Skip to main content

Haj wasn't the only subsidy, Govt of India must come clean on all religious spendings: Gujarat minority rights body

By A Representative
Following the Government of India decision to stop Haj Subsidy to Muslims, a minority rights organization has, in a letter to Union home minister Rajnath Singh, sought a white paper from the Government of India (GoI) on the types of subsidies being offered to different religious organizations.
Signed by Majuahid Nafees of the Minority Coordination Committee (MCC), Gujarat, the letter says that the NDA government progressively reduced the Haj subsidy ever since it came to power – it was Rs 750 crore two years ago, which came to down to Rs 250 in 2017-18. Yet, it adds, the whole effort is to bring about a “divide” communal divide by making it appear that only Muslims alone cornered all religious subsidies.
Objecting to the effort to paint stopping of Haj subsidy as a “big saving from wasteful expenditure”, MCC claims, how, a few years ago, the Kumbh festival in Allahabad carried a budget of Rs 1,150 crore, all funded by the Government of India. It recalls, in 2014, the UP government was accused of “misusing” Rs 800 crore of this amount
“Last year”, MCC says, “The Madhya Pradesh government spent Rs 3,400 crore, while the Central government spent Rs 100 crores for the Singhast Maha Kumbha in Ujjain.” It adds, “This apart, different governments spend huge funds for helping pilgrims visiting Badrinath, Kedarnath, Kailash Mansarovar, Amarnath and other spots.”
“Thus”, MCC says, “The Government of Madhya Pradesh gives a subsidy of Rs 50,000 for Kailash Mansarovar Yatra per passenger”.
Specifically referring to Gujarat, MCC says, the state government “has set up what is called Pavitra Yatra Dham Vikas Board for the “development” of 338 pilgrim spots across the state, even as providing a budgetary allocation of Rs 106.69 crore in 2017-18. It adds, “The state government runs a course to teach the rituals of Hinduism, funded by the state.”
Further pointing out that the present government of Uttar Pradesh has “begun programmes for the renovation and spiritual development of pilgrim spots of Kashi and Ayodhya, allocating Rs 800 crore”, MCC says, “The question arises whether one should focus on government spending on Haj pilgrims alone.”
“We believe that the state should not interfere in religious practices, which is a matter of personal choice”, MCC says, even as quoting from a Supreme Court judgement which says, “The relationship between man and God is an individual choice. The state is forbidden to have allegiance to such an activity … Mixing state with religion is not constitutionally permissible.”
It also quotes Article 27 of the Indian Constitution, which states, “No person shall be compelled to pay any taxes, the proceeds of which are specifically appropriated in payment of expenses for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination.”
MCC also quotes from a Supreme Court order of 2011, Prafull Goradia v. The Union of India, pointing towards how religious funding “violates Article 27” of the Constitution. The order said, “In our opinion 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 a substantial part of any other tax collected in India, were to be utilized for promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination.”
“In other words, suppose 25 percent of the entire income tax collected in India was utilized for promoting or maintaining any particular religion or religious denomination, that, in our opinion, would be violative of Article 27 of the Constitution”, the order added.
Asking Government of India to “come clean” on the issue, MCC has sought a white paper on whatever the Central government spends on religious pilgrims, festivals, meeting, places of worship so that the “country can know about how much the government is spending on the promotion of which religion.”

Comments

TRENDING

Swami Vivekananda's views on caste and sexuality were 'painfully' regressive

By Bhaskar Sur* Swami Vivekananda now belongs more to the modern Hindu mythology than reality. It makes a daunting job to discover the real human being who knew unemployment, humiliation of losing a teaching job for 'incompetence', longed in vain for the bliss of a happy conjugal life only to suffer the consequent frustration.

CFA flags ‘welfare retreat’ in Union Budget 2026–27, alleges corporate bias

By Jag Jivan  The advocacy group Centre for Financial Accountability (CFA) has sharply criticised the Union Budget 2026–27 , calling it a “budget sans kartavya” that weakens public welfare while favouring private corporations, even as inequality, climate risks and social distress deepen across the country.

Four women lead the way among Tamil Nadu’s Muslim change-makers

By Syed Ali Mujtaba*  A report published by Awaz–The Voice (ATV), a news platform, highlights 10 Muslim change-makers in Tamil Nadu, among whom four are women. These individuals are driving social change through education, the arts, conservation, and activism. Representing diverse fields ranging from environmental protection and literature to political engagement and education, they are working to improve society across the state.

From water scarcity to sustainable livelihoods: The turnaround of Salaiya Maaf

By Bharat Dogra   We were sitting at a central place in Salaiya Maaf village, located in Mahoba district of Uttar Pradesh, for a group discussion when an elderly woman said in an emotional voice, “It is so good that you people came. Land on which nothing grew can now produce good crops.”

'Big blow to crores of farmers’: Opposition mounts against US–India trade deal

By A Representative   Farmers’ organisations and political groups have sharply criticised the emerging contours of the US–India trade agreement, warning that it could severely undermine Indian agriculture, depress farm incomes and open the doors to genetically modified (GM) food imports in violation of domestic regulatory safeguards.

When free trade meets unequal fields: The India–US agriculture question

By Vikas Meshram   The proposed trade agreement between India and the United States has triggered intense debate across the country. This agreement is not merely an attempt to expand bilateral trade; it is directly linked to Indian agriculture, the rural economy, democratic processes, and global geopolitics. Free trade agreements (FTAs) may appear attractive on the surface, but the political economy and social consequences behind them are often unequal and controversial. Once again, a fundamental question has surfaced: who will benefit from this agreement, and who will pay its price?

Why Russian oil has emerged as the flashpoint in India–US trade talks

By N.S. Venkataraman*  In recent years, India has entered into trade agreements with several countries, the latest being agreements with the European Union and the United States. While the India–EU trade agreement has been widely viewed in India as mutually beneficial and balanced, the trade agreement with the United States has generated comparatively greater debate and scrutiny.

Trade pacts with EU, US raise alarms over farmers, MSMEs and policy space

By A Representative   A broad coalition of farmers’ organisations, trade unions, traders, public health advocates and environmental groups has raised serious concerns over India’s recently concluded trade agreements with the European Union and the United States, warning that the deals could have far-reaching implications for livelihoods, policy autonomy and the country’s long-term development trajectory. In a public statement issued, the Forum for Trade Justice described the two agreements as marking a “tectonic shift” in India’s trade policy and cautioned that the projected gains in exports may come at a significant social and economic cost.

Samyukt Kisan Morcha raises concerns over ‘corporate bias’ in seed Bill

By A Representative   The Samyukt Kisan Morcha (SKM) has released a statement raising ten questions to Union Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan regarding the proposed Seed Bill 2025, alleging that the legislation is biased in favour of large multinational and domestic seed corporations and does not adequately safeguard farmers’ interests.