 |
|
The decision to abolish the Jumma break, a two-hour period for prayer on Fridays, in the Assam Legislative Assembly has sparked intense controversy, with opposition parties accusing Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma of targeting Muslims. Sarma, however, maintains that the decision was a collective one made by the assembly to enhance productivity and shed colonial practices.
The Jumma break, a tradition since 1937 when the Muslim League was in power, was eliminated based on a resolution by the assembly's rules committee. AIUDF MLA Mazibur Rahman vehemently criticized the decision, stating that it was a blatant attempt to harass Muslims, citing the recent efforts by the government to restrict Muslim practices such as polygamy and the Muslim Marriage Act. He warned Sarma of the public's anger and the potential consequences of his actions.
Echoing these sentiments, RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav accused the BJP of targeting Muslims for cheap popularity, while CPM leader Hannan Mollah labeled the decision as anti-national and called Sarma a “heinous minority hater.” Sarma, in response, emphasized that the decision was not his alone, highlighting the presence of minority community members in the rules committee. He underscored the goal of the abolition as an attempt to increase productivity and remove what he termed as a colonial burden.
The Jumma break issue has ignited a debate about religious freedom, minority rights, and the role of government in shaping cultural practices. While Sarma argues that the decision was driven by pragmatic concerns, critics accuse him of using the issue to stoke religious tensions and consolidate power. The controversy underscores the ongoing complexities surrounding religious and cultural diversity within Indian society and the need for a nuanced approach to sensitive issues.
The opposition's accusations of targeted harassment are based on a perception that the BJP government under Sarma has taken a series of steps that disproportionately affect Muslims. These include the proposed amendment to the Muslim Marriage Act, the crackdown on polygamy, and the alleged targeting of Muslim businesses and institutions. Sarma has consistently defended these measures as necessary for progress and development, while critics maintain that they reflect a discriminatory agenda. This narrative of a targeted approach towards Muslims has further amplified the controversy surrounding the Jumma break decision.
The debate is likely to continue, with both sides drawing on their respective narratives and interpretations of the events. The Jumma break issue, while seemingly a procedural matter, has become a potent symbol in the larger discourse on religious freedom and minority rights in India. It highlights the delicate balance between preserving cultural traditions, promoting productivity, and upholding the principles of equality and inclusivity.