindu state. It is their greatness that they resisted this pressure and kept a cool head and rightly declared India to be a secular state. This is why despite all its tremendous diversity India is still united. In this subcontinent, with all its tremendous diversity (because 92 per cent of the people living in the subcontinent are descendants of immigrants), the only policy which can work and provide for stability and progress is secularism and giving equal respect to all communities, sects, denominations, etc.”
On the petitioner's contention that Article 27 was violated, the court said: “If only a relatively small part of any tax collected is utilised for providing some conveniences or facilities or concessions to any religious denomination, that would not be violative of Article 27. It is only when a substantial part of the tax is utilised for any particular religion would Article 27 be violated.”
Facilities for all Indians
The Bench pointed out that the State government incurred some expenditure for the Kumbh Mela and the Centre, for facilitating Indian citizens to go on pilgrimage to Mansarover, etc. Similarly some State governments provided facilities to Hindus and Sikhs to visit temples and gurdwaras in Pakistan. “These are very small expenditures in proportion to the entire tax collected. Thus there is no discrimination. Parliament has the legislative competence to enact the Haj Committee Act.”
Secular nod to Haj subsidy
- Small amount doesn’t violate Constitution: Court
OUR LEGAL CORRESPONDENT
New Delhi, Jan. 28: The Supreme Court has upheld the subsidy given to Haj pilgrims, saying the diversion of a small amount from taxes does not violate the Constitution and pointing out that India is a secular state unlike Pakistan.
Such a diversion does not violate Article 27 of the Constitution that bars any person from being compelled to pay any tax that can be used for any particular religion, the court said.
The Supreme Court was disposing of a petition filed by Prafull Goradia, a former BJP MP in the Rajya Sabha who is no longer associated with the party.
He had challenged the Haj Committee Act on the ground that it violated Articles 14, 15 and 27. Goradia had claimed that although he is a Hindu he has to pay direct and indirect taxes, part of which fund the Haj pilgrimage undertaken only by Muslims.
Upholding the legality of the subsidy, the court said that Article 27 would have been violated if a substantial part of the entire income tax or excise or customs duties or sales tax, or any other tax, were to be utilised for promotion of any particular religion.
Suppose 25 per cent of the entire income tax collected was used for promoting or maintaining any particular religion or religious denomination, it would violate Article 27, the bench said.
“… if only a relatively small part of any tax collected is utilised for providing some conveniences or facilities or concessions to any religious denomination, that would not be violative of Article 27. It is only when a substantial part of the tax is utilised for any particular religion that it would be violated,” the two-judge bench said.
In Parliament last year, foreign minister S.M. Krishna had put the Haj subsidy at Rs 611 crore for 2009-10. The figure is just 0.13 per cent of the Rs 4.65 lakh crore (revised estimates) the Centre collected in taxes in the same year.
The Supreme Court bench noted that the central and state governments also incur some expenditure for Kumbh Mela and the pilgrimage to Mansarovar.
Some states provide facilities to Hindu and Sikh pilgrims to visit temples and gurdwaras in Pakistan. “These are very small expenditures in proportion to the entire tax collected,” the court said.
The court lauded the central government’s stand that it was not averse to the idea of granting support to any pilgrimage conducted by any community.
“In our opinion, we must not be too rigid in these matters, and must give some free play to the joints of the state machinery. A balanced view has to be taken here, and we cannot say that even if one paisa of government money is spent for a particular religion there will be violation of Article 27,” the bench said.
There was “no discrimination”, the court observed, as facilities are also given and expenditures incurred by Central and state governments for other religions, too.
The bench then referred to the origins of the Indian nation state in 1947 to drive home the point that the founding fathers of the country had consciously chosen to declare India a secular state while Pakistan declared itself a Muslim state.
“It is because of the wisdom of our founding fathers that we have a Constitution which is secular in character, and which caters to the tremendous diversity in our country,” Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra said.
“…when India became independent, there were partition riots in many parts of the subcontinent, and a large number of people were killed, injured and displaced. Religious passions were inflamed at that time, and when passions are inflamed it is difficult to keep a cool head,” the bench noted.
“It is the greatness of our founding fathers that under the leadership of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru they kept a cool head and decided to declare India a secular country instead of a Hindu country. This was a very difficult decision at that time because Pakistan had declared itself an Islamic state (it became an Islamic republic in 1956) and hence there must have been tremendous pressure on Nehru and our other leaders to declare a Hindu state. It is their greatness that they resisted this pressure and kept a cool head and rightly declared India to be a secular state.
