December 5, 2024

Balancing Faith and Knowledge: Madrasas in the Contemporary world

Ayushi Malviya

 

A nation’s progress is intricately linked to its educational framework, which stands as a key catalyst for human advancement and social change. It is a potent instrument for empowering individuals, instilling confidence in both people and communities about their capabilities, thereby enabling them to shape their future. Historically, education has empowered societies to move beyond oppression and towards democratic engagement and active participation.

Madrasas in India have a rich history dating back centuries and have been instrumental in providing education to the Muslim community. Initially, madrasas served as centers for religious education, language studies, and classical subjects. Over time, many madrasas have continued to follow traditional curriculums, which include teachings of the Quran, Hadith (sayings of Prophet Muhammad), and Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence). They are also valuable for reaching economically marginalized groups, offering free or affordable education in rural areas where government schools may not be accessible or well-equipped. Teachers, often called ustadhs, are well-versed in religious texts and are respected members in the community. The teaching methodology typically includes memorization, oral recitation, and interpretation.

In India, there are two main types of madrasas. First, Madrasa Darse Nizami: these function as public charities and are not obligated to follow the state school curriculum, with instruction mainly offered in Arabic, Urdu, and Persian. Second, Madrasa Darse Aliya: these are affiliated with state madrasa education boards and typically follow the curriculum set by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), which includes secular subjects such as Mathematics, Science, Hindi, and English.

The right to establish madrasas in India is protected under the Indian Constitution Article 30, which grants religious and linguistic minorities certain freedoms to preserve and promote their cultural and educational heritage. This right is central to the Muslim community in India, as madrasas serve as institutions of Islamic education and community development.

The laws governing madrasa education in India are enacted by state government, as the matter being part of concurrent list. Currently, states with specific regulations for madrasas include Assam, Bihar, Gujarat, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. Since there is no uniform law to regulate madrasa education, discrepancies have emerged repeatedly. To address these issues, the Supreme Court has interpreted Article 30 in various cases. In All Saints High School v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (1980), the Supreme Court ruled that educational institutions receiving aid—whether run by minority communities or not—must comply with the conditions set by the State to be eligible for aid. These conditions, however, must not be discriminatory based on the institution being managed by a religious or linguistic minority. In another case of Re Kerala Education Bill (1957), it was held that the rights granted to minority institutions under Article 30(1) include the establishment and administration of educational institutions; however, “administration” does not encompass mal-administration.

The right to free and compulsory education under Article 21A of the Indian Constitution emphasizes the need for inclusive, secular, and well-rounded education. Article 21A was added through the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002, mandating the State to provide free and compulsory education to all children aged 6 to 14 years. This provision aims to ensure that education is accessible and promotes holistic development, which includes subjects beyond religious instruction.

In the context of Madrasas, the curriculum is focused on religious education and other secular subjects are optional, have raised questions about whether such institutions provide the well-rounded educational foundation required by Article 21A. In the Anshuman Rathore vs. Union of India (2023) case, the Allahabad High Court examined whether the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Madrasa Education Act, 2004 align with the constitutional requirement for free and compulsory education required under Article 21A for children up to age 14, as well as the universal and quality education mandated under Article 21. The Act was also been challenged for violating the secular principles that form part of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. Consequently, this neglect infringes upon the fundamental rights of students studying in madrasas. The writ petition also contests the validity of Section 1(5) of the Right to Education Act, which excludes madrasas, Vedic pathshalas, and other institutions primarily offering religious instruction. Additionally, the Act’s focus on providing education exclusively to a particular minority community, using a limited curriculum and maintaining standards inferior to those of conventional educational institutions, stands in opposition to the fundamental duties laid out in the Constitution, ultimately undermining its core principles. Sections 9(a) and 9(j) of the Madrasa Act, which concern the determination of higher education standards within madrasas, assign a role to the state that constitutionally belongs to the Central Government under union list. This division of power means that the state lacks legislative authority over this area. Furthermore, the Act is viewed as infringing on Articles 14, 15, 16(5), 29(2), 30, and 51-A, violating principles of equality and secularism. By conflicting with the University Grants Commission Act, it also intrudes on areas regulated by central legislation, rendering parts of it ultravires.

While reviewing the Allahabad High Court’s March 2024 judgment, which had declared the U.P. Board of Madrasa Education Act, 2004 (Madrasa Act) unconstitutional, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Anjum Kadari and ors Vs Union of India and ors, consisting of Chief Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, upheld the validity of the Act. The Supreme Court found that the Act aligns with the State’s positive duty to ensure that students in recognized madrasas achieve competencies enabling them to actively participate in society and secure livelihoods. The Court further emphasized that Article 21-A and the Right to Education Act, 2009, should be interpreted harmoniously with the rights of religious and linguistic minorities to establish and manage educational institutions of their choice.

The judgment clarified that the Madrasa Education Board, with the State government’s approval, can implement regulations to guarantee that religious minority institutions deliver a certain standard of secular education without compromising their minority identity. The Court also determined that the Madrasa Act falls within the legislative authority of the State legislature, as authorized under concurrent list. However, the Court ruled that the provisions of the Act concerning higher-education degrees, such as Fazil and Kamil, are unconstitutional because they conflict with the UGC Act, which is governed by the Union.

Madrasas serve as guardians of religious education and cultural heritage, instilling a profound understanding of faith among students. However, their emphasis on religious subjects often sidelines essential secular knowledge, which can limit students’ academic and career opportunities in an increasingly interconnected world. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the state to work closely with madrasa institutions to ensure a curriculum that balances religious education with foundational secular subjects. Through proactive amendments and the adoption of a more inclusive curriculum, the state can equip students with the skills needed to excel within their communities and the larger society. This approach strikes a balance by respecting the traditional values cherished by madrasas while also readying students for the complexities of the contemporary world.

Leave a Reply