Madrasas, seminaries where Islamic scholars or ulema are trained, are routinely portrayed in the media as static and impervious to change. It is commonly alleged that madrasas refuse to “modernise” their curriculum, being branded as a major obstacle to Muslim progress. This argument is, however, flawed in some respects. It is based on an exaggerated notion of the importance of madrasas, because less than five out of a hundred Muslim children actually study in full-time madrasas. It operates on the mistaken assumption of madrasas being a monolith, whereas, in actual fact, they display considerable variety, across regions as well as on sectarian lines. The argument ignores the slow, but significant, changes in the curricula used by the madrasas over time. It also seeks to shift the entire blame for Muslim marginalisation onto the Muslims themselves, absolving the state or the wider society of any complicity in the matter.Most madrasas in north India use slightly varied versions of a syllabus prepared by the 18th century scholar from Lucknow, Mulla Nizamuddin, and named after him as the dars-e nizami. This syllabus includes core Islamic disciplines such as the Qur’an, Hadith or sayings attributed to or about the Prophet Muhammad, Tafsir or Qur’anic commentary, and Fiqh of Muslim jurisprudence. In addition, various ancillary subjects, such as philosophy, logic, astronomy and so on, are also included in the syllabus.Many madrasas, particularly those associated with the Deobandi and Barelvi schools of thought, still employ the dars-e nizami, albeit with slight modifications. Yet, they have not been impervious to change entirely. Deoband recently set up two new departments, of English and Computers, and a leading Deobandi scholar runs an English-medium school in Deoband town. The Barelvis run an English-language centre for graduate maulvis in Delhi. Smaller Deobandi and Barelvi madrasas have included basic “modern” subjects in their curriculum at the junior level, using government-approved textbooks.Madrasas run by or associated with the Jamaat-i Islami have been far more open to the teaching of ‘modern’ subjects, based on the belief that all forms of useful and morally acceptable knowledge are legitimate. In some places, particularly Kerala, Muslims have modified their system of Islamic education in such a way that children can simultaneously study in madrasas and regular schools. Several madrasas encourage their students to join regular colleges once they graduate, and for this have received affiliation from certain universities. In these and other ways, madrasas are gradually seeking to open up to the winds of change that they realise they can no longer ignore.Today, the subject of madrasa curricular reform is hotly debated, not just by the ulema, but also by Muslim modernists as well as governments of various states. For some participants in this debate, madrasa reform is linked to security concerns, based on the assumption, proven as baseless in the Indian context, that madrasas are linked to “terrorism”. Obviously, if appeals for madrasa reform are driven by such concerns they can find little or no resonance with the ulema. The hypocrisy involved in America’s liberal funding of the mujahideen in Afghanistan, who, once US objectives were met, were quickly branded as terrorists, is plain enough for all to see, and is commonly pointed out by madrasa managers as proof of US double-speak on the issue. Likewise, in India, when Hindutva forces are allowed to have a free run, and when literally thousands of schools run by Hindutva groups across the country are allowed to openly preach hatred for Muslims, the demand by Hindutva leaders, top government officials and large sections of the media that madrasas must “reform” is rightly seen as unfairly targeting Muslims, particularly when there is no proof of Indian madrasas engaging in “terrorism”. It is hence hardly surprising that many Muslims see American or right-wing Hindu demands for madrasa “reform” as hollow and insincere.This does not mean the ulema are completely hostile to reforming madrasa curriculum. Admittedly, some ulema are wholly opposed to any sort of reform, arguing if the dars-e nizami produced great scholars in the past, it merits no change in the future. They go to the extent of branding all proposals for change as an “anti-Islamic conspiracy”. To an extent, such arguments might reflect deeply-rooted vested interests among sections of the ulema, who see in any changes in the curriculum a threat to their own authority.On the other hand, numerous ulema, particularly younger maulvis from the smaller madrasas, are now demanding that madrasas should include “modern” subjects so that their students can adjust to the changing world around them. They argue for a controlled “modernisation”, pointing out that it should not lead to madrasas turning into regular schools. Madrasas are geared to the training of ulema, they say, and hence only such proposals for reform are acceptable as would enable their students to perform their task as religious specialists in a better way. Hence, they argue, the Qur’an and Hadith and other core Islamic subjects must remain at the centre of the madrasa curriculum and no proposals for reform that seek to remove these subjects from that place are acceptable. However, they argue the need for reform in terms of the ancillary subjects taught in the madrasas, suggesting the need for new subjects, such as modern philosophy, comparative religions, economics, sociology and so on. These, they claim, would enable their students to present Islam in a more relevant mode. Gradually, the voices of these ulema are getting heard, as discussions in Muslim papers and halting measures of reform in several madrasas indicate.Madrasas cater to only a relatively small proportion of Muslim children, and their role must not be exaggerated. The temptation to present madrasa education as the preferred alternative to general schooling for Muslim children must be guarded against. Muslims, like others, seek good education for their children, and it is often the case that poverty drives many Muslims to send their students to madrasas, where education is provided free. If the state is seriously concerned about Muslim education, it ought to fund more regular schools in Muslim areas rather than seek to present madrasas as an alternative, which can only contribute to Muslim marginalisation.As for curricular reform, the state and the media need to be even-handed in their approach and desist from sensationalising the mad-rasas. Obscurantism, surely, is not a Muslim monopoly. If the state and other actors are sincere about curricular reform, obviously this concern should extend to Hindutva-run schools too. The best way for the state to promote reforms in the madrasas is not through force or legislation, but through dialogue, particularly with younger-generation ulema, especially those who have studied in regular universities as well. If approached with sincerity and sensitivity, it is likely that many of these ulema would readily respond to such efforts.Yoginder Sikand is the author of ‘Bastions of the Believers: Madrasas and Islamic Education in India’ (Penguin, 2005)
