A Case Study of Islamic Madrasas: With Special Reference To The Sachar Committee Report (Radiance, 21-27 June) by Mahmood Alam Siddiqui is really a very informative article indeed. It tells us in simple terms the “abysmal condition of Muslim community in the light of authentic data collected from government offices and universities and NGOs”. However, after reading this piece one gets the feeling that the author is trying to impress upon two vital points: low literacy rate among the Muslims; secondly and more importantly as if the principal culprits for this low literacy rate among the Muslims were Ulema (Islamic Scholars) and Madrasas. Here I would like to submit that both of the assumptions are absolutely far from truth and hold no waters at all, whatsoever. It was highly surprising that the learned author has put the blame of the plight of Muslim community solely on the Madrasas without really understanding the actual functional dynamics of the madrasa system of education. My emphasis here is on the Madrasas – not to defend them rather to present a clearer picture in the light of Sachar Committee facts and figures themselves.
First, let me concentrate on the literacy aspect. It is conspicuous that the learned author is mixing up the two widely used terms. In fact he is taking literacy and education as one and same or in other words literacy a synonym for education. This is the root cause for the confusion. As per the Constitution of India literacy is defined as ability to write/sign his or her name in his or her mother tongue only. This is the basic definition of literacy so a person is considered ‘Literate’ if he or she is able to and can perform the above-mentioned task. Therefore, if judged on this parameter, the first hypothesis of the author comes to nought. Rather it would be more correct to say that Muslims are suffering from educational backwardness. That the Muslims of India lag in the educational filed far behind their fellow countrymen is a much realistic as well as palatable assertion. I need not go into the details of this fact as it has already been well established by the Sachar Committee Report and quoted by the learned author himself in his article.
The second premise of Mahmood Alam Siddiqui is “Ulema and Backwardness”. It is very shocking that the learned scholar is blaming Ulema for the backwardness of the Muslim community. How come this could be? In fact the Ulema are the backbone of Muslim society. They guide the community in the light of Islamic teachings. If there were to be no Ulema in a Muslim society then it is destined to doom. It again came as a big jolt to read when the author states, “The conservative Ulema are opposing the move to reform in the Madrasa syllabus because they believe that science and its principles of ‘causes and effects’ are hostile to basic Islamic tenets” How on earth can you make such a sweeping statement? Can you point even a single well meaning ‘Aalim who claims a ‘clash between science and religion’. And if he does so then he is not a true ‘Aalim and absolutely unaware of Islamic teachings. The example cited by you of Imam Ghazali (Tahafatul Flasafa) regarding the clash between the science and religion is misplaced and completely out of context. The ‘hostility’ of Islam to ‘reason’ in Tahafatul Flasfa is not the intended meaning rather an implied one. What is your definition of ‘Conservatism’? Do you call a person who devoted all his life to the Islamic learning, serving and practising Islamic teachings in all aspects of mundane life a ‘Conservative’?
As far as the question of modernising the Islamic Madrasas is concerned, I must submit that it is nothing but a sugar-coated pill. This is a well hatched conspiracy to rob the Madrasas of their Islamic character and identity. The learned author has made a great attempt to ascertain the position of Madrasas in the light Sachar Committee Report, however, amazingly enough he has so cleverly chosen not to quote the figures of Madrasa going Muslim students. This willing suspension of relevant facts just to make your point home is not in good taste of scholarship. This smacks of shoddy intent that renders the whole argument weak and reduces the otherwise good thesis to trash. For the benefit of general readers, I would like to quote from the Sachar Committee itself which mentions that only Four per cent of the Muslims attend Madrasas. This is just a microscopic figure and a very minuscule number i.e. salt in the doughnut that has no or a very limited presence but absence of which seriously diminishes taste. Another important fact to remember here is that for the salt to be more effective, it has to be and must be used as such without making any sort of changes in its form otherwise it will not produce the desired results rather it may affect the human body.
