The Karnataka state budget, presented by the Congress government under Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, has sparked a major controversy, drawing criticism from the BJP, which labelled it a “Muslim League Budget.” At the heart of the dispute lies the government’s decision to allocate Rs 150 crore to the Wakf Board and significantly increase the salaries of Imams. This blatant display of appeasement politics raises pressing questions about the fairness of resource distribution in a truly secular democracy. In a nation that prides itself on secularism, every community’s welfare should be considered. However, this budget seems to focus disproportionately on one minority group while ignoring others, including Christians, Buddhists, Jains, and Parsis—not to mention the majority Hindu population. The Congress government’s approach undermines the very essence of secularism, which should mean equal treatment of all communities, not preferential treatment of one. The irony is that while the BJP is often accused of being a Hindutva-driven party, no evidence suggests that its policies exclude any community. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s guiding principle, “Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas, Sabka Vishwas, Sabka Prayas” (Together, Development for All, Trust of All, Effort by All), has ensured that central government welfare schemes benefit all Indians, irrespective of religion. Muslims, like other citizens, have benefited from free ration distribution, LPG subsidies, housing programs, and sanitation initiatives. More importantly, the Modi government took a historic step in empowering Muslim women by banning the regressive practice of triple talaq, which had long been an instrument of oppression under Shariat law.
The Congress government’s decision to funnel significant public funds into the Wakf Board is even more questionable considering that these boards control vast amounts of property, second only to Indian Railways and the Defence Ministry. Despite this enormous wealth, Wakf Boards have failed to uplift the socio-economic status of ordinary Muslims. Even AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi has criticized the mismanagement and lack of accountability within these boards. Yet, when the Modi government proposed amendments to make Wakf Boards more transparent, the same political forces opposing corruption reforms rushed to resist the changes. Why? Is it because a handful of elites benefit from the opaque functioning of these institutions? Adding to the concern is the role of the judiciary. India’s courts have stepped in on multiple occasions to uphold constitutional values, but why have they remained silent on this blatant violation of secular principles? Public funds, including revenues from thousands of Hindu temples under state control, are frequently diverted to minority welfare, while Hindu religious institutions struggle with state interference. Is this not an infringement on the rights of those who contribute the most to temple funds? The broader picture reveals a Congress party still clinging to outdated vote-bank politics. Its return to power in Karnataka was largely facilitated by explicit promises to the Muslim electorate, including post-election boasts by community leaders who claimed credit for the party’s victory. The demand for a Muslim Deputy Chief Minister may not have been met, but the budget’s allocations appear to be a financial deal to appease religious leaders. Symbolically, the timing of the budget’s presentation—on a Friday and during the holy month of Ramzan—reinforces the perception that this was a calculated political move rather than an impartial economic policy. When governance takes a backseat to electoral strategy, democracy itself is at risk. If the judiciary fails to act now, the question remains: Who will stand for true secularism in India?
