In a recent meeting with Muslim religious clerics, Home Minister Shivraj Patil stated that ‘madrasas are not centres of terrorism’. He went on to say that they are ‘seats of social service, where knowledge of humanism is being imparted and human values are taught’. The statement, made against the backdrop of Mumbai terror attack must have come as relief to the Ulama whose institutions; the madrasas, have been accused of producing jihadis.
Madrasas have been unfairly linked to terrorism, an accusation that is not borne out by facts. As is becoming clear, the perpetrators of the Mumbai blasts were educated in modern institutions rather than in madrasas, a pattern which one sees repeated in almost all terror strikes. In a case study of 75 terrorists done last year by US based scholars Peter Bergen and Swati Pandey, they found out that 53% of them had college degrees. Of the most famous ones, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, the organizational planner of 9/11 had studied engineering in North Carolina and Mohammad Atta had a degree in, of all things, Urban Preservation! In their study, the authors also point out that there were two PhDs who had joined the call for jihad. In fact, out of the profiles of 75 terrorists, only 9 had a madrasa education, and all of them were involved in just one attack, the bombings at Bali. And even in this case, the masterminds wereall college educated, including two university professors. A similar pattern seems to be emerging for the Mumbai blasts. It was one the pet desires of the previous BJP-led government to demonise madrasas but even they could not produce evidence to link these institutions with acts of terror. The Home Minister is therefore right in giving a clean chit to madrasas,but to call them institutions of social service and humanism is perhaps too much.
Despite them being touted as ‘centres of Islamic learning’ it is a fact that only very low class and low caste Muslim groups generally access madrasa education. Partly owing to their poverty and partly due to the dismal state of primary education in the country, these Muslim groups are resigned to send their children to madrasas which not only offer them free education but more importantly also free food and other living amenities. What these children learn in madrasas is very largely based on outdated religious texts that fail to equip them with skills required in contemporary times. Moreover, after spending six to seven years in a madrasa, it is too late for student to go to a regular school. Most of these students, having limited recourse to other modes of earning, end up opening their own madrasa since this is the only skill that they have acquired. In the process, they end up perpetuating the very system of which they were unknowing victims. What kind of social service is this that does not make its own product capable of making decent life choices and perpetuates a regime of ignorance? On the other hand, it is equally painful to realise that those who take lead in this ‘social service’, those who establish madrasas, seldom educate their own children in them. Also the well to do Muslims, on whose financial support these madrasa run, prefer English medium schools for their children. It is positively shameful that the burden of carrying the flag of Islam seems to rest on the tired shoulders of poor and low caste Muslims.
Calling them seats of humanism betrays a similar lack of understanding over what is taught within the precincts of madrasas. The impressionable minds are taught that Islam is the best and final of all religions. Students learn that Christians and Jews have corrupted God’s scripture. What kind of humanism is it when students are taught that polytheists like the Hindus are destined for hellfire if they do not change their religious values? Far from being a humanist position, this version of Islam leaves no room even for basic dialogue between different religious traditions, which are so much important for contemporary times.
Advertisement
But, more importantly, the focus of contemporary madrasa education is narrowly sectarian, catering to various denominational identities with Islam. Thus the Deobandis, Barelwis, Ahl e Hadis, etc. have their own network of madrasas. Far from even developing a sense of Islamic identity, madrasas are engaged in rubbishing each other’s interpretation of Islam. A student in a Deobandi madrasa therefore learns how other denominations like the Barelwis, etc are leading the Muslims astray and vice versa. If this is not all, madrasa students learn that women have been assigned a lower position than men. What kind of humanism is this, which teaches that Muslim women should stay at home, observe purdah and serve theirhusbands?
Rather than using the occasion to raise issues of reform with the Ulama and their institutions, the Home Minister seeks to absolve them of all responsibility for creating backwardness among Muslims. While it is important to recognize that Indian madrasas are not related to terrorism, this should not be stretched too far to mean that nothing is wrong with them. There are important issues of social conservatism, which these madrasas spawn and thrive upon and which should be challenged both by the state and its people.
Advertisement
Arshad Alam is with the Center for Jawaharlal Nehru Studies, Jamia Milia Islamia, New Delhi
