Housing ministry allotting mosques on sectarian basis

NA panel claims ministry ‘patronising’ certain groups, wants new policy


Riazul Haq July 07, 2017
NA panel claims ministry ‘patronising’ certain groups, wants new policy. PHOTO: EXPRESS

ISLAMABAD: Members of the National Assembly panel have strongly criticised a decision of the Ministry of Housing and Works to allot mosques in different sectors of the capital on a sectarian basis, terming it a move to provide sectarian and banned outfits illegal possession of different mosques in Islamabad.

The members were also taken aback to know that the ministry had no existing policy about possession and construction of mosques in several sectors of Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT).

Discriminatory ad in K-P newspaper draws public outrage

The NA Standing Committee on Housing and Works met with MNA Haji Akram Ansari in the chair at the Parliament House on Thursday.

“Why is control of mosques being given to people of a certain sect in Sector G-13 and G-14 and other areas where Pakistan Housing Authority (PHA) is handling the development of such sectors,” asked Ghulam Sarwar Khan of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI).

However, Minister for Housing and Works Akram Khan Durrani and other officials of the ministry could not satisfy members of the panel with their answers. However, they vowed to resolve the issue.

“I am surprised that the ministry is apparently patronising sectarian groups and banned outfits in acquiring possession of mosques right under its nose,” Khan said, adding that he had been raising the issue for the past year.

However, Durrani refuted the allegations, stating that they had not provided possession of mosques on a sectarian basis. But he confessed that the ministry did not have a policy in place to prevent any such bias.

Curiously, he revealed that they were helpless about the issue.

Meanwhile, the ministry’s joint secretary Jameel Ahmad told the committee that as many as six mosques in different sectors of the capital had been occupied. In Sector G-12, six mosques had been allotted to the Barelvi school of thought, three to Deobandi, one to the Ahle-e-Hadith and one to the Shia school of thought.

He could not share further details as lawmakers started arguing with the minister over “spreading sectarianism”.

Durrani, though, refuted the allegations and stated that members of the other sects had gone to court over the controversy.

The minister stated that he was against such distribution of mosques and suggested that if a housing society or ministry could manage all the development in the area, then why would they leave the matter of mosques to locals which could lead to such controversies.

“We are already a divided nation and we cannot afford such things,” Durrani maintained.

Seven housing societies placed under liquidation

Jamiat-e-Ulema Islam Fazl (JUI-F) Maulana Ameer Zaman asked that if there was no discrimination in hiring of government officials or any such thing in universities and colleges, then why were possession of mosques being handed out on sectarian grounds.

While the members engaged in a heated debate over the issue, members of some religious groups started distributing news clippings and applications about their appointment as imams among members of the committee.

The committee subsequently directed the ministry to formulate a policy for allotting mosques and to work out a proposal for constructing mosques using the ministry’s resources for future projects instead of allotting plots to the public or groups for the purpose.

Thalian housing society

The committee sought a comprehensive briefing from the Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation on the Thalian joint venture housing project in Islamabad in light of concerns raised by members of the committee regarding the availability of water, title of land, access from the Islamabad-Lahore Motorway and eligibility of the venture’s partner.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 7th, 2017.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