By Yoginder Sikand
The recent suggestion by Justice Siddiqui, Chariman of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions, that the Government of India set up a Central Madrasa Board has been welcomed by a small section of the Indian ulema, but many of the more influential Muslim clerics in the country have strongly opposed it. Although the press has highlighted this fact, it has not cared to seriously look at the arguments that these clerics make in this regard, thus reinforcing the deeply-held stereotype of the ulema being allegedly wholly opposed to madrasa reform.
Some months ago, the Dar ul-Ulum at Deoband, arguably India’s largest and most influential madrasa, organized a massive public gathering under the auspices of the ‘All-India Federation of Islamic and Arabic Madrasas’ at Deoband to specifically discuss the question of the proposed Board. Expectedly, the convention concluded with a stern denunciation of the Government’s plans.
Deoband’s opposition to the Board, which may be taken to reflect the opinion of several non-Deobandi clerics, too, was summarized in the inaugural address to the rally delivered by the rector of the Deoband madrasa, the ageing Maulana Marghub ur-Rahman, which has recently been published as a booklet. The Maulana sees the proposal of the Board as aimed essentially at undermining the Islamic or specifically religious character of the madrasas and thereby to cause them to ‘deviate’ from their basic objective—that of producing scholars of the Islamic tradition. He refers to American imperialist offensives in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the pressure that America is exerting on many Muslim states to ‘reform’ their religious education system to argue that behind America’s demands for reform of the madrasas is the sinister motive of destroying their identity and, with this, their ability to challenge Western hegemony. At a time, he asks, when few governments choose to defy America’s writ, ‘Is it impossible that the proposed Board could be part of our own Government’s expression of loyalty to global powers?’.
The Maulana claims that the opponents of Islam recognize the crucial role that madrasas play in sustaining the Islamic scholarly tradition and popularizing it among the Muslim public. They see the madrasas as being a major hurdle in their expansionist and imperialist designs. Hence, he claims, they are ‘conspiring’ to undermine the madrasas, but, instead of doing this directly, they are seeking to do this by another means—by converting madrasas from institutions of Islamic learning to ’employment training centres’. The proposed Board, he argues, is one such effort on the part of the Indian Government, for once madrasas begin to receive aid from the Government through the Board they will be under its control and their independent religious character would be seriously affected.
Evoking a central principle enunciated by the founders of the Deoband madrasa, the Maulana argues that madrasas must remain free of financial dependence on the state or rich and powerful people. So as to remain rooted among and responsible to ‘ordinary’ Muslims, they must depend only on donations by the Muslim masses. This would, he says, earn them the pleasure of God, being dependent only on His help for their finances. Pleading for madrasas to safeguard their autonomy from governmental interference, which is bound to happen if they receive government aid, the Maulana adds, ‘The ulema of Bukhara mourned the decline of knowledge when the [Abbasid] government began funding the Nizamia madrasa in Baghdad’, a reference to one of the earliest government-supported madrasas in the Muslim world. They ‘expressed sorrow that religious education would be procured therein not for the sake of the Hereafter but to acquire worldly pomp and splendour’. He predicts that the same might happen to madrasas in India today in case they are affiliated to the proposed Central Madrasa Board.
The Maulana notes that Justice Siddiqui defends his proposal by claiming that the Board would enable Muslims to adjust to ‘modern demands’ and overcome their ‘backwardness’ by combining religious and secular education and in this way help them ‘gain success in terms of economic benefit and spiritual benefit for the Hereafter’. Siddiqui also argues that the Board, while not interfering in the religious education of affiliating madrasas, will lay down the syllabus for secular studies therein and that it would also have the power to inspect the accounts of these madrasas to the extent that they receive funds from the state.
The Maulana dismisses as seemingly benign but actually sinister proposals. The proposal of such a Board was, he points out, first made by the previous BJP-led NDA coalition government, which had appointed a working group on ‘national security’, led by the then Home Minister, that expressed concern about the increasing number of madrasas in India, seeing them as a security risk, and wrongly alleging links between madrasas in border areas and the Pakistani secret service agencies. In this context, the report had suggested the setting-up of a Central Madrasa Board to ostensibly promote madrasa ‘modernisation’ but actually to counter their alleged security threats. Hence, the Maulana says, the proposal itself is suspect.
