Govt offers to hand over Hajj arrangements to private sector

Standing committee on religious affairs meets to probe graft allegations.


Zia Khan December 11, 2010

ISLAMABAD:


The government will willingly withdraw itself from Hajj operations if the parliament decides to completely privatise the process, offered the federal minister facing corruption allegations in this year’s arrangements for the annual pilgrimage.

The proposal by Religious Affairs Minister Hamid Saeed Kazmi came on Friday during a meeting of a parliamentary panel. It appeared to be aimed at controlling the damage done by a barrage of criticism the government had to face for “improper” housing arrangements for pilgrims who performed the pilgrimage under the government scheme.

More than 60 per cent of those who go for Hajj every year have to opt for the government scheme, the private sector controls the rest of the operations.

“We won’t have any objection if the parliament decides that the private sector will carry out the Hajj (operations) entirely,” Kazmi told the National Assembly standing committee on religious affairs that met here to probe into the corruption allegations.

Presided over by its Chairman Maulana Qasim Jan, the committee met to establish who was behind the “poor” housing arrangements for the pilgrims, leaving most of them unattended. There has been a lingering controversy about  Hajj this year, prompting the Supreme Court to take suo moto action against alleged malpractices and financial embezzlement.

Kazmi had admitted to mismanagement of the event during a court hearing a couple of days ago but denied corruption charges against himself and officials of his ministry. He repeated the same statement in the committee.

“There might have been some mistakes because of inexperience, but corruption, absolutely no way. (These) allegations are propaganda against me,” Kazmi insisted but it appeared to be hardly enough to satisfy the committee members, most of them from the Deobandi school of thought.

Deobandis are opposed to Barelvis, a Sunni sub-sect Hamid Saeed belongs to and some observers believe a feud between the two has been behind the sufferings of the pilgrims.

No private lawyer

The committee asked the minister not to hire a private lawyer to defend corruption charges against him in the Supreme Court and rely on the attorney-general of Pakistan. The directive came after it emerged that the religious affairs ministry would be paying Rs5.5 million to the law firm of Latif Khosa for putting up a legal defence for Kazmi.

Kazmi hit back at Pakistan’s Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Umer Khan Alisherzai, who had accused the minister of corruption in Hajj arrangements in a statement a week ago. Kazmi said Alisherzai spoke against him because he wanted to control the renting of houses for pilgrims but wasn’t given that job.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 11th, 2010.

COMMENTS (10)

Fahad Zafar | 13 years ago | Reply Zia, thanks for correcting it.
Syed Ijaz | 13 years ago | Reply People of Pakistan are thankfull to Almighty Allah for this independent Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry. Can you imagine what sort of faith in Islam, do those who head this Government and its bureaucracuy have, when they knowingly did not spare even the poor hajis. Almost over 20,000 hajis had no tents at Mina, no water for ablution to keep intact their state of AHRAM, and yet no action was taken against the culprits till the Supreme Court of Pakistan took Suo Motto notice of their endless agony. This Haj has been a never ending agony for these unfortunate souls, whose return flights by PIA were delayed for upto 16 hours. Those who appointed the DG Haj and MD PIA are directly responsible for the acts done by their nominees, who co-incidentally have a tarnished backgroung of financial irregularities. What business do these sons of VVIPs have to be involved in appointment of such men. These vultures have crossed all limits.
VIEW MORE 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