Editorial 1: Move on madrasas, the alienation of Muslims

Context

A statutory commission such as the NCPCR should not be eroding pluralism in India; it needs to step back from its move.

Introduction

As the Supreme Court of India has stayed the recommendations of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) to stop government funding to madrasas (which are not compliant with the Right to Education (RTE) Act, 2009 and to conduct an inspection of all madrasas) as well as subsequent actions taken by the Centre and various States, there is mild relief for the minorities and secular-minded people of the country. But the apprehension triggered by the move remains.

NCPCR’s Initiative and Ideological Underpinnings

• Guiding Ideology: The NCPCR’s initiative is apparently guided by the ideology propounded by Bunch of Thoughts by M.S. Golwalkar.
  • That ‘vicharadhara’ declares religious minorities as enemies of the nation.
• Political Reactions: From the stance of the Lok Janshakti Party (LJP) leader, A.K. Bajpai, against this move, it is evident that even constituents of the ruling National Democratic Alliance have realised the danger behind this initiative.

What is the Legislative Context?

• The Commissions for Protection of Child Rights (CPCR) Act, 2005 is one of the prominent progressive pieces of legislation in independent India.
  • The directive issued by the NCPCR to State governments on October 11, 2024, was under this Act.
• Child trafficking ussues: In India, children are trafficked for sex work, beggary and even for trade of vital organs.
  • Many of them denied the first letters of knowledge.
  • There has been a mockery of the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986.
  • But, unfortunately, none of these seems to concern the NCPCR.
  • History shows that across the world, fascists have achieved their ulterior motives by a manipulation of rules and regulations.

The concept and history

• NCPCR’s Demands on Madrasas: The NCPCR further demands that children belonging to other religious groups should be thrown out of madrasas.
  • It would be like “throwing the baby out with the bath water”, as cited now by the Supreme Court.
• Reasons for Attendance: According to the NCPCR, it is proved that many children belonging to other religious groups are also going to the madrasas.
  • It is difficult for anybody familiar with the experiences of the real Kerala story, a State that succeeded in the universalisation of public education, to understand this scenario.
• Access to Primary Education: Primary education is not accessible to all in this country before and even after the enactment of the RTE Act, 2009.
  • That is why a system has emerged of imparting secular education along with religious instructions and the government was compelled to provide financial assistance for the same in many States.
  • The NCPCR has failed to understand this reality.

What is the historical context of the Madrasas?

• Origins of the Term ‘Madrasa’: The training centres started by the ultra-terrorist Taliban in the late 1970s, under the patronage of the United States to overthrow the leftist government in Afghanistan, were later named as madrasas.
  • It was deliberate propaganda which fits the present Islamophobic narrative put forward by the same U.S. and its imperial allies.
• Misinterpretation of Indian History: However, the concept is inconsistent with the realities of Indian history and society.
  • The Arabic word ‘madrasa’ means school and nothing else.
  • And this name was used for long for both the religious and the secular schools till the introduction of the distinct system of colonial education by the British regime.
• Role of Madrasas in Education: In the absence of a free and universal education system, many non-Muslim children depended on madrasas.
  • Raja Ram Mohan Roy, the father of the Indian Renaissance, Rajendra Prasad, the first President of India, and the writer Munshi Premchand and many others absorbed the early rays of knowledge from madrasas and maulvis.
• Coexistence in Knowledge: This historical fact may be offensive to Hindutva communalists.
  • The hatemongers of our time may not like to establish that India’s history is not one of competition and confrontation but one of coexistence and tolerance.
  • While it is hard to stand up and speak the truth in today’s hateful discourse, it cannot be left unsaid.

What have been the educational practices in Indian history?

