Author: D Bandyopadhyay
Publication: EPW Commentary
Date: April 20, 2002
The Indian nation cannot march forward with a major segment of its largest
minority group remaining backward, illiterate, unenlightened and weak. It is
the duty of every section of Indian society to help in the mainstreaming of
this section. But the issue of modernisation of madrasa education brings up
the vested interests of fundamentalist elements trying to protect their turf
and the political system which strives to utilise the backward for electoral
gain. Strangely, the interests of the non-secular religious groups and those
of the so-called 'secular and progressive' politicians merge, reinforcing
one another.
Life of Vedvyas Krishna Dwaipayan, the author of the Mahabharat was not
known to me. I learnt about it from a novelette by Shajad Firdausi, a
Bengali litterateur. Firdausi's language is elegant and chaste. His
presentation of the theme does justice to the all-time classic, the
Mahabharat. It is a piece of literature in Bengali which is likely to
transcend itself into a classic in time to come. I am born a Hindu Brahmin
belonging to the Sandilya clan ('gotra'). And as the name indicates, Shajad
Firdausi is a Muslim by birth. But as a Muslim he had no compunction in
delving into the mysteries of the genesis of a classic of the 'infidels'.
Nor did I have any problem in savouring the sweet richness of the literary
creation of a 'mlechha'. Both these have been possible because of the
secular education that we had and, perhaps, the liberal ambience in which we
grew up in our early days.
The issue is being raised because of the widespread controversy regarding
madrasa education now going on not only in India but also in the west,
particularly after the events of September 11, 2001. Whether any
anti-national or illegal activities are being carried on or not in these
madrasas is for the authorities to enquire. It is hoped that in doing so the
functionaries would be objective and would not be swayed by communal
feelings or considerations.
No one can accuse Buddhadev Bhattacharyya, chief minister of West Bengal, of
communalism. In fact, the opposition in West Bengal always accuses the Left
Front (LF) of pampering the minorities for electoral gain. Yet Buddhadev
Bhattacharyya made a few statements in January stating that there had been
an alarming increase in the number of madrasas in the border areas of the
state, largely financed by petro-dollars. He suggested that these
unregistered and therefore unauthorised madrasas should be investigated,
both with regard to their sources of finance and the types of activities
they carried on. His partial retraction of these statements later is a
different issue. But as a person in charge of the governance of the state
what he said could not be ignored.
It is often alleged that the LF has been ignoring the issue of illegal
migration of minorities from across the border for far too long. Perhaps to
prove their credentials as a non-communal coalition of left forces, they
have been too soft on this issue even to the point of overlooking the
established laws on the subject. There are now six districts in West Bengal
where the 'minority' constitutes the 'majority'. Though the Bangladesh
authorities would strongly contest the point, no observer can ignore the
unusual increase in the 'minority' community population in the border
districts and in certain localities of the Calcutta metropolitan area. One
can legitimately ask the question what happened to the substantial 'Bihari'
population in Bangladesh, a community ostracised by the Bangladeshis for
their anti-liberation role during the freedom struggle and abandoned by
their godfather state of Pakistan? The sharp decrease in their number in
Bangladesh can only be explained by their clandestine migration to India
mainly through West Bengal which has a large Hindi-Urdu speaking population.
It is so easy to get mixed up with this population, making detection a near
impossibility. That Calcutta became a safe haven for some anti-national
elements became evident in the last couple of years when one noticed a sharp
increase in cases of kidnapping for ransom and the recent shoot-out at the
American Centre on the Chowringhee.
It is not my intention to recount these stories which have already been
publicised with all frills and trappings in newspapers and magazines. The
short point I would like to highlight is the type of pupils that madrasas
turn out in our country. Is that education likely to make the students good
and responsible citizens of our sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic
republic, or make them incompatible with the basic values on which our
republic rests? If it be latter, there would necessarily be some concern
about the pedagogy and the content of such education.
Without going back into the history of Muslim rule in India, let us start
our short survey from the beginning of the British raj. The board of
directors of the East India Company in the early days of British domination
in India, while sympathetic towards attempts to revive Indian learning,
entertained no idea of introducing any system of education in the country.
In 1781, however, Warren Hastings established the Calcutta Madrasah College
for Muhammedans for the study of "Muhammedan law and such other sciences as
were taught in Muhammedan schools". In 1792 Jonathan Duncan, resident at
Benares, obtained permission "to establish a college in the holy city for
the preservation and alleviation of laws, literature and religion of Hindus,
for recovering and collecting books on the most ancient and valuable general
learning and tradition now existing in perhaps any part of the globe" (B
Prashad, The Progress of Science in India during the Past Twenty-five Years,
Indian Science Congress Association, Calcutta, 1938, pp vii-viii).
