By Syed Khalique Ahmed
NEW DELHI: The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) report titled “Guardians of Faith or Oppressors of Rights? Constitutional Rights of Children vs. Madrasas” seems to cast a negative light on madrasas, as suggested by its provocative title. Rather than fostering a balanced discussion, the report, may be inadvertently or intentionally, reinforce stereotypes about these Islamic seminaries. It would be more constructive to explore the positive contributions of madrasas while addressing any legitimate concerns regarding child rights and educational standards. The report is signed by NCPCR chairman Priyank Kanoongo whose term expired on October 16, 2024.
Running over 69 pages and divided into 11 chapters, the report primarily focusses on criticizing madrasas rather than providing constructive guidance for improving their standards, teaching curriculum, or training their educators. These Islamic seminaries have historically played a vital role in promoting literacy and have produced prominent figures in India’s freedom movement, including Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Maulana Hussain Ahmed Madani, and Maulana Mahmood-ul-Hasan. In contemporary India, alumni of madrasas have excelled in various national examinations, such as the UPSC and NEET, achieving success as IAS and IPS officers, doctors, engineers, professors, diplomats, and politicians.
Madrasas are adding to the growth of literacy by imparting free-of-charge education to the poorest of the poor without being a burden on the state exchequer. Yet, the NCPCR report on madrasas has the gall to call the madrasas “oppressors of children’s rights.” Very sad indeed!
Report challenges RTE exemption granted to ‘madrasas’
Even though The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, which in short is titled Right to Education Act (RTE) enacted by the Indian Parliament on August 4, 2009, exempts madrasas from its purview, the NCPCR report, throughout its 69 pages, consistently tries to challenge this exemption by other provisions of the Constitution like Article 21A which mandates free and compulsory education of children aged 6 to 14. The report argues madrasas have not been exempted from the provisions of Article 21 either by RTE or by any judgement of the Supreme Court on the issue and hence, provisions of Article 21A apply to madrasas despite their exemption from the scope of RTE. NCPCR report on its page 9 itself quotes that Section 1 (5) of the RTE Act 2009 exempts “the Madrsas, Vedic Pathshalas and educational institutions primarily imparting religious education.” Yet the report repeatedly argues on various pretexts to bring the madrasas under the RTE scope.
NCPCR opposes imparting of religious education & formal education in the same institute
The report concedes that “both religious education and fundamental(formal) education can be provided concurrently” but adds that “it cannot be provided together in a single institute.” This reflects the negative and pessimistic intentions of the NCPCR authorities. If it is possible to provide religious education and formal education at the same time, then why not in the same institute? As India has an acute shortage of resources and is not able to arrange adequate funding for education, it would be wise to use the same infrastructure and the same building for two different sets of education and, that too, at primary and secondary levels only. But to achieve this, the government is required to have a will. If there is no will, there is no way. It is on this basis that the NCPCR has recommended removing Muslim students from madrasas, recognized or unrecognized, and enrolling them in formal schools though this is in complete violation of the RTE ACT, 2009, that keeps madrasas out of its purview.
NCPCR statement amounts to appeasement of hardliners in majority community
The compilers and authors of the NCPCR report fail to understand that the madrasas are carrying out the same task that Article 21A mandates. The NCPCR report authors appear to be unaware of the vast changes that have taken place in madrasas throughout the country in the last few decades. The madrasas are not simply centres for imparting religious education but also provide formal and modern education to their students. They teach Hindi, English, Mathematics, Science and Computers to their wards apart from Urdu, Persian and Arabic languages which are essential to understanding the finer points of Islamic theology in India and performing their role as interpreters of Islamic law and providing solutions to various issues about religion that crop up in the Muslim society from time to time.
While some madrasas in some of the states have been funded by the respective state governments for setting up infrastructure facilities required for formal or what has been mentioned as “fundamental education” in the NCPCR report, madrasas are not dependent on state funding for the expenses required for imparting religious education to their students. All the funding requirements of madrasas are met through donations by the community which the NCPCR report itself admits. So, NCPCR’s recommendation that state funding to madrasas be stopped forthwith because they are imparting religious education at the cost of the state exchequer which violates the provisions of the Constitution, appears more like a political statement to appease a section of the majority community for political benefits rather than based on hard truth.