The Maulana further questions the wisdom of such a Board by noting that it has not been demanded by any representative Muslim organization. ‘The question thus arises’, he says, ‘that while the Government consigns legitimate Muslim demands into the dustbin, how can it, in the absence of any such demand, establish a massive programme for madrasa welfare?’. Obviously, he argues, the intentions behind the proposed Board are not pious.
Further questioning the need for such a Board, the Maulana notes that, as the recent Sachar Committee Report on Indian Muslims reveals, less than 4 per cent of Muslim children in India study in full-time madrasas. The rest 96 per cent either study in regular private and public schools or not at all. ‘The Government’, the Maulana says, ‘is not bothered about these 96 per cent children’, and asks, ‘How come such sympathy for these 4 per cent?’. If the Government truly wishes to do something for Muslim education, he advises, it can ‘do all it wants’ to promote modern education among the 96 per cent Muslim children. However, here it has done precious little, if at all, and, instead, has adopted policies that make it increasingly difficult for minorities to establish their educational institutions. Is it not ironic, he asks, that ‘Where Muslims need the Government’s help the Government’s policy is one of non-cooperation, while in the case of those institutions [madrasas] that think that remaining safe from Government help is the biggest help they can get, the Government insists that they should accept its aid?’. ‘What meaning should be attributed to his?’, he questions.
Taking on Siddiqui’s argument that the Board is needed in order to enable madrasa graduates to secure better economic prospects, the Maulana argues that in Islam the aim of acquiring religious knowledge is to win the favour of God, rather than for using it for worldly ends. Hence, he says, the ulema have always stressed the need for ‘pious intention’ in pursuing religious education, and have insisted that it should not be had as a means for economic advancement. This being the case, he says, obviously this basic aim of the madrasas would be severely affected if the Board comes into being. In this regard, he stresses the point that madrasas are not intended to promote the economic development of the community. Rather, he says, they aim to ‘train such specialists who, indifferent to worldly pleasures, devote themselves to the protection and defence of Islam’. This objective, he claims, would be severely hampered if madrasa education were sought to be linked to the question of employment, as Justice Siddiqui envisages his proposed Board doing.
Other crucial aspects of the madrasas, the Maulana goes on, might be similarly negatively affected if the Board comes into being. The ulema of the madrasas are required to propagate the message of Islam and even, if the need so arises, to speak up to ‘tyrant rulers’, but, the Maulana says, government-aided madrasas would lose this freedom. Their Islamic character can easily be undermined if the government forces them to study ‘un-Islamic’ material or sing ‘polytheistic’ songs, he says, referring to the practice in several BJP-ruled states making the singing of Hindu-inspired and ‘un-Islamic’ songs mandatory for all students in government schools. Justice Siddiqui promises that the religious curriculum of the madrasas will not be impacted upon by the Board, but, the Maulana asks, what if the Board structures the syllabus of secular education in such a way that the time and space devoted to religious study in the affiliating madrasas are greatly constricted? And when Siddiqui says that the Board will have the right to inspect the accounts of the affiliating madrasas to the extent that they take financial aid from it, what, he questions, is to stop ‘communally-minded’ government officers from creating problems for the madrasas in matters related to their other funds? Further, he adds, the performance of madrasas affiliated to state-level boards appointed by governments in some states has proved to be a miserable failure, and so there is every chance of this happening on a far larger scale if the Central Madrasa Board comes into being. Finally, he says, the Board will seriously impair the constitutional rights that minorities enjoy to establish and run educational institutions of their choice, free of governmental interference.
While countering the proposed Board, Siddiqui suggests that madrasas coordinate with each other, improve their functioning and the moral standards of their students, work more closely with their surrounding societies and also regularly submit their accounts to government-approved auditors so that they cannot be accused of financial impropriety. In this way, he suggests, the madrasas might be able to take the wind out of the sails of those who, he argues, seek to undermine them in the name of the proposed Board.
Of course, not all ulema would agree with everything that the Maulana has to say. Some of them have indeed welcomed the proposed Board on the condition that it guarantees the autonomy of the madrasas and that no decisions are thrust on them without the approval of their ulema. Many of them stress the need for inclusion of secular subjects in the madrasa curriculum to a certain level, with or without the help of a Board. The lively, often heated, debate on the Board thus continues to rage in ulema circles.
_____________________________________________________________
The author works with the Centre for Jawaharlal Nehru Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi. He may be contacted on [email protected].