We have been using salt in our everyday food preparations for thousands and thousands of years; have ever contemplated the idea of either abandoning its usage or even changing its basic structure? Have ever thought that hey! This salt is almost a millennium old, obsolete and outlived its utility, hence, let us ‘Modernise’ it so that it can better serve our modern taste buds. Let us introduce into it some recently discovered modern elements (of course these are toxic) so as to make it more compatible to face the challenges of the modern world. No sensible person would take such a disastrous step. It will be suicidal. Similarly, the campaign to ‘modernise’ Madrasas is a nonsensical one and sheer stupidity that would prove fatal for the whole of Ummah.
Let me just pose another simple question to the learned author: Could you please clarify whether Madrasas are religious seminaries which produce Islamic Scholars (Ulema) or the factories to churn out political scientists, historians, mathematicians, social scientists, etc?
Let me just present another interesting but equally noteworthy reality here: recently – hardly a month ago – a delegation (comprising two men and a woman) from one of the advanced countries of the world – Malaysia – visited Darul Uloom Deoband. The main purpose of their visit was to replicate the syllabus of Darul Uloom Deoband in Malaysia. You will be surprised to know that the Chief Justice of Malaysia Justice Abdul Azeez is a Darul Uloom Deoband graduate! Yet another recent example of a Darul Uloom Deoband graduate achieving a remarkable feat can be cited of Dr. Waseem who qualified the Civil Services examinations last year. Not only that he is a qualified Aalim but also a medical doctor who completed his undergraduate and post graduate studies only after completing ‘Alimiat from Darul Uloom Deoband. I personally know many doctors (some of them government employees), media persons, etc. who have madrasa degrees.
One of the proposals put forward by the learned author is to “introduce some modern subjects like English, Political Science, History, and Mathematics”. At this bizarre suggestion one cannot help but shake his head in utter disbelief and dismay. Reason: Mr. Mahmood Alam Siddiqui himself presents the reason i.e. madrasas have “intensely packed time-table”. So, a person having an iota of wisdom would immediately ask: What stupidity! Where is the room to introduce some more subjects in the already “intensely packed time-table?” Why are you trying to put extra pressure on the shoulders and minds of these children? The end result of this effort of simultaneously travelling in two boats would be a complete disaster.
Another issue raised by the learned scholar is that he favours the formation of Central Madrasa Board (CBM) on the pattern of Central Board of Secondary Education. What a folly! Doesn’t he comprehend the potential dangers of such a hazardous move? The CBM is against the core values of Madrasas. First and foremost is that it is a latent mechanism to rob the Madrasas of their spirituality. The question arises how can it be? The simple answer is that obviously whatever funds to Madrasas channelized through this nodal agency by the government would be generated from Interest. And need I spare a single word about interest? Interest alone is an effective tool to squeeze the spiritual content out of the Madrasas. Secondly, there will be increased interference from the government into the daily affairs of the Madrasas affecting their performance. As we experience day in day out the kind of rampant corruption prevailing in the appointment of teachers and other staff, God forbid, similar kind of situation will arise in the case of Madrasas as well. Some of the existing examples of the evils of interest-based money being pumped into the Madrasas and their abysmal performances as well as all out corruption in the management are Bihar Madrasa Board and UP Madrasa Board.
Moreover, the learned scholar is attempting to discuss the Madrasa scenario in the broad framework of Sachar Committee Report, however, I am astonished to observe that none of the points raised by Mr. Siddiqui vis-à-vis the Madrasas figure in the said Report as a possible solution. The Sachar Committee Report emphasises integrating the Madrasas with the mainstream and never for once talks of ‘modernising’ them by introducing modern subjects. How on earth can he talk like this? One of the methods suggested is the ‘Provision of Equivalence to Madrasa certificates/degrees”. This is the best method of integrating the Madrasas with the University education as well as making the Madrasa graduates eligible for various competitive exams. Another possible solution out is to create opportunities for Madrasa graduates in the mainstream. For example, they could be appointed as religious preachers in school/colleges/universities.
In the end I ask those who so vehemently propagate the idea of introducing modern subjects in Madrasas: why don’t you demand introducing religious education in schools/colleges/universities? That way this quandary is better addressed. I would humbly request such well meaning persons to focus more on the overwhelming majority of Ninety Six Per Cent of students who attend schools/colleges/universities, the rest – salt in doughnut – would automatically be catered to if the former are taken care of effectively.