“This is why despite all its tremendous diversity India is still united. In this subcontinent, with all its tremendous diversity (because 92 per cent of the people are descendants of immigrants) the only policy which can work and provide for stability and progress is secularism and giving equal respect to all communities, sects, denominations, etc,” the court counselled.
The bench iterated the sentiments expressed in an earlier decision which said: “Since India is a country of great diversity, it is absolutely essential if we wish to keep our country united to have tolerance and equal respect for all communities and sects.”
o o o
The Times of India
SC upholds central subsidy to Haj pilgrims
TNN, Jan 29, 2011, 03.28am IST
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the constitutional validity of the central government assistance to subsidise air fare of Haj pilgrims which amounted to Rs 300 crores every year.
A Bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra said the amount given as subsidy for Haj was too meagre and could not be termed as a diversion of a major chunk of the income tax to fall foul of Article 27 of the Constitution.
Article 27 says: "No person shall be compelled to pay any taxes, the proceeds of which are specifically appropriated in payment of expenses for the promotion and maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination."
Petitioner Prafull Goradia had complained that though he was a Hindu, he had to pay direct or indirect taxes, part of which were utilised by the government to subsidize Haj, which was done by Muslims alone.
Dismissing the petition, the Bench said: "In our opinion, if only a small part of any tax collected is utilised for providing some conveniences or facilities or concessions to any religious denomination, that would not be violative of Article 27 of the Constitution."
"Article 27 would be violated if a substantial part of the entire income tax collected in India, or a substantial part of the entire central excise or the customs duties or sales tax or substantial part of any other tax collected in India, were to be utilised for promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination," it said.
Referring to the counter affidavits filed by the Centre, the court said the governments incurred some expenditure for the Kumbh Mela and facilitating Indian citizens' pilgrimage to Mansarovar as well as visit to temples and gurudwaras in Pakistan.
For the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra, the Centre gives a subsidy of Rs 3,250 per pilgrim totalling its expenditure to Rs 32.5 lakh. In contrast, it gives a subsidy of Rs 28,000 towards air fare of each of the one lakh Haj pilgrims entailing a total expense of Rs 280 crores on this count alone.
o o o
The Hindu, 29 January 2011
Supreme Court: Haj subsidy not discriminatory
J. Venkatesan
If we wish to keep country united, we need to have tolerance
Spending small part of tax for concessions is not violative of Article 27: Bench
Rs. 280-crore expenditure on Haj, a drain on taxpayers' money: Prafull Goradia
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Haj Committee Act, which provides for grant of a government subsidy for pilgrimage every year.
A Bench of Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra rejected the contention by Prafull Goradia, former BJP Rajya Sabha member, who said such a grant violated Articles 14 and 15 and in particular Article 27 (freedom as to payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion).
“Severe drain”
The petitioner said he was a Hindu but he had to pay direct and indirect taxes, part of whose proceeds went for the Haj pilgrimage, which was done only by Muslims. For the Haj, “the Indian government grants a subsidy in air fare,” which it could not do. An estimated Rs. 280 crore annually incurred by the government for the pilgrimage was not only unconstitutional but also a severe drain on the taxpayers' money.
Rejecting this argument, the Bench said India was a country of great diversity and “if we wish to keep our country united, we need to have tolerance and equal respect for all communities and sects. It is due to the wisdom of our founding fathers that we have a Constitution, which is secular in character and which caters for the tremendous diversity in our country.”
Secular state
The Bench said: “When India became independent in 1947 there were partition riots in many parts of the subcontinent, and a large number of people were killed, injured and displaced. Religious passions were inflamed at that time, and when passions are inflamed it is difficult to keep a cool head. It is the greatness of our founding fathers that under the leadership of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru they kept a cool head and decided to declare India a secular country instead of a Hindu country. This was a very difficult decision at that time because Pakistan had declared itself an Islamic state and hence there must have been tremendous pressure on Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and our other leaders to declare [India] a Hindu state. It is their greatness that they resisted this pressure and kept a cool head and rightly declared India to be a secular state. This is why despite all its tremendous diversity India is still united. In this subcontinent, with all its tremendous diversity (because 92 per cent of the people living in the subcontinent are descendants of immigrants), the only policy which can work and provide for stability and progress is secularism and giving equal respect to all communities, sects, denominations, etc.”
