Haj is one of the five pillars of Islam, an obligation only for a Muslim who can afford travelling, food, accommodation and other expenses; and that too only after arranging for the daily expenditure of his household during his absence from home. It is not a mere journey to the holy cities of Makkah and Madinah; it is an act of worship and should be taken in right earnest. Muslims are not expected nor are they obliged to undertake the Haj pilgrimage on loan or accepting subsidy from any quarters. They should not let this act of devotion politicised. But, as the powers-that-be would have it, it has been politicised for about two decades in the name of giving subsidy to Haj pilgrims. This politics of Haj subsidy has helped Air India compensate its yearly budget deficit, if any, and even earn huge profits in the name of extending a helping hand to Haj pilgrims. It is in fact a farce that has come to light once again with the May 8 judgement of the Supreme Court.
The Government claims that it has to bear additional expenses incurred on Haj flights, which it gives to Air India in the name of Haj subsidy. But a close analysis of the issue reveals the fact that Air India does not incur any loss during the Haj season rather it earns a lot – more than it does in non-Haj months. Over 1.25 lakh Muslims from different parts of India go on Haj pilgrimage. They are bound to take Air India. The period of journey is also fixed as Haj pilgrims go and return on stipulated dates. And not a single seat of Air India flight goes vacant during the Haj season. An Air India ticket from New Delhi to Jeddah or Makkah or Madinah for any general day is always less than what a Haj pilgrim has to pay. So there is no question of any loss to Air India due to Haj.
The Apex Court verdict has directed the Government to reduce and virtually eliminate Haj subsidy. But as this Haj subsidy is no less than a farce, it would be better if it is eliminated forthwith and intending Haj pilgrims are allowed to take any flight of their choice.
The Apex Court direction also says that the subsidy money thus saved ‘may be more profitably used for uplift of the community in education and other indices of social development’. This is in the fitness of things. Let us see how long the Government takes in acting upon this advice of the Apex Court.