Report finds faults with madrasas only, not with children in schools, pathshalas
Rather than focussing on improving the quality of education in madrasas, the report solely highlights the shortcomings, or we can say that it just tries to find fault with the madrasa system of education. A question can be asked to the authors of the report: Which institution of the government is fault-free? Are universities and other higher educational institutes fault-free or without shortcomings? Has the government closed down the universities and other higher educational institutions because of their shortcomings or taken measures to remove deficiencies and weaknesses? Is there no sexual harassment of students in universities, colleges and formal schools? Have any colleges or schools been closed down owing to sexual assault on their students by teachers, clerical staff, security guards, or any other staff? Or we have taken action to curb such crimes on educational campuses and continue the education? Innumerable instances of sexual crimes against female students or even male students have been reported from Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas, which are residential schools run by the central government. Could the authors of the NCPCR report provide a single example where a Navodaya Vidyalaya was shut down permanently due to sexual crimes in its campus or hostels? Occurrences of such crimes are quite natural but the administration always takes action to curb these crimes, instead of closing the institutions. Then why does the NCPCR report indict madrasas alone and defame madrasas because of some incidents of sodomy in all-male madrasas or sexual crimes in a female madrasa? These crimes are not the rules but exceptions in all educational institutions.
Harassment of madrasas at the behest of political masters
As for quality and standard of education in madrasas, we find that the quality and standard of education in government schools in almost all the states, except metro cities like Delhi and Mumbai, are not good. There are government reports about students having passed Std VI in Gujarat and other states not being able to read or write. If a sincere comparison is made between the quality of education in madrasas and government schools or “shalas’ run by state governments or government-aided NGOs in tribal and other interior areas, then madrasa students would be found much better than products of the government schools and “shalas”. Is NCPCR bothered about madrasas students only? Why is it not showing the same degree of concern with Dalit and tribal children? Why is it not exhibiting the same alertness about children in the streets, begging on roads, railway platforms and in bazaars, and those working on construction sites, hotels and the entertainment industry? Does RTE not apply to this category of children? Don’t these children have rights under RTE and under Article 21A which the NCPRC extensively quotes in its Madrasa report? Its silence on other groups of children and targeting the madrasas only suggests it wants to harass the Muslim community at the behest of its political masters whose political survival is dependent on demonizing and victimizing Muslims.
Recommendation to withdraw non-Muslim students from madrasas violates Article 28(3) of Constitution
The NCPCR report has also recommended that “all non-Muslim children be taken out of madrasas and admitted in schools for receiving fundamental (formal) education as per the RTE Act, 2009.” This order of the commission is in violation of Article 28(3) of the Constitution which allows children to take part in religious instruction and also to attend religious worship of religions other than their own faith with the permission of their parents. The report says that the states/Union Territories could not furnish the consent of parents of non-Muslim children for letting their children attend madrasas that impart Islamic education. The veracity of the NCPCR report in this regard raises doubts because no one, when there is so much awareness, will allow one’s children to attend religious schools of other faiths that also impart secular education. According to NCPCR report, there are 15,000 non-Muslim students attending madrasas in states with Madras Boards. The maximum number of non- Muslim children in madrasas are in Madhya Pradesh (9446), followed by Rajasthan (3103), Chhattisgarh (2159), Bihar (69), and Uttarakhand (42). The data is not available with regard to UP and West Bengal that also have madrasa boards.
Report quotes irrelevant materials to fulfill ruling party’s political agenda
The report has also quoted things extraneous to the issue, indicating the mindset of the people involved in preparing the report and its ultimate objective which seems to be more intended to put obstacles in the path of the madrasa system of education rather than bringing reforms. The report says that the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind (JUH) led by Maualna Hussain Ahmad Madani opposed the Partition of India based on the Islamic ideology that India is a land of “tabligh” (Islamic preaching) because of the majority of its population being non-Muslims and hence, India cannot be left outside “tabligh” by accepting Partition. If Muslims stayed in India, they would get the right to carry out “tabligh” activities in all the nooks and corners of India. At another place, the report has quoted the Maulana having said, “If Dara (Shikoh) had triumphed, Muslims would have stayed in India but not Islam. Since Aurangzeb triumphed, both Muslims and Islam were here to stay!” The report further quotes Maulana Madani to have said, “According to the Maulana, the faith Dara (Shikoh) followed was not genuine Islam because Dara wanted to tolerate the Hindus. He did not insist on the rule of the Shariat. He did not interpret religion correctly, that is, in accordance with the tradition.” This quote has been taken from Hamid Dalwai’s book titled “Muslim Politics in India” (pp 30-31) published by Penguin Random House India Pvt Ltd.
