SIR: The Federal Government delegation to last year’s Christian pilgrimage, headed by Pastor Ayo Oritsejafor, reportedly listed seven northern states among those who refused to sponsor Christian pilgrims. Their displeasure was the bias that has been institutionalized in the policy of the states mentioned. However, President Jonathan had a wise word that gladdened me to some extent. His assertion was that it was left to the states whether or not to sponsor pilgrims, but whatever their decision, they must remember that what applies to Christians must apply to Muslims and vice versa.
My concern, however, is the religious and economic implication of federal and states continuing sponsorship of Christian and Muslim pilgrimage to the holy land. In the first place, neither the Islamic nor Christian religion suggests that the common wealth of the people could be used to pay for the pilgrimage of a privileged few even where they are state religions. That some countries of the world practice this policy does not absolve us from considering how different our circumstance is.
I certainly encourage pilgrimage. However, individuals should not be deprived of the spiritual benefit that accrues from the process involved in preparing and actual performance of the pilgrimage. However, when the government decides to pay for all expenses, that process, in my opinion, is interrupted and the full benefit of the pilgrimage is not achieved. On the contrary, the pilgrim’s spiritual riches are, so to say, switched for whatever is received as sponsorship. .
Economically, what we do every time we sponsor pilgrims to either Saudi Arabia, Israel or Italy, is transfer our meagre resources to help enrich countries that are already far richer than us through tourism spending, the fastest growing economic venture in the world.
If the same amount used in sponsoring individuals for pilgrimage was given to poor but industrious citizens, Nigeria would have been better for it. The idea of sponsoring pilgrims may be aimed at helping the citizens to grow holy but the reverse, in my opinion, seem to be happening. In a country of 160 million people, even if 10,000 citizens are sponsored every year, that will make up only 0.0062% of the total population and in a 100 years only 1,000,000 or 0.62% would have been sponsored, not even 1%. How long do we expect the other 99% to wait for their turn supposing it is a right? What this later group is seeing is the misappropriation of the common treasury to favour a very minor class of citizens based on their political or family affiliation to the detriment of the majority. The scenario would have been different if the one percent that will be sponsored will return to radically change the moral and socio-economic situation of the remaining ninety-nine for the better; then it would have be a worthy investment. Unfortunately, the security and economic situation in the country today is pregnant with so many questions that demands answers from all responsible citizens.
• Patrick Kanang Nyam
Department of Development Control,
Abuja Metropolitan Management Council, Wuse, Abuja.