On the petitioner's contention that Article 27 was violated, the court said: “If only a relatively small part of any tax collected is utilised for providing some conveniences or facilities or concessions to any religious denomination, that would not be violative of Article 27. It is only when a substantial part of the tax is utilised for any particular religion would Article 27 be violated.”
Facilities for all Indians
The Bench pointed out that the State government incurred some expenditure for the Kumbh Mela and the Centre, for facilitating Indian citizens to go on pilgrimage to Mansarover, etc. Similarly some State governments provided facilities to Hindus and Sikhs to visit temples and gurdwaras in Pakistan. “These are very small expenditures in proportion to the entire tax collected. Thus there is no discrimination. Parliament has the legislative competence to enact the Haj Committee Act.”
July 28, 2009
Central Govt should stop all funding of religious pilgrimages; Follow welcome order by Andhra high court
Excerpts from a recent op-ed by the veteran journalist BG Verghese Deccan Herald, 28 July 2009
" one must welcome a judgment of the Andhra high court staying a state government order providing financial assistance to Christians desirous of going on pilgrimage to Bethlehem, Jerusalem and Nazareth. The proposal was a clear case of communal vote banking and an abuse of public funds on a par with the increasing subsidies being given to Haj pilgrims and those undertaking the yatra to Kailas-Mansarovar.
It is time the UPA government put an end to such flagrant competitive communalism that goes against the Constitution and the commitment to secularism. Provide facilities within reason, yes. Subsidies - essentially the buying of community votes – no.
Finally, the country needs to come down heavily on such unacceptable traditions as neck-deep burial of children to cure their disabilities during total solar eclipses, as happened in Gulbarga last week, and a series of ‘honour killings’ for marriage within the same gotra in Haryana. Leaving social reform to time alone is a poor answer. "
" one must welcome a judgment of the Andhra high court staying a state government order providing financial assistance to Christians desirous of going on pilgrimage to Bethlehem, Jerusalem and Nazareth. The proposal was a clear case of communal vote banking and an abuse of public funds on a par with the increasing subsidies being given to Haj pilgrims and those undertaking the yatra to Kailas-Mansarovar.
It is time the UPA government put an end to such flagrant competitive communalism that goes against the Constitution and the commitment to secularism. Provide facilities within reason, yes. Subsidies - essentially the buying of community votes – no.
Finally, the country needs to come down heavily on such unacceptable traditions as neck-deep burial of children to cure their disabilities during total solar eclipses, as happened in Gulbarga last week, and a series of ‘honour killings’ for marriage within the same gotra in Haryana. Leaving social reform to time alone is a poor answer. "
June 18, 2009
More state subsidy for pilgrimages or none at all? No debate in India
livemint.com, June 18 2009
Populism takes pilgrimage path
by Venkatesha Babu, Priyanka P. Narain and C.R. Sukumar
Bangalore/Mumbai/Hyderabad: Competitive populism is entering the realm of religion, a trend that critics say is a potentially dangerous political game being played with an eye on electoral gains.
Click here to watch video
http://tinyurl.com/lohbhg
State governments in a country that swears by secularism are starting to offer subsidized pilgrimages to citizens, who at election time in the past have been wooed by politicians with promises ranging from offers of rice at Rs2 per kg to free colour television sets.
Religious bandwagon
Karnataka’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government is the latest to join the religious bandwagon, proposing to subsidize the travel and stay of pilgrims who visit the temples of Udupi, Dharmasthala and Saudatti in the southern Indian state.
In neighbouring Andhra Pradesh, the Congress party-led government is subsidizing the cost of travel for Christians visiting Jerusalem, the holy land.
Karnataka minister for housing S.N. Krishnaiah Setty, who also heads a department that oversees Hindu temples and endowments under government control, said last week that the administration intends to set apart Rs10 crore to subsidize pilgrimages for Hindus.
He didn’t say how the money would be spent or the beneficiaries identified. “Modalities are being worked out and will be announced shortly,” Setty said.
To be sure, the concept of subsidized pilgrimages is not new. The Union government spent an estimated Rs700 crore last year on the Haj subsidy for Muslims to perform the pilgrimage to Mecca.