The point to be noted here is that both the Madrasah in Calcutta and the
Sanskrit College at Benares had one common objective of study of Muhammedan
and Hindu laws. Before the introduction of the Anglo-Saxon juridical system
in India, the Company's magistrates and judges had to depend on Hindu
pandits and Muslim quazis for the administration of justice. Thus in spite
of the general disinclination of the Company's board of directors to
introduce any system of education, the local government had to introduce
both the Hindu and Mohammedan systems of education to perform the basic duty
of administering law and justice. Incidentally, the Sanskrit College of
Calcutta was established subsequently.
British Policy
The British followed the policy of strict neutrality in religious matters.
In reply to an address by the Christian missionaries, Lord William Bentick,
the governor-general, said, "The fundamental principle of the British rule,
the compact to which the government stands solemnly pledged, is strict
neutrality. In all schools and colleges supported by government, this
principle cannot be too strongly enforced, all interferences and injudicious
tampering with religious belief of the students, all mingling, direct or
indirect teaching of Christianity with the system of instruction ought to be
positively forbidden." These views were affirmed in a Despatch of the Court
of Directors dated April 13, 1858 (GoI, Report of the University Education
Commission, Vol I, New Delhi, Chapter VIII, p 289).
The Education Commission of 1882 reiterated the same position. The Indian
University Commission of 1902 and the Calcutta University Commission 1917-19
also maintained the same stance of religious neutrality "in view apparently
of the difficulties of the problem in a country where religion seemed to be
a source of strife and disunion" (ibid:290).
The Central Advisory Board, 1944-46, observed, "After fully considering all
aspects of the question, the Board resolved that while they recognise the
fundamental importance of spiritual and moral instruction in the building of
character, the provision for such teaching except insofar as it can be
provided in the normal course of secular instruction should be the
responsibility of the home and the community to which the pupil belongs"
(ibid:290).
Following the same tradition and logic the founding fathers of our
Constitution incorporated Article 28 which, inter alia, states, "No
religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution
wholly maintained out of state fund". Inferentially, it can be argued that
the state should not subsidise or fund any institution which imparts wholly
religious teachings.
The Great Indian Mutiny of 1857 and the subsequent transfer of authority of
governance of India from the John Company to the British Crown had a very
peculiar impact on Muslim education in India. A large number of Muslim
jaigirdars and landowners, particularly belonging to the erstwhile kingdom
of Oudh taken over by the British by deposing Nawab Wazir Ali Shah, took
part in the revolt. Some of them also thought of bringing back the Moghul
rule by defeating the imperial power. After the crushing of the mutiny,
ruthless revenge followed in which many Muslims along with Hindu landowners
and petty chiefs suffered badly.
In the aftermath of the mutiny, having been alienated and distanced from the
imperial power several social and religious trends emerged among the Indian
Muslims in their bid to resurrect and revive their social and political
standing vis-a-vis both the colonial power and the majority Hindus. Their
dream of resuscitating Muslim rule in India through the last of the Moghuls,
Bahadurshah, who died in exile in Burma having been dashed, the elites among
the Muslims thought of different routes. They ranged from Deobandis to
pro-western reformers who set up colleges such as Aligarh Muslim University
based on the British model which would teach Islam and the liberal arts and
sciences so that Muslim youth could catch up with the British rulers and
compete with the established Hindu elites (Rashid Ahmed, Taliban - The Story
of Afghan Warlords, Pan Books, London, 2000, pp 87-88).
Islamic social and political leaders in India identified education as the
key to creating the modern Muslim. A large member of madrasas were set up in
the latter half of the 19th century. Most important and famous among them
were (source: Muslim India, October 21, 2001):
(1) Darul Uloom, Deoband, 1866.
(2) Mazaheral Uloom, Shaharanpur, 1866.
(3) Madrasa Baqyatris Salehat, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, 1883.
(4) Jamia Mazharul Uloom, Benares, 1893.
(5) Darul Uloom Nadwatul Ulema, Lucknow, 1894.
(6) Madrasa Ameenia, Delhi, 1897.
(7) Darul Uloom Khalilia Nizamia, Tonk, 1899.
(8) Jamia Arabia Hayatul Uloom, Mubarakpur, 1899.
(9) Madrasa-ul Islah, Sarai Mir, Azamgarh, 1909.
