Madrasa Reforms and the Deobandi Ulema’s Response

Recent years have witnessed heated debates on the question of reforms in the system of madrasa education in South Asia. Spurred principally by a chain of political developments, governments, policy making institutions, think tanks, journalists, public intellectuals, social activists as well as the ulema of the madrasas themselves have been discussing the issue, often speaking past each other rather than seeking to engage in meaningful dialogue.

Madrasas owing allegiance to the Deobandi school of thought have received the most attention in journalistic reportage, principally because the Taliban in Afghanistan and certain hardliner Sunni parties in Pakistan are associated with this school. Newspaper accounts of the Deobandis generally present them as ‘obscurantists’, even potential ‘terrorists’ and as being viscerally hostile to reform or change. These writings often betray a lack of a proper understanding of the subject. Typically, they ignore how the Deobandi ulema themselves understand the question of curricular reform, and, equally crucially, their responses to the charges that are leveled against them. It is in this context that a recent Urdu book, “Rabita al-Madaris al-Islamia al-Arabia” (‘The Federation of Islamic and Arabic Schools’), published by the Dar ul-Ulum madrasa at Deoband, referred to by Deobandis as ‘Umm ul-Madaris’ (‘The Mother of all Madrasas’) assumes particular salience. It provides an official account of the views of Indian Deobandi leaders on a host of issues that are central to the ongoing debates about South Asia’s madrasas.

The book is a report of the activities of the Federation of Deobandi madrasas across India, which was set up in 1994. Each year, the Federation organizes a conference at Deoband, which is attended by large numbers of ulema associated with Deobandi madrasas from different parts of the country. Since its inception, these conferences have been chaired by rector of the Deoband madrasa, Maulana Marghub ur-Rahman. As is evident from the contents of this book, the resolutions passed in these meetings have consistently repeated much the same arguments year after year, seeking to reinforce a particular stance on a number of issues that the Deobandi madrasas now see themselves confronted with.

Given the relentless pressure of the media and governments on the madrasas, demanding that they should ‘modernise’ their syllabus, it is hardly surprising that, as the book reveals, the question of curricular reform is being hotly debated in Deobandi circles today. Clearly, a new generation of Deobandi scholars, some of whom have also had the benefit of university education and advocate considerable changes in the syllabus, are yet to become effective enough to make their presence felt in the Federation’s circles. The consensus of the bosses of the Federation, mostly older generation ulema, the book indicates, appears to be that the present syllabus needs no major change at all. Thus, the book quotes the rector of the Deoband madrasa declares that the syllabus is ‘complete in all respects’. Although he hints that ‘minor changes can be thought about in the initial stages in order to make the syllabus more useful’, he does not provide details about this. He insists that madrasas should specialize only in what he describes as ‘religious’ subjects, for they aim at producing religious specialists, not scientists or engineers. To those who argue that they should also include ‘modern’ subjects, he says that while the community does indeed need specialists in these disciplines, those who want ‘modern’ education should go to regular schools instead. Further, he says, madrasa students are free to join universities and study ‘modern’ subjects after they graduate from the madrasas, ignoring, of course, the obvious difficulties involved in doing so, particularly with regard to subjects other than Arabic, Urdu and Islamic Studies. If ‘modern’ subjects are taught in the madrasas along with ‘Islamic’ subjects, he claims, the additional burden would be too much for the students to bear, as a result of which they would be good in neither.

This same line is repeated in several annual resolutions of the Federation. Ignoring the fact that desperate poverty forces many Muslim parents to enroll their children in madrasas instead of regular schools, and that many madrasa graduates feel frustrated in the face of their very limited job opportunities, the Federation insists that madrasas do not aim at helping their students’ improve their future economic prospects, but simply to transmit the Islamic scholarly tradition and to defend it from ‘false sects’ and the ‘conspiracies’ of the ‘enemies of Islam’. Hence, it argues, there is no need for more attention to be paid to ‘modern’ subjects than at present. If this were done, it says, it would ‘have a very negative impact on the madrasas’ and would ‘destroy their spirit’. It insists that the limited exposure that Deobandi madrasas provide to their students at the elementary stage to various ‘modern’ subjects is quite sufficient for them. Not surprisingly, there is no talk of the fact that, in practice, this exposure is quite insufficient, owing, among other factors, to the lack of qualified teachers to teach these subjects.

