Retiring to become an Imam in Paschim Banga*..
..or something like that. From Banerjee announces sops for Muslims, honorarium for Imams (3rd Apr):
Raising the pitch for next year’s Panchayat elections..Mamata Banerjee..announced pro-minority sops including a monthly honorarium for Imams.
“The government wants to give a monthly honorarium of Rs. 2,500 to Imams of the state which will be paid through the state Wakf Board.
..Banerjee also said “homeless, landless Imams” will now be given the benefits under her pet project “Nijo Bhumi Nijo Griha (Own Land, Own House)“.”There are more than 30,000 Imams in Bengal and a large percentage of them do not have a house or land. If they want and if their religious laws permit, then they can avail the benefits under the Nijo Bhumi Nijo Griha’ scheme and get 3 cottahs of land to build house. The government will also provide for the construction expenditure,” she added.
Several questions come to mind: Which land will be alloted? Government land, public property? or purchased from private citizens? If the land is going to be purchased, who pays? the tax-payer or someone else? Will “homeless, landless” Christian priests also be covered? What about “homeless, landless” Hindu priests? etc etc..
Once you have got over the outrage, please share this with friends and others..In the meantime, I am exploring if this can be the basis for a Public Interest Litigation.. While on this, can someone please help me find the % of Paschim Banga’s budget ear-marked for the Wakf Board and other “minority” institutions? and one last question: Is the Dakshineshwar Kali temple under government control?
Did you see this bit of “news” in any MSM or TV Channel? I would love to know…Thanks
Image from this post: Some startling stats from the eastern front.. Related category of posts: Politics of Minority Appeasement. * Thanks to Sh Krishen Kak for alerting me to this.
For the record (from ToI, Pg 15, 5th Apr ’14):
Can a legal option be looked at to prevent this largesse from the tax payers money, being doled out to Imams.Surely our Courts will take a balanced view.In a secular democratic setup, why should the Govt dole out money to priests of only a particular community.It has to be seen as not partial to anyone.All priests of every religion should get this benefit.
If these are the entire facts of the case , then it sounds definitely weird and untenable. I think this is just another irresponsible statement by MB – and she has made so many of them ( I am not supporting her or anything like that ).
Thanks, Santanu. If this plan of MB materialises, priets from all religions should be compensataed in the same manner. We shoudl see higher proportion for Hindu priests.. There should be 4 Hindu priests in this program for evey Muslim priest (going by the proportion of population). If any CM does this, I will salute in admiration. In Tamilnadu, ‘kurrukals’ are disappearing due to the pittance such jobs bring. May be it such schemes would help everyone. If any CM does this, I will salute in admiration.
this is just a simple case of purchasing vote for the coming election in panchayats(2013) & Lok sabha(2014). CM(Mamata)knows illiteracy is the main problem among West Bengal Muslims. this Imams has a very good hold on the poor & illiterate Muslims of the village area. So instead of spreading literacy it is cheaper & easier to purchase the imams & collect the Muslim vote.
it is a shameful attitude. she should not use tax payers money to purchase vote.
If there is no Hindu leader to help poor Hindus from this vulture politicians, from bestowing everything to a particular community and misuse tax payers fund, it will be better for the Poor to convert to Muslims and avail these and lead a better life.
Update via http://hindusamhati.blogspot.in/2012/04/is-mamatas-imam-special-package-falling.html
…Here is the first reaction..
Md Nurur Rahman Barkati , Shahi Imam of Tipu Sultan Masjid, when asked of the annunciation, stated categorically, “We were expecting that the remuneration of imams to be around Rs 20,000. Since the CM has sougt our feedback, we will request her to raise it to Rs 10,000 at least.†The same view was echoed by Maulana Athar Abbas Rizvi, Imam Cossipore Masjid, one more member of the committee and in accordance with him, “I will request the imams to accept it for the time being, and then seek a hike later rather than decline the offer.â€
..Maulana Tausiqui Hussain was found to mention an earlier assurance made by Trinamool minister Mukul Roy. “At a meeting in Haj House, he had promised that the remuneration would be to the tune of Rs 20,000, this announcement has come as a disappointment to us.â€
From West Bengal imams reject state govt allowance:
…Most Muslim preachers, or imams, in West Bengal have spurned chief minister Mamata Banerjee’s Rs.2,500 monthly allowance, saying it was against their tenets to accept money from any source other than religious endowments. About one-third of them have sought the allowance.
Banerjee had announced the payment in April, lower than the Rs.10,000 promised earlier. It was estimated at the time that there were about 70,000 imams leading prayers at various mosques in West Bengal.
