Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

2- Madrasahs In Pakistan

Madrasahs and the Pakistan Movement

The Aligarh Movement, which had been basically an educational movement, gradually became a political movement when Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, its founder, initiated the demand for reservation of seats for the Muslim community in elected bodies and the representation of Muslims through a separate electorate. Not satisfied with the performance of the Indian National Congress as representative of all communities of India, the supporters of the Aligarh Movement set up their own political organization, the Muslim League, with the explicit objective of protecting the rights of the Muslim community. Earlier the stand taken by Sir Syed for the defense of Urdu (when extremist Hindus tried to replace it by Hindi as official language in 1867) had determined a different course to be chosen from that of the Congress for the protection of the rights of the Muslims of the Subcontinent.[66] He had become uneasy at the Congress plan for “democratizing” India. He felt this would leave Muslims at the mercy of the numerically superior Hindus. A. Hamid quotes him in theAligarh Movement in the following words:

Ours is a vast country inhibited by diverse folks deeply divided by racial and religious antagonisms. They lack homogeneity. Different sections of the population stand at varying levels of cultural development. So long as religion and caste are the chief props of the Indian social system, electoral machinery based on the Western pattern would lead neither to equality nor to fraternity. It would enable the more advanced sections of the population to hold their less fortunate countrymen in thralldom. Cultural difference, caste dissentions and religious wrangling would be more pronounced than ever. Inequalities would sink deeper in the society.[67]

The Deobandiulema were content with their socio-religious role until the end of the nineteenth century. However with the beginning of the twentieth century they made explicit their political views. The approach of theDeoband ulema to Indian politics differed fundamentally from its counterpart at Aligarh. They believed that geography was the ultimate determinant of nationalism in the context of India and the concept of Indian Muslim nationalism contradicted the concept of universal Muslim nationalism.  On the basis of a mutually antagonistic political approach, both the educational movements chose different political platforms during the freedom struggle. While Aligarh aligned itself with the Muslim League under the leadership of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the Deobandi supported the Congress during the freedom movement.[68]

The gulf between Deoband and Aligarh had widened because Sir Syed had contributed articles to the Aligarh Institute Gazette denying the pretensions of Sultan Abdul Hamid[69]   to thekhilafat and preaching loyalty to the British rulers of India, even if they were compelled to pursue an unfriendly policy towards Turkey, while Deoband was consistent since the very beginning in its policy of friendship and alliance with the Sultan of Turkey. The Deobandi still considered India asDar-ul-arb , but Aligarh saw no sense in it. The gulf between the two Muslim institutions continued to exist and widen and divided the Muslims of India into two hostile blocks.[70]

The situation changed after the First World War when the Muslims of the Subcontinent launched theKhilafat Movement seeking to protect the Ottoman caliphate from attack by the victorious allies and to prevent the holy cities of Mecca and Madina from falling under European control. It is worth noticing that, in the period of Muslim unrest, the Muslim middle class was in the forefront. Now for the first time Aligarh, the citadel of the Muslim middle class, was coming closer to Deoband, the center of proletarian dissatisfaction, in so far as the anti-British attitude was concerned. However, this was a brief rapprochement between the followers of both hostile camps.[71]

Jamiat-ul-ulama-i-Hind

The brief rapprochement between Aligarh and Deoband during theKhilafat Movement could not be effected at the upper level and theuema , mostlyDeobandi, set up their own organization,Jamiat-ul-Ulama-i-Hind in 1919 to protect the rights of Muslims and preferred to join hands with Gandhi for the realization of their objective, instead ofJinnah’s Muslim League , whom they thought to be secular and irreligious, using Islam for secular interests.[72]

The leaders ofJamiat-ul-Ulama-i-Hind claimed that it was a genuine Muslim organization to safeguard the “Shariat ” as well as to give the Muslim community religious and political guidance according to Islamic principles and commandments. Among the foremost objectives of this organization was the protection of the Ottoman caliphate from dismemberment, the protection of the rights of the Muslims of India and the liberation of India from alien rule. Theulema issued a series offatwas justifying seeking cooperation of non-Muslims for the achievements of these objectives.[73]