Numerous resolutions passed at the Federation’s annual meetings also roundly condemn reported efforts on the part of the Government to regulate the madrasas through the setting up of a Central Madrasa Board or funding them provided they follow certain norms. These efforts are described as ‘anti-Constitutional’, as the Indian Constitution allows all communities to establish and manage educational institutions of their choice. Recent events, the Federation resolves, have shown that the Government is not sincere in its intentions and wrongly sees the madrasas as ‘dens of terror and anti-nationalism’. Hence, it argues, the Government’s offers of aid actually aims to rob madrasas of their independence, destroy their religious character and bring them under close governmental control.

‘By offering material aid to the madrasas’ in the name of reform, announces Maulana Marghub ur-Rahman, Deoband’s rector in one of his Presidential addresses, ‘the Government wants to put madrasas to sleep’, because such aid would inevitably lead to a change in the present madrasa curriculum. The fact that the aim of madrasa education should be (even though it may not actually be so for many madrasa students) a means to ‘acquire the willingness of God’, rather than being motivated by worldly aims, is another reason why government aid should be shunned, he stresses.

Allegations of madrasas being involved in promoting ‘terrorism’ are repeatedly rebutted by the Federation. It insists that madrasas are being thus wrongly defamed by ‘Jewish and Christian forces that are bent on destroying Islam’. Included among forces that is singled out as being engaged in this campaign are ‘materialistic, anti-Islamic and Westernised people’. Going even further, the late Sayyed Asad Madani, head of the Jamiat ul-Ulema-i Hind, three times Congress Party Member of Parliament and member of the Deoband madrasa’s Central Committee, declares that ‘The whole world is against Islam and has always been so’. ‘All the powers of the world are unanimous about this’. ‘They might differ among themselves on other matters but there is no difference among the enemies of Islam about their desire to destroy Islam’, he says. Consequently, he goes on, they are conspiring to lead Muslims away from Islam, and their moves against the madrasas being a major step in that direction.

Since madrasas are ‘the fountainhead of Islamic knowledge’, these forces, which find madrasas to be ‘the major hurdle in the American and Zionist quest for global hegemony’ have launched a campaign to discredit them, the Federation announces. Their talk of the need for madrasa curricular reform and their offers of money for this purpose are said to be ‘a dangerous part of this conspiracy’.

Far from promoting ‘terrorism’, the Federation announces, the madrasas are ‘missionaries of peace, love and communal harmony’. Besides, they played a leading role in the struggle for Indian independence. They are contrasted with America and Israel, which are condemned as engaged in ‘brutal terrorism’. Citing America’s aggression against Iraq and Palestine, the Federation declares, ‘Today the greatest danger to humankind is America’.

Although no loud, dissenting voices among the Deobandi ulema are recorded in this book (they do exist, though!), it is clear that several leading Deobandis also feel the pressing need for the ulema to introspect. Thus, Mufti Manzur Ahmad Kanpuri, member of the Deoband madrasa’s Central Committee, complains that madrasas today ‘give less attention to teaching than to constructing fancy buildings, like grand palaces, in order to impress people so as to garner more donations’. Consequently, he says, ‘the real work that they should be engaged in is almost wholly neglected’. He adds that not enough attention is paid to the students’ moral training. In a similar vein, the authors of a Syllabus Committee set up by the Federation lament that ‘Most madrasa students want degrees and jobs, and their moral standards are low’.

Overall, then, the focus is on moral, as opposed to curricular, reform, and it is argued that if the madrasas could produce great scholars and pious Muslims in the past, they can do so today without having to modify what they teach.

Interestingly, the anti-madrasa propaganda has had the unintended effect of making the ulema more open to possibilities of dialogue and interaction with others. Thus, the Federation has passed resolutions exhorting madrasas to invite non-Muslim journalists, scholars and political leaders to visit them and see for themselves that they do not have any links to ‘terrorism’. Similarly, the book quotes Deoband’s rector as appealing to madrasas to ‘stay away from unknown elements, maintain proper accounts, promote inter-communal harmony, inform local government officials about the services rendered by them and interact with the media’.

As emerges from the resolutions passed by the Federation, the senior ulema of Deoband are opposed to government intervention in the field of madrasa education. They are also averse to suggestions for any structural modification in the existing madrasa curriculum. At the same time, they are increasingly open to interacting with others, including non-Muslims, even if this is simply to help counter charges of ‘terrorism’. However, these ulema do not speak for all Deobandis, there being a number of graduates of Deobandi madrasas who are indeed in favour of a limited ‘modernisation’ of the curriculum, claiming that Islam stands for a holistic understanding of knowledge, including what is defined by some ulema as ‘worldly’. Unfortunately, these voices are not heard in this book. Standing between advocates of complete secularization of the madrasas and those who are vociferously opposed to any ‘modernisation’, these voices represent the possibility of the emergence of a creative Deobandi response to the myriad challenges that South Asia’s madrasas are today confronted with.