(10) Jamia Darus Salam, Umnabad, 1924.
It is to be noticed that most of the well known madrasas were situated in
UP. Before the partition UP had a large population of the Muslim elite. They
took the lead in establishing these institutions as a part of their social
and religious obligation to the community and simultaneously to create and
enlarge their social and political base.
Deobandis
Among these madrasas, the one at Deoband created a niche for itself as the
most puritan and orthodox seminary of Islamic theology. "The Deobandis aimed
to train a new generation of learned Muslims who would revive Islamic values
based on intellectual bearing, spiritual experience, Shariah law and Tariqah
or the Path. By teaching their students how to interpret shariah, they aimed
to harmonise the classical shariah texts with current realities" (Rashid
Ahmed op cit, p 88). The Deobandis were very conservative in their approach.
They took a restrictive view of the role of women and rejected the Shias.
Students coming out of these 'deeni' madrasas (religious institutions)
called 'talib' constituted a cadre of Islamic zealots. Deobandis set up
madrasas all over India. By 1879 there were 12 Deobandi madrasas. By 1967
when the Deobandis celebrated their centenary they had 1,000 madrasas in
south Asia (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh).
After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Zia-ul Haq, the Chief Martial Law
Administrator of Pakistan set up a chain of deeni madrasas of the Deobandi
school on the Pak-Afghan border. He did so to turn out highly motivated
jihadis to support the Mujahideens fighting the Soviet forces. Madrasas of
the Deoband School earned a reputation of producing fiercely fanatic Islamic
zealots who would rather die in a jihad to go to paradise direct than live a
normal life.
The standard syllabi of such madrasas "include learning of the holy Koran by
heart, tajweed (correct pronunciation of Koranic verses), tafseer
(interpretation of holy scriptures), fiqah (Islamic Jurisprudence), shariah
(Islamic law), ahadis (life and decisions of the holy Prophet on various
issues brought before him by the faithful), mantiq (philosophy), riazi
(mathematics) and falakiat (astronomy) and tabligh (spreading the word of
god)" (Kamal Matinuddin, The Taliban Phenomenon, Afghanistan 1994-97, OUP,
Karachi, 2000, p 15).
It is generally a 12-year course. A 'talib' is a student who has not
completed the required number of years. But a mullah has to go through the
designated number of years in a madrasa under different religious scholars.
Only then a proper dastarbandi carried out and the recipient is entitled to
carry the title mullah (Kamal Matinuddin, ibid, pp 15-16). Once a mullah, he
could be an 'imam', 'quazi' or 'khatib' of a mosque or become a 'quazi'.
These madrasas not only imparted religious instructions of sorts, but more
than that they organised students into militant groups who would use force
to make their point. Motivated fighters came out of these deeni madrasas.
Not being a student of Islamic theology I feel handicapped to comment on the
pedagogy and content of study in madrasas. "Muslims regard the Quran which
means 'the recitation' as the eternal words of Allah himself. Thus Muhammad
is the conduit of god's words and not their composer for Muslims. God is
one, indivisible and absolutely transcendent. For every Muslim, the presence
of Allah can be experienced here and now through the very sounds and
syllables of Arabic Quran. Thus only the original Arabic is used in prayer -
even though the vast majority of Muslims do not understand the language. It
does not matter, the Quran was revealed through Prophet's ears and not his
eyes...They (Muslims) cherish the tradition that Muhammad could not read or
write as proof that Quran is pure revelation. It is enough for them that
Islam is the perfect religion and the Quran the perfect text" (U L Woodward,
'The Bible and the Quran', Newsweek, February 11, 2001, pp 53-54).
The Quran being the book of divine revelation, it does not admit of any
interpretation. The Arabic text has to be accepted as containing the eternal
truth revealed by Allah through Muhammad. The book contains sporadic calls
to violence. When Muslims run into opposition, the Quran counsels a
bellicose response. "Fight them [non-believers] so that Allah may punish
them at your hand and put them to shame". Another verse says "fight those
who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and do not forbid what god and his
messenger have forbidden - such men as practice not the religion of truth,
being of those who have been given the book - until they pay the tribute out
of hand and have been humbled" ('Repentence', 9:25). There are other verses
in the Quran which justify, nay, sanctify violence against non-believers.