Based on these quotes and statements attributed to Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani, the report argues that contemporary Muslims are still “opposing the idea of providing formal education to children because they want only the teachings of Islam to be followed and to widen their claim for tabligh over each and every part of the nation” (quotes taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabligh).
Claims that Muslim leaders not interested in education of their children based on falsehood
These references to Maulana Madani’s political speeches are not only irrelevant to the issue but also based on total falsehood. Had Muslims and their leadership not been interested in formal and modern education for their children, how could have they set up the Mohammadan Anglo-Oriental College at Aligarh (now Aligarh Muslim University) in 1875, almost 65 years before Maulana Madani allegedly delivered a speech at an Ulema conference in Delhi in 1945 the excerpts of which the NCPCR has referred to in its report. (Due to constraints of time, India Tomorrow has not verified if the claims of the NCPCR report about Maulana Madani’s assertions are correct.) The whole exercise of the NCPCR report authors appears to distort and misinterpret things to achieve certain political objectives of demonizing Muslims rather than presenting facts to improve the educational standards of madrasas in India. Who would be more interested in brightening the future of their children and future generations: Muslim leaders, their clergymen, Muslim social and educational activists, or those who have prepared the NCPCR document to demolish Islam in India by recommending curbs on madrasa education in India?
Report objects to legal injunctions in books of jurisprudence and fundamentals of Islam in other books
The report has also quoted many other irrelevant things like a book titled “Bahishti Zewar” (Heavenly Ornament) written by renowned theologian – Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi. The book deals with basic information about dos and don’ts, lawful and unlawful in Islam as well as permitted and non-permitted things in the relationship between husband and wife etc. However, the NCPCR report objects to a text engaging in a sexual relationship with a minor while in matrimonial union and suggests that it should not be taught to children. It makes an incursion into an area that is not its brief. By stretching the same argument, worshipping the phallus at Shiva temples all over the country or the vulva, the outer part of the female reproductive system at the Kamakhya temple in Assam, be not allowed in the presence of children. Will the NCPCR muster the courage to object to it? Why is NCPCR silent on child marriages which continue to prevail at an alarming level despite the presence of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act(PCMA), 2006.
The NCPCR report also objects to the teaching of a book titled Taleem-ul-Islam (Urdu) by Shaykh Mufti Kifayatullah for Sunni students by Bihar Madrasa Board and Imamia Deeniyat Part-I for Shia students. The basic reason for objection is that these were originally published in Pakistan and teach about the supremacy of Islam. Quoting excerpts from the book, the report objects to the book describing non-believers as Kafirs or Mushriks and that the polytheists will never attain salvation and shall be doomed to eternal punishment and affliction. It also objects to the first kalima: La Ilaha Illallah Muhammad-ur-Rasulullah (None but Allah is worthy of worship and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah). These are the basic tenets of Islam forming the very foundation of Islam and if these things are removed from the madrasa syllabus, what will be left of Islam? Are these among the tasks of the NCPCR to decide what portion of religion be taught in madrasas and what should be excluded? This is a very negative aspect of the report.
Madrasas being painted as centres to promote and armed struggle
Chapter 8 of the report is fully devoted to the evolution of madrasas in contemporary India. The entire emphasis is that madrasas promote radicalism and encourage the setting up of the government based on the principles of Islam. The report has covered how the Dars-e-Nizami syllabus was formed during the reign of Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb under the supervision of Mullah Nizamuddin Sihalvi (also known as Mulla Nizamuddin of Lucknow). According to the report, the Dars-e-Nizami course is designed to train scholars in Islamic theology, law (fiqh), philosophy and other related disciplines and this course is followed by Deobandi, Barelvi and Ahl-e-Hadis Schools of thought.
