'No such concession for Hindus': BJP blasts Telangana's decision on relaxed work hours for Ramzan

BJP's IT Cell head Amit Malviya on Monday criticised the Telangana government for approving relaxed work hours for Muslim employees during Ramzan, calling it an act of appeasement. He questioned why similar concessions were not granted to Hindus during Navratri, terming the decision a political move aimed at vote-bank politics.

"The appeasement bug strikes the Congress government in Telangana, which has approved relaxed work hours for Muslim state employees during Ramzan. No such concessions are ever granted to Hindus when they fast during Navratri. This tokenism isn’t about being sensitive to the religious beliefs of one community but about reducing them to a mere vote bank. It should be opposed," Malviya posted on X.

The reaction comes after the Telangana Government issued a circular dated February 15, 2025, granting Muslim government employees, teachers, and public sector workers permission to leave their offices and schools at 4:00 PM from March 2 to March 31, 2025, to offer prayers during Ramzan. The circular was issued following a request from the Telangana State Minority Employees Service Association and applies except when employees are required for essential services.

BJP MLA Raja Singh, known for his strong stance on religious issues, also slammed the decision. "Appeasement politics at its peak! Telangana govt allows early leave for Ramzan but ignores Hindu festivals. Equal rights for all, or none," he wrote.

The move has also drawn criticism from legal experts and social media users. Advocate Girish Bharadwaj questioned if the government would extend the same courtesy to Hindus during Navratri, calling it the "heights of appeasement." A social media user, Shilpa, echoed similar sentiments, saying, "Telangana clears Ramzan leaves. All Muslim employees to leave office at 4 PM during Ramzan. Special privilege granted. Why not for Hindus during Navratri? Is this secularism?"

While the Telangana government maintains that the decision is aimed at accommodating religious practices, critics argue that selective relaxations raise concerns about preferential treatment.