"Surely the worst of beasts in god's sight are the unbelievers" ('The
Spoil', VIII:55). "Certainly, god is an enemy to the non-believers" ('The
Cow', II:90). "Oh ye who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers and let
them find in you harshness" ('Repentence', IX:123). "Humiliate the
non-Muslims to such an extent that they surrender and pay tribute"
('Repentence', IX:29). Or say "Then when the sacred months are drawn away,
slay the idolators wherever you find them and take them and confine them and
lie in wait for them at every place of ambush" ('Repentence', IX:5). [These
quotations from the Quran were taken from Anwar Shaikh's two books This is
Jehad and Islam and Human Rights, Houston, 1998 and 1999.]
The Quran being the text of Allah's spoken words is immutable, unchangeable,
eternal and permanent. It is beyond any interpretation. Its message is
direct and has to be accepted as such by the believers. Assuming that the
English version of the verses quoted above is correct, they do not admit of
tolerance of other faiths or religion. They do not indicate any spirit of
accommodation or reconciliation of other doctrines and tenets. They do not
indicate that there are many ways of reaching Him and one can choose any
path. There seems to be an inherent dogmatism in the Quran.
It is very often said that Islam means 'peace'. But this peace promised by
Allah to individuals and societies is possible only to those who follow the
straight path as outlined in the Quran (Newsweek, op cit). Inferentially
non-believers are not entitled to this peace.
The pedagogy followed by the madrasas is archaic and primitive. Squatting on
the floor young boys memorise and recite the Holy Quran without often
understanding what they are memorising. A person who memorises the Quran
becomes a 'hafiz' and all religious Muslim families will like to have at
least one 'hafiz' in the family. In a typical boarding madrasa the day
begins at the crack of dawn with morning prayers. Then begins the academic
session which is basically memorising the Quran. It continues till afternoon
with a break for lunch and prayer. There will be no extra-curricular
activities. Sports are not allowed. Television and radio are banned. A BBC
documentary screened in 1997 showed some students in chain in a deeni
madrasa in Pakistan being taught to memorise the Quran. What was even more
appalling was that the head of that madrasa defended the practice saying
that the chained students would otherwise run away to their homes
(Matinuddin, op cit, p 13).
Young minds are brainwashed in madrasas for carrying forward the messianic
spirit of Islam. Their dogmatic approach and intolerance of other points of
view produce fanatics - the ideal material for Jehad.
Analysing the baneful effect of such doctrinaire education the University
Education Commission (1962) observed, "One of the major causes of
misunderstanding and conflict among individuals and groups is the habit of
uncritical acceptance of beliefs and doctrines and transmission of them to
our children through methods of teaching, conditioning and indoctrination.
As a result of the adoption of these methods we grow to accept these beliefs
as self-evident or revealed truths which we should preserve and protect at
any cost. Doubts become difficult and obligation is felt to be sacred that
we should spread the faith and compel others to come in. This type of
competitive indoctrination has been in practice for centuries in the sphere
of religion. A healthy scepticism is the only remedy for these disturbing
phenomena. In universities and colleges we must develop the habit of free
critical inquiry and apply the methods of objective criticism to beliefs and
attitudes of people who differ from us but also to our own beliefs and
attitudes" (Matinuddin, op cit pp 296-970).
The main objective of liberal education is to develop the faculty of logical
reflection, questioning and inquiry. But when institutions impart dogmatic
instruction they stifle the spirit of inquiry thereby negating the basic
goal of liberal education. It applies to madrasas and similar institutions
of other religions. That is bad for coexistence of various faiths and belief
in a multi-religious society like ours.
There is, of course, no denying that for many Muslims madrasa education is
the alternative to no education. Supported by endowments and charity,
madrasas offer much cheaper education than even government schools. Board
and lodging is provided at a nominal cost. Tuition is entirely free.
Since madrasas run on charity, they are often looked down upon by the Muslim
elite. Affluent Muslims do not send their children to madrasas. As a result
madrasas have become the repository of orphans and children of poor and
destitute families. Syed Shahabuddin puts it nicely, "Hunger for education
is increasing and even poor families are investing in education. In Muslim
areas, one sees private schools sprouting as also private madrasas. They
compete with each other. Naturally the well-to-do go to schools; madrasas
care for the poor" (Muslim India, October 2001).
What Shahabuddin could have said and did not say was that this system of
education is dividing the Muslim community into two nations: one affluent
and employable in high paid jobs and the other poor, unemployable and
forever deprived and disgruntled.