The report says that madrasas from the days of Shah Waliullah Dehlvi till the present have sought to revive Islamic governance and counter the influences of non-Islamic practices among Muslims in India. According to the report, Ahmed Shah Abdali was invited by Shah Waliullah Dehlvi to attack India to revive Islamic rule in India which resulted in the Third Battle of Panipat in which lakhs of Indian soldiers and civilians were massacred. The report has presented a summary of the roles of Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlawi, Shah Muhammad Ishaq, Shah Abdul Ghani, Shah Ismail Dehlvi, Shah Ahmad Barelvi, and Shah Suheed to purify the tenets of Islam from Hindu customs and cultural practices, launching of armed struggle (Jihad) for liberation and purification of India.
Darul Uloom Deoband projected as producing proselytizer organizations
Talking about the setting up of the Darul Uloom Deoband by Maulana Qasim Nanautavi and Ahmed Rashid Gangohi, the report says that the founders of the madrasa appealed Muslims to defend the political hegemony of Muslims in their respective regions against the British occupation forces. While the fact is that the founders of the Darul Uloom said that the objective of founding the madrasa was to liberate India from British occupiers. The Darul Uloom Deoband, according to the report, set up a vast network of associated political and proselytizer organizations like Jamiat-Ulama-i-Hind, Tablighi Jamaat, Majalas-e-Ahrar-e Islam, Jamaiat Ulama-i-Islam and Darul Ifta. It says that the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) was formed with the active support of the Darul Uloom Deoband in 1972 to oppose the Adoption Bill brought by the Government of India.
Stating that Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind was set up as a political arm of the Darul Uloom Deoband, the report goes on to say that the Deoband seminary teaches and promotes an “austere version of Islam” through its network of madrasas in Indian sub-continent and the rest of South Asia.
The report also takes objection to the Daul Uloom Deoband’s fatwa issuing department for not giving a proper answer to a question from Pakistan regarding suicide attacks on non-Muslims. The report says that instead of responding that the query is “invalid or illegal in nature”, the Darul Uloom Deoband replied, “Consult your local Scholar”. From this reply, the author of the NCPCR report concludes that such statements of Darul Uloom Deoband reinforce the belief towards “legitimizing intentional homicide, terrorist attack among non-Muslims and further is also highly terrorizing for the country as well as a matter of national security.”
The report says that Darul Uloom Deoband has been issuing fatwas about Ghazwa-e-Hind and other such issues that expose children to hatred against their own country.
Objections to Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind running open schools for madrasas students, orders inquiry
Chapter 9 of the report accuses Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind (JUH) of misusing the open school system. JUH mentioned as a “politico-religious” party in the report, signed a memorandum of understanding(MoU) with the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) in 2022 to run open schools to provide formal education to madrasa students who are not able to attend mainstream schools. Currently more than 14,000 children are enrolled in the NIOS run by the JUH all over the country.
Instead of appreciating the efforts taken by JUH to provide formal education to madrasa students and equip them with modern knowledge, the NCPCR has found fault that the JUH has named its NIOS centres as Jamiat Open School. The NCPCR claims that the MoU nowhere authorizes JUH to use the term ‘Jamiat Open School’. The NCPCR has recommended an inquiry into the matter under Sections 405 and 415 of the Indian Penal Code. The commission has also recommended to the Ministry of Education to initiate an inquiry into the role of NIOS in signing an MoU with the JUH knowing well that madrasa children are not attending formal education in schools till Class VIII.
The NCPCR has also taken objection to the Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind UK highlighting the Jamiat Open School in India as one of the projects on its website (https://www.jamiatulama.co.uk/projects). The report says that the Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind UK seeks donations through the same website in the name of supporting Jamiat. Quoting the Charity Commission for England and Wales, the report says that the Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind UK Limited (charity number 1129245) also operates in Pakistan and Bangladesh, thus cleverly linking the JUH with the JUH in Pakistan and Bangladesh. According to the report, the details about it are available at http://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search/-/charity-details/4042518/what-who-how-where
Recommends inquiry into foreign donations received by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind
The report also accuses Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind of seeking foreign donations through a bank other than the State Bank of India. The report says that foreign charity money can be received in the FCRA account of the NGOs in the State Bank of India’s New Delhi branch only, and not in any other bank. The NCPCR has recommended an investigation into it by the FCRA Wing, Ministry of Home Affairs.
The question arises: Is this the job of the Ministry of Home Affairs to look into who receives foreign money and how, and to inquire into whether there is a violation, or is this the job of the NCPCR? The NCPCR seems to be straying into areas which is beyond its purview.