The movement to protect the caliphate failed due to various internal and external reasons but it made theulema think pragmatically about the political situation of India. The encounter between Deoband and Aligarh led to the establishment of Jamia Millia Islamia at Dehli in 1920. This institute was inaugurated by Maulana Mohamood-ul-Hasan, the rector of Deoband, and supported by activists from Aligarh. It managed to educate Muslims in both modern as well as traditional religious subjects.[74]

The aims and objectives of theJamiat , when analyzed, reveal its dual loyalty to Islam and Islamic countries, on the one hand, and to India, on the other. They also indicate the utmost emphasis on the “Sharia ”, its preservation and its promulgation which concern the personal lives of Indian Muslims. The country was to be freed from the foreign yoke not only because of the democratic right of a nascent India but because of the religious duty of the Muslims to fight for the freedom of their motherland. The whole program of theJamiat had to revolve around a single pivot, i.e. theSharia, which was unchangeable and which could be correctly understood and interpreted only by theulema, who considered themselves its custodian and, therefore, the correct leaders of Muslims could come only from them. This rigid and orthodox stand on the part ofulema was bound to create a rift in the communal life of Muslims, who, in the course of time were led to depend more upon the leadership of their western educated intelligentsia. This rift was sharpened by the communal attitude of the Hindus, who being in an overwhelming majority, were considered by middle class Muslims to be a threatening force to their legitimate rights in an independent India.[75]     

Consequently, theDeobandi ulema chose to support the Congress instead of the Muslim League in the political struggle. They disputed the league’s two-nation theory and repeatedly questioned the religious credentials of the League’s leadership, and particularly, Jinnah. The rector of the Deobandmadrasah, Maulana Husian Ahmed Madani, argued, that in Islam nationality was determined by common homeland and not by religion, the claim strongly contested by Allama Mohammad Iqbal. Giving an example from the life of the Holy Prophet, Madani claimed that the state set up by the Holy Prophet in Madina gave equal rights to Muslims, Jews and pagan Arabs, and all of them were regarded as the members of oneummah or community. Therefore, according to this principle, all Muslims and Hindus of India were members of a common nation. Most of the Deobandi believed that in free and united India, Muslims would be able to lead their personal lives in accordance with theSharia, while also co-operating with people of other faiths in matters of common concern.[76]

Theulema were in favor of unconditional co-operation with the Congress so far as the cause of freedom was concerned. They claimed that once the British regime was dissolved, the Hindus would come to terms with the Muslims who formed a strong minority and could not be deprived of their legitimate rights. They also believed that it was the British Government which was chiefly responsible for the bitter communal bickering and for creating a sort of fear complex in the minds of Muslims. Its very existence in India was the cause of all ills in the Indian body politic, and it must come to an end. Moreover, their loyalty to Islam and Islamic countries also demanded the immediate end of British rule in India. They thought that the hold on rich India made it possible for the British to rule over the Muslim countries in the Middle East. The enslavement of India was the cause of British supremacy over all the lands through which the strategic line of imperial communication passed. Therefore, the independence of India meant the liberation of a vast Muslim area.[77]

The free India that the pro-CongressDeobandi envisioned would be a federation of a number of culturally autonomous religious communities. Each community would administer its own internal affairs in accordance with its religious laws. The federal government which would have adequate Muslim representation would pass no laws that might seem injurious to the religious interests of any community.[78]

In addition to the traditionalDeobandi , a renowned reformistalim, Shibli Nu’mani, an ardent supporter of pan-Islamism also welcomed the Congress and its demand for broad-based unity among the various religious communities in India. He was critical of the Muslim league for its narrowly conceived political base and won over the support of otherNadvi ulama to the Congress. One of the Shibli’s students, Syed Sulaiman Nadvi, declared that the liberation of India from the British is more important than any other religious obligation of Indian Muslims.[79] The western-educated intelligentsia, particularly the league leadership, in turn believed that theulema were not capable of giving correct leadership in politics to the Muslims. Their plea was that, theulema because of their exclusively traditional education and complete ignorance of the complexities of modern life did not understand the nature of politics as such in the twentieth century. Their sphere of activity was religious and to that end they were expected to confine themselves. Commenting on the role of Muslim League, Jinnah is reported to have said to Aligarh in 1937:

What the league has done is to set you free from the reactionary elements of Muslims and to create the opinion that those who play their selfish game are traitors. It has certainly freed you from those undesirable elements ofMaulvis andMaulanas . I am not speaking ofMualavis as a whole class. There are some of them who are as patriotic and sincere as any others but there is a section of them which is undesirable.[80]

Thus, there were apparent reasons why theJamiat and the League could not be united. Both, although sincere towards the welfare of the Muslim community, had different approaches to this idea. Therefore, they often distrusted each other.