A study commissioned by the British government after the ethnic riots of
Oldham and Burnby in March 2001 came out with some startling findings. It
said Hindus in Britain are four times less likely to be unemployed than
Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims. Muslim men of Pakistani and Bangladeshi
background are disproportionately unemployed as compared to Hindus in
Britain. This 220-page report says, "among south Asians Indian Muslims do
better than Muslims from Pakistani or Bangladeshi background". Though the
report warns against concluding that religion necessarily causes economic
disadvantage, it notes that "odds of being unemployed do vary significantly
with religion". Religion, including the influence of Islam, seems to be one
of the "unidentified factors which need to be considered" by the British
government in dealing with race relations (quoted from The Times, London, by
The Statesman, Calcutta, February 21, 2002).
President Pervez Musharraf addressing the Science and Technology Conference
at Karachi on February 18, 2002 said: "Today we are the poorest, the most
illiterate, the most backward, the most unhealthy, the most unenlightened,
the most deprived and the weakest of all human race. The time has come for
Islamic nations to take part in self-criticism". What president Musharraf
told about Pakistani Muslims also applies, mutatis mutandis, to Indian
Muslims.
The Indian nation cannot march forward with a major segment of its largest
minority group remaining backward, illiterate, unenlightened, unhealthy and
weak. It is the duty of every section of the Indian society, the state and
the civil society to help in mainstreaming this group which has fallen by
the wayside.
In this connection a question arises regarding modernisation of madrasa
education. Is it possible? Here we would come up against the vested
interests of the 'illiterate mullahs' trying to protect their turf and the
political system which would like to utilise the backward for electoral
gain. Strangely the interests of the non-secular religious groups and those
of the so-called 'secular and progressive' politicians merge, reinforcing
one another.
The government of India has launched a scheme of modernising madrasa
education since 1993. Under this scheme financial assistance is given to
madrasas for funding of science, mathematics, social sciences and language
teaching. But the scheme seems to be languishing. The issue of secular
education in madrasa apparently raises many heckles.
The phenomenal growth in the number of madrasas and their possible link with
Islamic militants has been engaging the attention of government of India. In
February 2001 a committee of ministers observed, "A recent phenomenon is the
mushrooming of pan Islamist militant outfits with links to radical
organisations in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and some other west Asian
countries. Funded by Saudi and Gulf sources many new madrasas have come up
all over the country in recent years, especially in large numbers in the
coastal areas of the west and in border areas of West Bengal and north-east.
Reports of systematic indoctrination of Muslims in border areas in
fundamentalist ideology is detrimental to country's communal harmony"
(Muslim India, March 2001). The report suggested vigorous implementation of
the madrasa modernising scheme.
In West Bengal up to 1977 there were 238 official madrasas. During the LF
rule from 1977 onwards so far additional 269 new madrasas have been opened.
The budget allocation for madrasa education was Rs 5.06 lakh in 1977. In the
2000-2001 budget it was Rs 115 crore. The LF government is tom-toming these
figures to prove their secular credentials. Spending so much of public funds
in setting up new madrasas and in the financing of all old and new such
institutions with antiquated syllabi of Arabic, Islamic history, culture and
theology does not prove its secularism. It only shows that for garnering
minority votes the LF can easily jettison all progressive and secular ideas
to promote non-secular religious institutions. It also violates the spirit
of sub-clause (1) of Article 28 of the Constitution. A real progressive
stance would have been to set up good secular schools where children of
minority and other communities together could have received good, usual
education.
In fact one cannot agree more with Syed Shahabuddin when he writes, "Indeed
such expenditure applying equally to all religious communities is against
the letter and spirit of the Constitution. I would like the government to
concentrate on providing a secular education to all children as a matter of
right and leaving religious instruction to respective communities" (Letter
to the Editor, The Statesman, Calcutta, February 12, 2002).
Protected by Articles 25 and 26 the minorities would continue to have their
religious educational institutions. So madrasas will continue. What is
expected is that madrasas should not provide substantive education replacing
secular education. Every child of every community should go to secular
liberal schools. If parents want their children to have religious education
that should be an add-on to general education. In this regard the current
practice in Kerala may provide a solution. There madrasas provide religious
instructions. But madrasas work outside of normal school hours. Madrasas
function between 7 am and 9 am in the morning and between 6 pm and 8 pm in
the evening. Normal school education is not affected by religious
instruction. Of course, there is the problem of the load factor for
children. But that is a matter of adjustment.
Those who want to be imams or other religious functionaries may take a
vocational course on Islamic theology in madrasas after competing either the
class X or class XII public examination. Only through this process can we
mainstream the hitherto sectarian religious education and turn out
employable and responsible young men and women from amongst the poorer
segments of the Muslim community.
Let Firdausis write on the Hindu classics and let us, the lay readers,
savour and relish their delectable literary fare!