• Patronage of Madrasas: The madrasa system prevailed since the days of the Delhi Sultanate and was patronised by slave, Khilji and Tughlaq dynasties.
  • From the travelogues of Ibn Battuta, a Moroccan traveller, it is evident that Firoz Shah Tughlaq (1309-1388), the successor of the Muhammad-bin Tughlaq, instrumentalised this practice to educate women and slaves in the arts, science and handicrafts.
• Christian Schools in India: Later, in various regions of India, and particularly in Kerala, Christian denominations widely established schools next to churches not only for the children of their own community but also for those who wanted to learn.
  • It was not seen as a shame to get knowledge from anyone, even from those belonging to a different faith.

 

Social justice and not appeasement

• Target of Fake News: Kerala has been a target of venomous attack in recent years, through fake and fabricated news, for the only fault of upholding solidarity and communal amity among all sections of the society despite attempts to promote hate and mistrust from various corners. T
• Madrasas and Education: The issue related to the functioning of madrasas is no exception.
  • As a State that has an exemplary system of primary education, Kerala does not need to run madrasas with financial assistance from the government.
• Dispelling Myths: Dissemination of fake news that the Government of Kerala is spending a huge amount on madrasas is simply untrue.
  • But the Madrasa Teachers’ Welfare Fund, the financial source of pension and other benefits, is statutorily established akin to that of other categories of employees.
  • It is based on the policy of social justice and not of religious appeasement.

What art their Constitutional Rights and Responsibilities?

• Freedom of religion is constitutional. Article 25 guarantees every Indian citizen the freedom to profess, practise and propagate the religion of their choice. T
• The government authority: It has the power to prevent anything illegal and detrimental to national security.
  • Be it religious or secular schools, all should operate as in the guidance of the law.
  • But the action of the NCPCR, fuelling the alienation of religious minorities, does show justice neither to the Child Rights Act nor to the country.

 

Way Forward: An aggressive majoritarianism

• Importance of Secular Values: in a country such as ours, imparting secular values to upcoming generations is of paramount importance.
• Unity in Diversity: The existence and the growth of India depend upon its unity in diversity.
• Role of religious leaders: and people belonging to all faiths will understand the pluralistic content of this great nation.
  • That can be inculcated by following the teachings of the great leaders of all streams irrespective of their religion.
• Wisdom of Sree Narayana Guru:  In this context, the words of Sree Narayana Guru are worth remembering: “Sarvamatha Saravum Ekam (Essence of all religions is one and the same)”.

Conclusion

But, unfortunately, the NCPCR has shut its eyes tightly to the fact that from Kashmir to Kanniyakumari, the religious minorities are passing through days of insecurity. The vicious forces of aggressive majoritarianism frighten them with words and deeds of hatred. The move of the NCPCR can be approached only in this socio-political context. A statutory commission is not expected to sow the seeds of division in society and alienate the minority psyche. That is why the people of India, upholding constitutional values, urge the NCPCR to step back from its present move.

Editorial 2: The Gaza war and the Global South’s ‘interventions’

Context

The proverbial Global South seems to be showing a fragmented approach to the crisis.

Introduction

The killing of Hamas chief Yahya Sinwar in Gaza at the hands of the Israeli military, on October 16, 2024, ended a critical aim for the Jewish state. Sinwar, who took over the reins of Hamas only some months ago after the assassination of then chief Ismail Haniyeh in Iran, in July 2024, was known to be a main architect of the October 7, 2023 terror attacks.

• Aims of Israel: As Israel’s core kinetic aims come to fruition, with the elimination of a plethora of leaders from Hamas and Hezbollah, the question of ‘what next?’ remains palpable.
•  Civilian casualties in both Gaza: and now Lebanon, have mounted, and political space in both regions that are under siege continue to persist without a blueprint for any off-ramps.
• Reaction from the US: The United States, paralysed with its own domestic electoral requirements, has been unable to turn the keys towards a ceasefire. Others have increasingly looked towards alternatives, including India and China.

Countries and their moves

The proverbial Global South, so to speak, has arguably shown a fragmented approach to the crisis.

