The Calcutta High Court has rightly struck down West Bengal’s unconstitutional allowances to Muslim clerics. Not only did the Government break the law, it meticulously deceived the public in every aspect of this ‘welfare project’
last year, the Government in West Bengal declared it would give imams in the State a monthly stipend of Rs 2,500 and Rs 1,000 to muezzins who recite the call to prayer. According to available estimates, approximately 30,000 imams and 15,000 muezzins subsequently received these promised grants. But the State’s mosque-oriented welfare scheme suffered a blow last week when Calcutta High Court struck down these ‘unconstitutional’ transactions. The failure of the Government to abide by the law is manifest in every aspect of its welfare project: In the source of funds, in its target, and in its purported (and real) purpose. let’s visit these issues one by one.
The first issue concerns the source of the allocated funds. In its memorandum, the State Government says that it “has offered to give honorarium of Rs 2,500 per month to imams through [the] Wakf Board.” Instead of asking the Wakf Board to supply the required funds, however, the Government relied on the public exchequer to finance its welfare scheme. The Wakf Board was simply employed as a go-between. By carefully wording its memorandum to present the Wakf Board as the key enabler of its scheme, the State Government sought to achieve two objectives.
First, it tried to give the impression that its policy was lawful and consistent with a 1993 Supreme Court ruling that it is the duty of the Wakf Board “to harness resources to pay those persons who perform the most important duty namely of leading community prayer in a mosque.” And second, the State Government falsely portrayed the Wakf Board’s role so as to entice the intended recipients — West Bengal’s imams and muezzins. Most individuals associated with mosques and madarssas in West Bengal are reluctant to accept money from State. Their reluctance is driven by a fear that Government support might compromise their ability to operate autonomously, and concern for what others within the community might think of their actions. They consider it perfectly acceptable, however, to accept money from the Wakf Board.
The second problem with the welfare scheme concerns its target. The Government’s memorandum claims it is assisting imams as many of them “are living in a very pitiable condition without proper income and educational opportunities for their children.” There is no doubt that most imams are engaged rather selflessly in a profession that pays very little (their salaries range from Rs 1,500 to Rs 3,000 per month). Yet, the Government has made no effort to separate the truly needy amongst West Bengal’s imams and muezzins from those who enjoy alternative sources of income. Moreover, as the court observed, the Government has no empirical basis to reserve pity exclusively for some citizens. Surely, poor clerics of other religious groupings and destitute Muslims outside of the clergy should anguish the Government just as much.
The third problem with the scheme concerns its motive. In its memorandum, the State Government tried to make the case that its payment to imams and muezzins was in the public interest as these individuals “play a leading role in the mobilisation of the community for good purposes including health, hygiene, and education and for promotion of various Government schemes.” Dismissing this broad job profile, the court opined that “leading the prayer for a particular religious community is not a State function and as such cannot be termed as a public purpose.” The court further concluded that “the State Government is making payment of the honorarium out of religious considerations” in violation of articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution. But the Calcutta High Court may have been too polite.
The West Bengal Government was acting out of electoral considerations. It tried to pull off a similar stunt in 2011 when it announced it would recognise 10,000 madarssas. That plan failed for two reasons. First, the number of madarssas in the State was grossly overestimated. Second, the proposed assistance had few takers since it was extended on the condition that madarssas introduce secular subjects in their curricula.
This time the Government refined its strategy. It changed the target from madarssas which wield influence over (non-voting) students to imams who lead hundreds of (voting) adults in prayer. And it offered something few would refuse: Salaries without any preconditions.
Though the project has been frustrated by the court’s decision, the State managed to disburse stipends to muezzins and imams for 12 and 17 months, respectively. But if Maulana Shahidul Qadri, the imam of Kolkata’s Dhankheti Masjid, is to be believed, the Government shouldn’t expect too many returns for its altruism: “Yes, I lead 200 to 250 people in prayer five times a day. But we pray. We don’t talk about politics and we most certainly don’t discuss my salary.”
(The author is a DPhil candidate at the University of Oxford)