“Modernisation of Muslim Education in India�
Author: Fahimuddin,
Publisher: Adhyayan Publishers, New Delhi
Year: 2004
ISBN:81-89161-31-8
Pages:266
Reviewed by: Yoginder Sikand

‘Modernisation’ of madrasas is a much-debated topic today. State authorities, the ‘ulama as well as Muslim activists and intellectuals have different understandings of ‘modernised’ madrasas. This book is a major contribution to the ongoing debate on the subject, based on a study of selected madrasas in Uttar Pradesh that are currently receiving some sort of financial support from the Government of India under the Madrasa Modernisation Scheme. In Uttar Pradesh there are 119 such madrasas, and the study is based on a sample of 30 of these.

The book begins with a general overview of madrasas in India, looking at such features as their history, recent growth, types and levels, background of students and teachers, curricula, sources of income and heads of expenditure and perceptions of reforms needed in the system. The author shows that many madrasas do, indeed, wish to reform, while preserving their religious core intact, but notes that some ‘ulama are opposed to this. He regards this opposition as dangerous and counter-productive, and as ‘leading to a kind of self-imposed isolation’ and social exclusion.

While appreciating the madrasas’ role in preserving and promoting Muslim identity and the education of poor Muslims in the face of hostile Hindutva forces, Fahimuddin sees that the insistence of some ‘ulama that Muslims stay away from modern education is dangerous for the Muslims themselves. ‘The majority of Muslims, being poor’, he says, ‘were swayed by the propaganda of the hardline ‘ulama of danger to Islam and thought to [sic.] protect the faith by advocating the irrelevance of mainstream education and the need of [sic.] madrasa education for Muslims to protect Islam’. Fahimuddin regards the opposition of some ‘ulama to madrasa modernization as reflecting what he says is lack of ‘serious thought’ given by them to the issue. He argues that such ‘ulama have ‘misunderstood the meaning, scope and purpose of such modernisation’, and have failed to learn from the example of past Indian and foreign Muslim reformists. They need to be convinced, he says, that ‘modernisation’ does not mean the complete replacement of the present syllabus with ‘modern’ or ‘secular’ subjects. At the same time, Fahimuddin calls for madrasas to be more open and receptive to people of other faiths, and in this regard speaks of some madrass in Bihar that also have Hindu students. Arguing against the stern exclusivity many madrasas seek to reinforce, he argues that madrasas ‘should abandon the fixed notion that nothing is to be taken from non-believers and that even the good of non-Muslims is to be avoided. Muslims need to adopt, modify and temper with pragmatism their own ideas as well as their knowledge of others’.

Another worrisome development that the author notes is that from the 1970s onwards money from Gulf sources has been used to set up madrasas in India that propagate an extremely literalist understanding of Islam and that some ulama have set up such madrasas simply to attract foreign money. He sees what he regards as the rapid growth of lower-level madrasas in many parts of the country as worrisome because, as he puts it, ‘they are assuming the place of mainstream education among Muslims’. Further, he says, Muslims do not require the vast number of religious functionaries that these madrasas churn out every year. It is these smaller madrasas that are in particular need of reform, he argues, because, in contrast to the big specialised madrasas like Deoband and Nadwa, they cater to the educational needs of hundreds of thousands of Muslim children. At the same time, Fahimuddin vehemently denounces the charge of Indian madrasas being training centres for ‘terrorists’, and points to the fact that the state authorities have, till date, not been able to identify a single madrasa (in contrast, one must add, to scores of schools and shakhas run by Hindutva fascist groups) providing armed training to their students or openly preaching violence against other communities.