The Centre also underwrites a part of the cost of the annual pilgrimage to Kailash Mansarovar in Tibet that Hindus believe is the abode of the Hindu god Shiva.
President Pratibha Patil, in her inaugural speech to the new Parliament outlining the policies of the Congress party-led coalition, said the government would strive to strengthen and “reform the management of Haj operations”.
At the heart of the debate is what it means to be a secular state—should the government be involved in all religions equally or in none at all in a country where Hindus comprise about 80% of the population, Muslims around 13% and Christians 3%?
A matter of faith: A file photo of Haj pilgrims. State governments are offering subsidies for religious pilgrimages, sparking a debate on whether the state should be be involved in all religions equally or in none at all. Amit Dave / Reuters
Rama Jois, former chief justice of the Karnataka high court and author of a special report on government presence in temples and temple trusts, says the idea of a secular government subsidizing religious travel is a dangerous one.
“Ideally, the governments should not be opening this door at all,” Jois said. “Although it is not unconstitutional for a secular state to subsidize religious travel for citizens, it must be done equally for all. But then the question is about what is equal.”
Dangerous game
Populism takes pilgrimage path
by Venkatesha Babu, Priyanka P. Narain and C.R. Sukumar
Bangalore/Mumbai/Hyderabad: Competitive populism is entering the realm of religion, a trend that critics say is a potentially dangerous political game being played with an eye on electoral gains.
Click here to watch video
http://tinyurl.com/lohbhg
State governments in a country that swears by secularism are starting to offer subsidized pilgrimages to citizens, who at election time in the past have been wooed by politicians with promises ranging from offers of rice at Rs2 per kg to free colour television sets.
Religious bandwagon
Karnataka’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government is the latest to join the religious bandwagon, proposing to subsidize the travel and stay of pilgrims who visit the temples of Udupi, Dharmasthala and Saudatti in the southern Indian state.
In neighbouring Andhra Pradesh, the Congress party-led government is subsidizing the cost of travel for Christians visiting Jerusalem, the holy land.
Karnataka minister for housing S.N. Krishnaiah Setty, who also heads a department that oversees Hindu temples and endowments under government control, said last week that the administration intends to set apart Rs10 crore to subsidize pilgrimages for Hindus.
He didn’t say how the money would be spent or the beneficiaries identified. “Modalities are being worked out and will be announced shortly,” Setty said.
To be sure, the concept of subsidized pilgrimages is not new. The Union government spent an estimated Rs700 crore last year on the Haj subsidy for Muslims to perform the pilgrimage to Mecca.
The Centre also underwrites a part of the cost of the annual pilgrimage to Kailash Mansarovar in Tibet that Hindus believe is the abode of the Hindu god Shiva.
President Pratibha Patil, in her inaugural speech to the new Parliament outlining the policies of the Congress party-led coalition, said the government would strive to strengthen and “reform the management of Haj operations”.
At the heart of the debate is what it means to be a secular state—should the government be involved in all religions equally or in none at all in a country where Hindus comprise about 80% of the population, Muslims around 13% and Christians 3%?
A matter of faith: A file photo of Haj pilgrims. State governments are offering subsidies for religious pilgrimages, sparking a debate on whether the state should be be involved in all religions equally or in none at all. Amit Dave / Reuters
Rama Jois, former chief justice of the Karnataka high court and author of a special report on government presence in temples and temple trusts, says the idea of a secular government subsidizing religious travel is a dangerous one.
“Ideally, the governments should not be opening this door at all,” Jois said. “Although it is not unconstitutional for a secular state to subsidize religious travel for citizens, it must be done equally for all. But then the question is about what is equal.”
Dangerous game
December 14, 2007
Stop subsidising religion
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.
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.
April 23, 2007
State subsidy for pilgrimages not against secularism
(The Hindu
April 22, 2007)
Subsidies for Haj pilgrimage not against secularism: Centre
New Delhi, April 22. (PTI): The Centre has defended subsidies provided to Muslims for the Haj pilgrimage in the Supreme Court, brushing aside the charge that it was against the principles of secularism, and said financial support was also given to people of other religions.
The Centre provides such facilities for the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra by Hindus and Sikh pilgrims visiting gurudwaras in Pakistan, it said in an affidavit.
The External Affairs Ministry said, it had been conducting the Kailash Mansarover Yatra with the assistance of States and providing financial support to Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam to offset the expenditure incurred by it for yatris.
