Madrasa Modernisation in India: Book Review


Fahimuddin, “Modernisation of Muslim Education in
India”, New Delhi: Adhyayan Publishers, 2004, ISBN:
81-89161-31-8, p.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
ides 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 authoer
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 buy 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’.