About 20,000 imams have applied for the payment, according to officials in the state’s minority affairs department who didn’t want to be named.
…Despite its stressed finances, the state government had released Rs.22 crore for payment to the imams..”
Good sense appears to prevail: Setback for Mamata as HC rejects dole to imams and muezzins, TNN Sep 3, 2013, 05.29AM IST:
KOLKATA: In a major setback to the Mamata Banerjee government, the Calcutta high court on Monday struck down the decision to give monthly honorarium to imams and muezzins, calling it “arbitrary” and “offending to the Constitution”.
A division bench of Justice Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay and Justice Murari Prasad Shrivastava said the state has in an “illegal and irregular manner” provided funds to the Wakf Board for the honorarium. In a 44-page judgment, the court held that state executives have “squandered public money” by releasing funds to the Wakf Board without a government order under Article 166 of the Constitution.
From No Salaries to Imams Despite High Court Order, By Express News Service, 21st December 2013:
…
The AP Wakf Board has been paying salaries to Imams and Mouzens working in mosques which are under its control, says former board chairman Syed Gulam Afzal Biabani Kushro Pasha. “Paying salaries to all the Imams and Mouzens in the state is not possible as neither the board nor the mosques concerned have enough resources,†he said.
Though High Court direction came more than a year ago, it was not being implemented mainly due to opposition from Ulemas. They feel that leading the prayer in a mosque is a religious obligation and accepting salary from the government is not proper.
The Karnataka government has been implementing the court order and paying `8,000 per month to the Imam and `6,000 to the Mouzen. In West Bengal too the scheme is being implemented in some mosques.
Somewhat related: Head-on | Does India treat its minorities fairly? Why the global narrative subverts the facts by Minhaz Merchant, Sept 21, 2022.
Brief excerpts:
….
How does India treat its minorities?
It allows Muslims, who make up 15 per cent of the population, to keep their personal laws. Hindus who comprise 80 per cent of India’s population, don’t enjoy that privilege. Their personal laws were codified in 1955, soon after Independence.
Over the next several decades, India’s Muslims were given control of Wakf land and funds, control over madrassas, and subsidies for the annual Haj pilgrimage. Muslim educational institutions like Aligarh Muslim University were encouraged with finance and patronage.
The majority of Hindus did not regard all this as preferential treatment to a large minority. To them Muslims were civilisational Hindustani. They had chosen India over Pakistan in 1947 and deserved their special privileges.
Muslims were elected presidents of the Indian Republic and occupied high office in the armed forces, judiciary and civil services.
But they were not the only minorities treated with respect. Parsis, a minuscule minority, kept their own personal laws as well. So did Jews, another tiny minority. Both Parsis and Jews had arrived in India centuries ago, fleeing persecution and seeking new lives in a subcontinent that embraced diversity.
Christians too were early arrivals and embedded themselves into India’s plural culture.
…
A global narrative has increasingly been created that India is intolerant towards its minorities, especially Muslims. The absence of a single BJP MP in the Lok Sabha is cited as evidence. The imprisonment of Muslims like Umar Khalid and Siddique Kappan, prosecuted for inciting communal violence, is seen as more evidence of the Modi government’s deliberate targeting of Muslims.
The reading down of Article 370, the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and the Supreme Court’s order in favour of a Ram Mandir in Ayodhya where the Babri Masjid structure stood buttress the global narrative of India systematically eroding Muslim rights.
This narrative ignores the evidence: India’s 210 million Muslims have more freedom than Muslims in most Muslim-majority countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran and Pakistan.
Indian Muslims vote in free democratic elections. Muslim women wear the hijab everywhere – in markets, schools, colleges, on the street. The only exceptions are a few schools (perhaps 1 per cent of all schools in India) that have specific dress codes.
Muslim women in India are encouraged to join the armed forces, the police and other professions from where women in Muslim-majority countries are barred. In India Muslim women professionals are treated with dignity and respect.
India’s armed forces — Army, Navy and Air Force — have prayer facilities for every faith: Hindu, Muslim, Christian and Sikh. Few armies in the world, even in liberal democracies, observe such secular plurality.
Britain’s parliament begins sessions with Christian prayers. In contrast, India’s Parliament does not cater to the majority with Hindu prayers.
And yet, the narrative in the global media does not point out Britain’s Christian Protestant majoritarianism: the head of state (now King Charles III) can only be a Protestant. In India, the head of state has frequently been Muslim or Sikh.