The move of the Supreme Court ordering the Union Government to gradually reduce Haj subsidy and abolish it completely in 10 years is being welcomed from all the quarters, as people at large feel that these rules are wrong. The government seems to agree with the decision of the Supreme Court and if we go by its directives it seems that the government was also moving the same direction. But then the question arises as to why it did not take a step on this issue at a time when a number of Muslim religious leaders were of the view that the subsidy on Haj was unjustified. A few Ulema leaders have termed it even un-Islamic. Notwithstanding Centre’s claims it is a fact that the highest court of the land had to intervene in such an issue which actually was concerned with executive and as a matter of fact Centre was sluggish in its stand as it felt that it would shelve its political interests.

But this question arises because the Supreme Court did not desist from terming the move as appeasing the minorities. In a neutral set up the ruling dispensation should not reflect from its conduct that it is showering largesse on a particular community. When it happens so, reaction is visible in other sections of the society also and which ultimately leads to a series of propagandas. Undoubtedly neutral set up does not mean that the government has nothing to do with those going on a pilgrimage. However, it is bounding with the government to take into account that those going for piligrimge don’t face discomfort and this work should be handled in such a manner that no community may feel neglected or others feeling that government is showering largesse on it.

It is remarkable that a number of Muslim religious leaders have welcomed the move to do away with subsidy on Haj in next ten years. A positive reaction from their end was necessary as it would have sent a wrong message in the Muslim community. But it is a matter of fact that Muslim community is not reaping the benefits.