"Some State Governments also provide assistance to the yatris. Facilities are provided to Hindu and Sikh pilgrims for visits to temples and gurudwaras in Pakistan," it said.
The Government was responding to a petition challenging the constitutional validity of annual financial aid given by it to Muslim pilgrims on the ground that it amounted to discrimination on the basis of religion.
The Government's affidavit assumes significance in view of concern expressed by the Apex Court, which during the hearing on a similar issue last year had wanted to know as to whether any subsidy like the one for Haj was given to pilgrims of other religious communities.
The court had referred to Sikh 'jathas' going for pilgrimage to Nanakana Sahib in Pakistan and the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra for Hindus.
The court's observations had come while vacating the Allahabad High Court's order restraining the Government from providing financial subsidies to Haj pilgrims last year.
Responding to a petition filed by a Delhi-based businessman on the Haj issue, the Centre said the grant of subsidy was in no way against the principle of secularism and was pivotal for developing better relations with Arab countries.
"Indian Muslims performing Haj promote goodwill and international understanding," it said.
"A policy decision to grant subsidy to Haj pilgrims is in no way going to affect the principles of secularism in the country.
"It is very much pertinent to state at this juncture that the Government is not averse to the idea of granting support to pilgrimage conducted by any community," the Centre said.
Making a distinction between essential activities of religions and secular aspects connected with it, the Centre said, "In order that religious practises in question should be treated as a part of religion, it must be its essential and integral part.
"Coming and going for Haj, coming and going for Kailash Mansarovar, coming and going for Kumbh Mela are all indeed secular activities. The Government is only facilitating Indian citizens to go on pilgrimage," it said.
The petitioner contended that the provision of a special subsidy to the Muslim community to the exclusion of others like Hindus, Christians, Buddhists and Sikhs was violative of the Constitution as the State cannot discriminate between citizens on the grounds of religion, caste or creed.
April 22, 2007)
Subsidies for Haj pilgrimage not against secularism: Centre
New Delhi, April 22. (PTI): The Centre has defended subsidies provided to Muslims for the Haj pilgrimage in the Supreme Court, brushing aside the charge that it was against the principles of secularism, and said financial support was also given to people of other religions.
The Centre provides such facilities for the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra by Hindus and Sikh pilgrims visiting gurudwaras in Pakistan, it said in an affidavit.
The External Affairs Ministry said, it had been conducting the Kailash Mansarover Yatra with the assistance of States and providing financial support to Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam to offset the expenditure incurred by it for yatris.
"Some State Governments also provide assistance to the yatris. Facilities are provided to Hindu and Sikh pilgrims for visits to temples and gurudwaras in Pakistan," it said.
The Government was responding to a petition challenging the constitutional validity of annual financial aid given by it to Muslim pilgrims on the ground that it amounted to discrimination on the basis of religion.
The Government's affidavit assumes significance in view of concern expressed by the Apex Court, which during the hearing on a similar issue last year had wanted to know as to whether any subsidy like the one for Haj was given to pilgrims of other religious communities.
The court had referred to Sikh 'jathas' going for pilgrimage to Nanakana Sahib in Pakistan and the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra for Hindus.
The court's observations had come while vacating the Allahabad High Court's order restraining the Government from providing financial subsidies to Haj pilgrims last year.
Responding to a petition filed by a Delhi-based businessman on the Haj issue, the Centre said the grant of subsidy was in no way against the principle of secularism and was pivotal for developing better relations with Arab countries.
"Indian Muslims performing Haj promote goodwill and international understanding," it said.
"A policy decision to grant subsidy to Haj pilgrims is in no way going to affect the principles of secularism in the country.
"It is very much pertinent to state at this juncture that the Government is not averse to the idea of granting support to pilgrimage conducted by any community," the Centre said.
Making a distinction between essential activities of religions and secular aspects connected with it, the Centre said, "In order that religious practises in question should be treated as a part of religion, it must be its essential and integral part.
"Coming and going for Haj, coming and going for Kailash Mansarovar, coming and going for Kumbh Mela are all indeed secular activities. The Government is only facilitating Indian citizens to go on pilgrimage," it said.
The petitioner contended that the provision of a special subsidy to the Muslim community to the exclusion of others like Hindus, Christians, Buddhists and Sikhs was violative of the Constitution as the State cannot discriminate between citizens on the grounds of religion, caste or creed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