The book then profiles 30 madrasas that the author has surveyed, and enumerates their numerous problems. Most of the students come from poor families and, owing particularly to poverty, they are characterized by a high drop-out rate. Many of the surveyed madrasas have poor infrastructural facilities. Most have at least a small library, but few have any books on any non-religious subjects. Teachers, in general, are very poorly paid. Only 23% of the teachers have an annual salary of Rs.40,000 and above. Most teachers have received no teachers’ training whatsoever. Interestingly, many younger teachers and most students are in favour of modernization of the curriculum, including the introduction of vocational training. Some of them want modern subjects to be introduced in such a way in the syllabus that after a few years of study children in madrasas can choose to join a regular school or else carry on in the madrasa to acquire higher religious knowledge.

As far as the government’s madrasa modernization scheme is concerned, the author argues that the burden on the government-paid teacher teaching modern subjects (mathematics, science, English and Hindi)under the scheme is simply too much to handle, resulting in poor teaching standards. The teacher’s salary (Rs. 600 per month for part-time teachers and Rs. 2200 per month for full-time teachers) is woefully inadequate. The one-time grant of Rs. 4000 per madrasa for buying books and science and mathematics kits is also insufficient. Although the examinations for the ‘secular’ subjects taught by these government-paid teachers are held internally by the madrasas themselves, the author feels that the progress that the students made has been reasonably good. Hence, he calls for the expansion of the scheme to include more madrasas as well as to increase the funds allotted to each madrasa participating in the scheme, including for teachers’ salaries. He also suggests that all government schemes being implemented in government schools, including the mid-day meal scheme, various scholarship schemes and infrastructural development projects, be extended to madrasas as well. For this purpose he suggests the possibility of the UP Dini Talimi Council, which presently runs hundreds of maktabs in Uttar Pradesh, to be appointed by the state as a nodal agency to channelise state grants to madrasas.

This suggestion, however, ignores the Constitutional ban on state financing of religious educational institutions, a prohibition that Fahimuddin appears unaware of. Similarly, some of his other suggestions are equally utopian and impractical. Thus, for instance, he appeals for madrasa education ‘to be rejuvenated in such a form that it should not remain reserved for Muslims alone but Hindu, Sikh and Christian children may also study in madrasas. The perception that madrasas are religious institutions is to be given a back-stage’. This proposal is unlikely to enthuse the ‘ulama, as, indeed, non-Muslim parents as well, both of whom see madrasas as essentially an Islamic seminaries intended for producing Muslim clerics. Similarly, Fahimuddin’s proposal that state governments ‘bring a legislation to take over all the madrasas offering education to the intermediate level and prescribe the curriculum of the [sic.] mainstream education’ is equally disastrous. It would effectively deny Muslims their Constitutional right to administer educational institutions of their choice and is bound to be vehemently opposed not just by the ‘ulama but by the vast majority of the Muslim community as well for threatening to turn madrasas into an appendage of the state and to secularise them completely.

Fahimuddin’s suggestion that the state play a more pro-active role in modernizing the madrasa curriculum appears somewhat more sensible, although even this is unrealistic and even Constitutionally void. He insists that the state should institute a committee of ‘enlightened’, ‘liberal’ Muslim intellectuals and ‘ulama who should suggest a revised curriculum for higher madrasas and make it binding on them to register with state government-approved madrasa boards and to adopt the new curriculum. In his enthusiasm for madrasa modernization, the fact that the state cannot force any educational institution to accept a particular syllabus or be affiliated with a particular board or body completely escapes the author.

Yet, Fahimuddin’s earnest appeal to madrasas to modernize is well taken and so is his trenchant critique of what he calls ‘vocal Muslim ideologists’ who are ‘burdened with the legacy of Islamic fundamentalism’. Their efforts to ‘confront social realities’, he says, are ‘generally short-sighted’, ‘lack long-term perspective’ and ‘refuse to see the compelling need’ for Muslims to ‘modernise’. Because of this, he says the tens of thousands of students studying in the madrasas are faced with a bleak future, to which the opponents of madrasa modernization appear indifferent. Hence, Fahimuddin rightly concludes, ‘their ideology is as dangerous as Hindu communalism and only contributes to further Muslim marginalisation’.