HVK Archives: Modernise Muslim education
Modernise Muslim education - The Hindu
P.V. Indiresan
()
February 26,1998
Title: Modernise Muslim education
Author: P.V. Indiresan
Publication: The Hindu
Date: February 26,1998
Aseries of bomb explosions in Coimbatore have killed many people.
The same day, a bomb went off in Wuhan in China killing a similar
number of people. Both the explosions were ascribed to Islamic
extremists. Every right thinking Muslim should be concerned that
in many parts of the world, acts of terrorism are routinely
attributed to the fundamentalists of their faith. It may be
understandable, but not necessarily excusable, that where Muslims
are a minority (as in India and China), they have to take
recourse to arms. Even that excuse does not apply to such
countries as Algeria, Morocco, Egypt, Turkey and a host of other
Islamic countries. It does not explain why the Algerians who go
to France for making money indulge in terrorism there.
While the Islamic fundamentalists insist on their right to settle
anywhere and will brook no compromise in the way they practise
their culture, they do not concede the same privilege to the
people of other persuasions. not even to Muslims of different
denominations. For instance, foreigners, even Muslim foreigners.
are virtually ineligible to the privileges of citizenship in any
Islamic country. Muslims in India may have, and do have, many
grievances. However, they are at least accepted as Indians. In
contrast, in spite of the much-flaunted two-nation theory, and in
spite of their being Islamic republics, Pakistan and Bangladesh
do not welcome Indian Muslims. The Bihari Muslims are acceptable
neither in Bangladesh nor in Pakistan. That is why the Muhajirs
in Karachi are still righting for survival in spite of living
there for two generations. That raises two questions. One, why do
the faithful not tolerate diversity and, two, why do they prefer
to settle issues by force rather than by argument?
Mahatma Gandhi is a dim memory these days. Few believe in his non-
violence. A violent response is likely to be a natural reaction
to Islamic terrorism. That would be a mistake. A violent reaction
may or may not hurt those guilty of mindless violence but it will
definitely injure many innocent people. So, a violent retribution
will only add to bitterness and encourage even more people to
take to violence. If violence is wrong, a violent reaction is
equally wrong. As Gandhiji has said, an eye for an eye and a
tooth for a tooth will only leave everyone blind and toothless.
So, we need an intellectual solution to Islamic intolerance and
terrorism, a type of solution that will persuade rather than a
physical one that will compel.
With such a laudable objective, the framers of the Constitution
advocated unity in diversity. For that purpose, they gave the
minorities special privileges of diversity. Thus, the
Constitution allows these communities considerable freedom in
managing the way they worship and the way they run their schools
and other social institutions. At the same time, worried as they
were about fissiparous tendencies, the founding fathers denied
the same freedom to Hindus. The Constitution expects the majority
community to make sacrifices for the sake of national unity by
denying them the freedom to run their own schools and hospitals.
So, Hindus have little freedom to run their schools. unless like
the Ramakrishna Mission, they declare Themselves to be non-
Hindus. In the name of progress, the Constitution has deprived
the Hindus of control over their places of worship also. Thus,
even a communist government. which professes nothing but utter
contempt for the Hindu ethics, could and does merrily control
even the day-to-day management of Hindu temples. Understandable
annoyance results because the minority communities are not
compelled to make similar sacrifices.
Although few realise it, Jinnah's two-nation theory has been
religiously accepted in different ways, no doubt - both by
Pakistan and India! Both their Constitutions hold that Hindus and
Muslims are different and require to be subjected to different
laws. The Indian Constitution could have opted for either
universal control or universal freedom. instead. it decided on
restrictions for the Hindus and relative freedom for the non-
Hindus. That is how the road to hell is paved with good
intentions. Favouritism may help win elections (but that is not
certain), but it will not let anyone run a government in peace
(that is certain). Discrimination is like Satyabhama's parijat
tree: it helps you to succeed but not to enjoy that success! if
the Constitution had been more equitable. the country would not
have spawned many Hindu reactionaries. Then the minorities would
have had no cause for fear and the Muslims would have seen no
need to assert themselves with bombs.
