NCPCR Report on Madrasas: A Call for Inclusive Education and Scrutiny of Religious Institutions

The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) has recently issued a report titled 'Guardians of Faith or Oppressors of Rights: Constitutional Rights of Children vs. Madrasas,' which has sparked a heated debate across the country. The report, consisting of 11 chapters, delves into the historical role of madrasas and their impact on children's educational rights. At the heart of the controversy lies the NCPCR's recommendation to stop state funding for madrasas and to integrate children attending these institutions into formal schools.

1. The NCPCR's Recommendations

The NCPCR, led by Chairman Priyank Kanoongo, has urged state governments to cease funding for madrasas and discontinue the operation of Madrasa Boards. This move is subject to the Supreme Court's ruling on a case pending before it, specifically SLP (Civil) No. 008541 of 2024 regarding Uttar Pradesh. The commission argues that the exemptions given to religious institutions under the Right to Education (RTE) Act, 2009, have led to the exclusion of children attending only religious institutions from the formal education system, thereby depriving them of quality education guaranteed by the RTE Act.

Kanoongo emphasized in his letter to all Chief Secretaries of states and union territories that it is the duty of state governments to ensure all children receive formal education as defined under the RTE Act. He highlighted that merely constituting a Board or taking a UDISE Code does not mean that the madrasas are following the provisions of the RTE Act, 2009. The commission's report underscores that many madrasas violate children's educational rights by not adhering to the prescribed curriculum and schedule outlined in the RTE Act.

The NCPCR also recommended that non-Muslim children be removed from madrasas and placed in formal schools as per the RTE Act. Additionally, it suggested that Muslim children currently in madrasas should be enrolled in formal schools to ensure they receive the prescribed education and curriculum. This move aims to address the significant educational disadvantage faced by children in madrasas due to the lack of trained and qualified teachers and adherence to the pupil-teacher ratio specified by the RTE Act.

2. Historical Context and Impact on Children's Education

The NCPCR's report provides a detailed historical analysis of madrasas, highlighting their role in violating educational rights of children. It notes that many madrasas lack accountability, citing concerns over infrastructure and reports of child rights violations. The report identifies a lack of trained and qualified teachers in madrasas, with most teachers relying on conventional methods of teaching the Quran and religious texts rather than meeting the qualifications and standards outlined by the National Council for Teacher Education.

Data from UDISE 2021-22 indicates that approximately 12 million Muslim children do not receive formal education. This statistic underscores the urgency of integrating these children into the formal education system to ensure they receive education aligned with the RTE Act's prescribed curriculum and schedule.

3. Reactions from Political Leaders and Stakeholders

The NCPCR's recommendations have drawn varied responses from political parties and stakeholders. Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav criticized the move, stating that it is an attempt by the BJP to change the Constitution and create conflicts between castes and religions. Yadav argued that the BJP is engaging in discriminatory politics that will not succeed in the long run.

Uttar Pradesh Congress Committee chief Ajai Rai also expressed skepticism about the practicality of the NCPCR's recommendations. He suggested that madrasas with deficiencies should be investigated and closed but not all of them. Rai's comments reflect the complexity of addressing educational disparities while respecting minority rights.

In contrast, some state governments have taken steps to address the concerns raised by the NCPCR. For instance, the Maharashtra Cabinet recently approved significant salary increases for D.Ed. and B.Ed. teachers in madrasas. D.Ed. teachers' salaries will rise from Rs 6,000 to Rs 16,000 per month, while those teaching secondary subjects in B.A., B.Ed., and B.Sc. programs will earn Rs 18,000, up from Rs 8,000.

However, not all states have been receptive to the NCPCR's orders. Several state governments have refused to map madrasas as per NCPCR orders, citing institutional violations of fundamental rights. This resistance underscores the challenges in implementing policies aimed at ensuring inclusive education for all children.

4. Protests and Controversies in Kerala

The NCPCR's suggestions have also sparked widespread protests in Kerala, with the Muslim community and political leaders condemning the move. The protests highlight the sensitivity of the issue and the need for a nuanced approach that respects both educational rights and minority rights.

Onmanorama reported that the Kerala Muslim community has strongly condemned the NCPCR's order, viewing it as an attack on their educational institutions. Political leaders in Kerala have also expressed their opposition to the NCPCR's recommendations, emphasizing the importance of preserving cultural and religious institutions.

The Hindu noted that the protests in Kerala are part of a broader resistance against what is perceived as an attempt to undermine minority rights. The controversy underscores the complexities of balancing educational inclusivity with cultural and religious sensitivities.

5. Conclusion and Future Directions

The NCPCR's report on madrasas has ignited a national debate about the role of religious institutions in education and the need for inclusive policies. While the recommendations aim to address significant educational disparities, they also raise concerns about minority rights and cultural sensitivities.

As the Supreme Court deliberates on the case related to Uttar Pradesh, it is crucial for state governments to engage in a constructive dialogue with stakeholders to find a solution that respects both educational rights and minority rights. The future of education in India hangs in the balance, and the outcome of this debate will have far-reaching implications for generations to come.

Learn More at Direct Post