The Two-Nation Theory of the Muslim League was provided with an emotional vigor and intellectual content by the poet-philosopher Mohammad Iqbal, whose appeal to the Muslim youth was more forceful than that of the traditionalulema . His approach towards the Indian problem was based on reality and he solicited the support of Indian Muslims for the Muslim League.[81] TheJamiat-ul-ulama i-Hind never conceded the doctrine of the two nation theory as propounded by the League. This was the base of all the League-Jamiat differences. In June 1940, while presiding over the annual session of theJamiat-ul-Ulema at Jaunpur (U.P), Maulana Hussain Ahmed Madani reiterated his commitment to united Indian nationalism.[82] This League-Jamiat difference brought Deoband and Aligarh at opposite poles. When Deoband vehemently opposed partition, Aligarh turned out to be the training center ofMujahidin-i-Pakistan . It is meaningful to note that the major centers of Muslims education, i.e. Deoband and Aligarh in India, representing two different trends in the politico-intellectual life of Indian Muslims since their very beginning, finally collided against each other in molding the ultimate destiny of the Muslims in the Indian Subcontinent.

The Deoband leadership opposed the demand for Pakistan also from the viewpoint of the difficulties its realization would involve in the missionary activities of the Muslims. They believed that because of the Muslim League demand for a separate homeland the atmosphere of hatred created between Hindus and Muslims would hamper the missionary activities of Islam.

Above all, Deoband was convinced that the Western-educated League leadership was exploiting the fair name of Islam for the worldly gain of Muslim vested interests. The credibility of the League’s leadership was questioned for establishment and building of a truly Islamic state.[83]

History reveals that religion played a vital role in promoting national unity. When coupled with social and economic forces it created powerful national movements. Since the movement for Pakistan was rooted in social, cultural, and religious distinctions between Muslims and Hindus, one might logically expect that Muslim religious parties would have played a major rule in mobilizing the Muslim masses to support the Pakistan Movement. Contrary to this, with very few exceptions, the religious parties bitterly opposed Jinnah and the demand for Pakistan. The Barelvi was, however, the only group to support the Muslim league in its demand for Pakistan and wholeheartedly opposed the Congress as anti-Muslim.[84]

The pre-partition position of religio-political parties on the Pakistan question contrasts with their present position on religious nationalism. TheJamiat-ul-Ulama stand on the question of Partition was explicitly in favor of a united India. Maulana Maudoodi and theJamiat-i-Islami had rejected nationalism because in his view it led to selfishness, prejudice, and pride. He declared that the demand for Pakistan was un-Islamic and condemned Jinnah for his un-Islamic habits and mentality.[85] TheJamiat opposed both the League and Congress. Another religio-political party, theMajlis-i-Ahrar, took a similar position. However, unlike theJamaat, it was aligned with the Congress.Jamaat-i-Islami ,Jamiat-ul-Ulama-i-Hind ,Majlis-i-Ahrar andKhaksar considered Jinnah as an agent of the British and the worst enemy of Islam.[86]

A rather curious situation confronted the religio-political parties when Pakistan became a reality in 1947. As they had opposed the very creation of Pakistan, these religious groups had to adopt themselves to the changed environment in the newly established Muslim-majority independent state.[87]

Leading Muslim religious elites preferred to migrate to Pakistan after Partition. The Deoband influence had already reached the areas then the parts of Pakistan. The Barelviulema and the founder of theJamaat-i-Islami, Maulana Maudoodi, also migrated to Pakistan after Partition and started religious activities with Karachi and Lahore as their bases. Subsequently, all the religious groups established their ownmadrasahs and also organized themselves politically. In present-day Pakistan theJamiat-ul-Ulama-i-Islam ,Jamiat-ul-Ulama-i-Pakistan ,Jamaat-i-Islami, andJamiat Ahl-e-Hadith represent the cause ofUlama-i-Deoband ,Barelvi, Maudoodi andWahhabi thought, respectively.