While the Christian convents harnessed the freedom provided to
them under the Constitution to offer high quality education, the
'madrasas' used the same freedom to deny their children modern
education. The Christians opened their schools to all, the
Muslims shut the door. The Christians exported their culture. The
Muslims stopped the import of ideas. By that isolation, they
indoctrinated their youngsters against the concept of universal
brotherhood and abrogated their responsibility to prepare their
youth for responsible citizenship. Matters have been made worse
because the kind of education they give their children does not
prepare them to prosper in a modern industrial economy. Instead,
the 'madrasas' make them withdraw into a shell. That leads to a
vicious circle: the more deeply they bury themselves in a shell
of their own making, the more incompetent they become, and the
more they feel the need for a protective shell. Then suspicion
builds on suspicion, fear on fear, frustration on frustration,
until ultimately violence is seen as the only hope for survival.
Thus, the roots of Islamic terrorism lie largely in the way the
Islamic schools make their children unfit for a modern economy.
The seeds of terrorism may have been planted by 'mullas' but the
soil was prepared by the so-called secular intellectuals. It is
they who have patronised the obscurantists to the chagrin of
cosmopolitan Muslims. As self-appointed arbiters of public taste
and political correctness, the Indian intellectual establishment
has ruled that it is not proper to criticise the Muslims with the
same kind of frankness which one may use for caste Hindus. For
instance, the destruction of the Babri Masjid has been widely
condemned, and rightly so. At the same time, not a whisper is
heard about the arty Hindus have been driven out of Kashmir,
about how even those few who remain are terrorised by Muslims.
Such intellectuals think that they are advancing the cause of
Muslims by protecting them from adverse criticism. Unfortunately,
freedom from criticism is a doubtful privilege. In general,
organisations benefit more by, facing a critical comment than by
remaining immune to criticism, legitimate or otherwise. In the
absence of criticism, organisations kind communities are liable
to remain stagnant and become putrid. So what Islam needs the
most is not a thicker protective shell but more fresh air.
The danger tomorrow is not Islamic terrorism but a Hindu
reaction. Here too, by their double standards, the "secular"
intellectuals cause much provocation. They condemn the BJP brand
of communalism but praise that of others as sacred. Mr. Mulayam
Singh Yadav has cynically tried to destroy the professionalism of
the Army by blatantly favouring officers of his own caste. Mr.
Khanshi Ram openly calls for the destruction of Tilak, Talwar and
Taraz (Brahmins, Khsatrias and Vaishyas). Mr. Laloo Prasad Yadav
stopped admissions to polytechnics all over Bihar rather than let
upper caste students enter these institutions. When pressed hard,
Indira Gandhi veered round to such an extent that she became a
darling of the RSS. Mr. E.M.S. Namboodiripad consorted with
communal parties. Yet, they are all deemed secular and noble.
There is nothing wrong in accepting Mr. V.P. Singh's brand of
communalism as superior to Mr. Advani's, but it is not
intellectual honesty to describe Mr. Singh's communal preference
as secular. Violent reaction is a natural result of such
doublespeak.
For decades, powerful Indian intellectuals crippled the economy
by preaching "socialism" without practising it. They have added
to our woes by preaching "secularism" without practising that
either. As a reaction, some people want to teach Muslims "a
lesson". I suggest that the best recourse is not for Hindus to
teach Muslims a lesson but to make them teach Hindus. Suppose we
make it a rule that the madrasas (and all denominational schools)
will get state support only when they attract a significant
number of students from other communities? That will force the
mullas to modernise them. In the process, they are bound to learn
that the Golden Age of Islam was built the Arab science not by
the Arab sword. The Muslim youth will then get quality, modern
education and become competitive. When they become competitive,
they will be sought after. They will then realise that terrorism
is a mug's game. In other words. the Gandhian way of halting
Islamic terrorism is to make Muslim better, not weaker.
Back
Top
|