• South Africa’s Legal Action: South Africa, led by its own experiences of the apartheid era, took Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in December 2023
  • looking for the ICJ to issue a warrant against Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
• Shifting Alliances and Goodwill: While Israel has lost a lot of goodwill in these countries, the two biggest powers within this construct,
  • China and India, have taken divergent positions which are anchored more around their individual national interest rather than trying to build a consensus within newer multilateral formats such as BRICS.
  • This is despite calls for ceasefire and diplomacy-led resolution promoted by both these states.

Divergent Positions of China and India

• This divergence between the two Asian powers, representing over a third of the global population, ultimately decides the rudders of what the ‘Global South’ is, despite the non-monolith nature of this construct.
• Both India and China have clear diplomatic and political markers on the Palestine issue.
• China’s Arab Tilt: Beijing has put its eggs in the Arab basket, in tune with its own postures of supporting causes such as that of Palestinian sovereignty from a de-colonisation lens.
• China’s Support for Palestine: It was only in July 2024 that 14 Palestinian factions, including Hamas, travelled to China for a conference aimed at “ending divisions and strengthening Palestinian unity”.

 

China’s view and the Indian line

• Lack of Condemnation: China, since October last year, has not condemned Hamas by name for planning and executing the attack against Israel.
  • to keep its own mediation window open, something it had mobilised previously between Iran and Saudi Arabia,
  • which had created a lot of fanfare for China’s increasing clout in the international order.
• Impact of leadership change: Those calculations were made redundant with the assassinations of Ismail Haniyeh and now Sinwar as follow-up conversations on said ‘unity’ remain far and few.
  • To back the now hyphenated Arab-Iranian position,
  • China undermined its relations with Israel, calculating that Israeli proximity to the U.S. is endearing and its capacities are better utilised elsewhere.

China’s Broader Strategy

• But China still sees newer forums, such as BRICS, to incubate the narrative of the Global South in its own favour.
• This was reflected in the recent expansion of the group which India was not particularly keen on but had to go along with.
• Interest to join BRICS has grown since, with even Palestine looking to apply as Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas attended this year’s BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia.

India’s Consistent Position

• The balanced approach: The Indian position, on the other hand, has been consistent and balanced regarding its national interest and international obligations.
  • Many analysts believe Indian approach to the conflict has been skewed towards Israel, giving tacit yet critical support, and this is not an entirely incorrect view of things.
• Comparative experiences:  Contrarian to China’s approach, New Delhi also sees this from the view of countering terrorism.
  •  To put this in perspective, beyond their different domestic and regional realities, both states suffer from the designs of cross-border terrorism.
  • To colour this argument further, the fact that Israel was forced to release Sinwar from prison in 2011 in exchange for a captured Israeli soldier is a parallel experience to India being forced to release Jaish-e-Muhammad’s Masood Azhar during the hijacking of IC814 in 1999.
• Counter-Terrorism and Two-State Solution: India continues to push a return of countering terrorism as a core multilateral deliverable as the U.S.-pushed ‘war on terror’ draws down.
  • Parallelly, India continues to support a two-state solution and recognised the Palestinian state in 1988.
  • Both these policies running concurrently, does create polarised impressions.
  • However, both do co-exist as realities and do not undermine one from the other.

 

Conclusion: A perspective

Ultimately, the war in Gaza has shown that while the idea of America’s ‘Pax Americana’ design is diminishing, and finding fewer takers within the U.S. itself, alternatives remain distant realities. The India-China contestation by itself undermines any real unity within the Global South, while other disparities, such as democracies versus non-democracies, present more crevasses to navigate. True mediation relies on political and military power to mobilise and exploit leverages, and no power in the Global South, individually or collectively, has the correct tools in place to project such influence in West Asia today. Whatever little such projection is witnessed, is more about individual interests, rather than any collective aim to design, promote, and, most importantly, guarantee peace.