Growth of madrasahs since 1947

At the time of independence very fewmadrasahs existed in Pakistan because leading centers of Islamic education were situated in other parts of India. Pakistan inherited a meager 200-oddmadrasahs, which as per the government’s conservative estimates has now increased to over 17,000, although some analysts put this number at 25-30,000. These religious schools are catering to about 2.5 to 3 million students and employ thousands ofmullahs as teachers, mentors, and instructors.[88]

A key drive of growth in themadrasah sector is said to be poverty, an endemic problem of all developing countries, the menace which the successive governments in the last six decades have vowed to eliminate but failed even to reduce to a manageable level. Interestingly, on the one hand, the country has struggled to improve enrolment in formal schools and has been grappling with the problem of large scale drop-outs at primary and secondary levels. On the other hand, there is a stiff competition going on in the rural areas where Pakistan’s majority of poor live to enroll children inmadrasahs normally situated in cosmopolitan cities and suburban areas. There are three main types of religious institutions in Pakistan: Quranic schools (where only theQur’an is taught), mosque schools (where both quranic and secular subjects are taught), andmadrasahs (where only Islamic learning takes place).[89]

The mission of themadrasahs in Pakistan is to prepare students for religious duties. Adhering to strict religious teachingsmadrasahs teach Islamic subjects such as theQur’an , Islamic law, and jurisprudence, logic and prophetic traditions.Hafiz-i-Qur’an (the one who memorizes theHoly Qur’an ) orQari (the one who can recite theHoly Qur’an correctly and in a melodic tone) are produced at the lower level ofmadrasahs. The higher level ofmadrasahs producesalim (the Islamic scholar or teacher). Analim certificate from amadrasahs is equivalent to an M.A. degree in Islamic studies or Arabic from a regular university.[90]

There are five Islamic schools of thought in Pakistan who operate their own systems ofmadrasahs. They areDeobandi, Barelvi, Ahl-e-Hadith, Jamaat-i-Islami andShia . Each of these schools of thought organized thesemadrasahs under different boards, responsible for registration, conduct of examination, and syllabus.

The names of these boards are as follows:[91]

Wafaq-ul-Madaris Al-Arabia:

This board ofSunni Deobandi institutions was established in 1959 and has its center in Multan.

Tanzim-ul-Madaris:

This board ofSunni Barelvi institutions was established in 1960 and has its center in Lahore.

Wafaq-ul-Madaris Shia:

This board ofShia institutions was established in 1959 and has its center in Lahore.Shia madaris teachfiqh Jafria named afterImam Jafer Sadiq while othermadaris in Pakistan teachfiqh Hanafia.

Rabitah-ul-Madris-ul-Islamia:

This board was established by theJamaat-i-Islami in 1983, and recognizes themadrasahs of all Islamic thought. They teach more modern subjects. It has its center in Lahore.

Wafaq-ul-Madaris-Al-Salfia:

This board was established byAhl-e-Hadith in 1955 and has its center in Faisalabad.

Table - 2.1

REIs: Affiliation with various Boards, 1988-2000

Source: Ministry of Education Islamabad, 1988, 2000

The two main sects of Sunni Islam,Deobandi andBarelvi, dominate themadrasah system in Pakistan. They originated in the colonial Indian Subcontinent in response to the perceived imperial plot to destroy Islam and its followers by enforcing its own version of education. TheDeobandi sect is considered the most conservative and anti-Western.[92]

The courses in religiousmadrasahs are spread over 16 years and are divided into six grades. The primary and middle grades are of five and three years duration, respectively, while the next two grades are of five years duration each.Darja Ibtidai consists of five years duration and is equivalent to primary level of the mainstream education system.Darja Mutawassit is of three years duration and is equivalent to middle level.Darja Sania Aama is of two years duration and is equivalent to matriculation.Darja Sania Khasa ,Darja Aalia andDarja Alamia are of two years duration each and are equivalent to intermediate, Bachelor, and Master Levels, respectively. The following table shows the religious education system and its equivalence with the mainstream education system.[93]