On Wednesday, August 31, a madrasa in Kabaitary in Assam’s Bongaigaon district became the third to be demolished in connection with alleged links to terrorist organisations. However, now the All Assam Minorities Students Union (AAMSU) claims that it had nothing to do with terror links, but was instead demolished to allegedly intimidate the local Bengali-speaking Muslim minority community.

Readers would recall that madrasa demolitions began in Assam after the arrest of nearly 30 people, including a few Imams, who were all allegedly connected to Ansarulla Bangla Team (ABT), a banned terror group based out of Bangladesh, Ansal-al-Islam, and the Al Qaida in the Indian Subcontinent (AQIS).

But when it came to the Markazul Ma-Arif Quariayana madrasa located in Bongaigaon’s Kabaitary part IV village, the notice served by the office of the Deputy Commissioner (Bongaigaon) before demolition said that the building was “structurally vulnerable and unsafe for human habitation” and was therefore being demolished.

Discrepancy in reason for demolition

However, instead of structural vulnerability, District superintendent of police (SP) Swapnaneel Deka gave two other reasons for demolition – links to terror groups and lack of necessary permits before construction.

Deka was quoted by the Hindustan Times as saying, “We started the process of demolishing the madrasa at Kabaitari in Bongaigaon on Wednesday morning following recovery of incriminating documents, suggesting links with jihadi groups, during a raid on Tuesday.” A notice was served to the over 200 resident students of the madrasa the previous day, asking them to relocate. On the subject of structural soundness, he added, “Besides, the madrasa on private land was constructed without following necessary provisions and permits. Hence, it was demolished under provisions of the Disaster Management Act.”

It is this discrepancy that AAMSU is questioning. AAMSU President Rejaul Karim Sarkar told SabrangIndia, “We fully support the government if they act against terrorists. The inquiry against the arrested cleric is going on. If he is found guilty, he should be hanged. But would you demolish an entire University building if one teacher of student has terror links?”

Sarkar questions the different narratives surrounding its demolition. He asked, “First they said it had connections with terrorist groups, but then why was it demolished citing structural vulnerability by the disaster management authority?” He also points out, “If the structure was unsound, why did it take so many JCBs a whole day to tear down the structure?”

Sarkar said that the land upon which the structure was built is owned by the madrasa itself, and that the building was not an illegal structure. He shared with SabrangIndia the following documents of land ownership and building permissions:

The above Jamabandi document shows that the land upon which the madrasa was built belongs to the madrasa itself.

And here are documents containing details of plans and estimated cost of construction that were submitted to the Junior Engineer of the Tapattary development block (his seal appears on the pages).

The local village panchayat also gave a no objection certificate for construction. It may be viewed here:

However, none of the documents shared by Sarkar show that permission for construction was actually granted.

Brief background of the madrasa demolitions

In March 2022, five people, including a Bangladeshi national living in Assam illegally, were nabbed from Barpeta, and six more were nabbed in April. They all stand accused of attempting to radicalize youth. On July 27, Mufti Mustafa, a 32-year-old madrasa teacher was arrested from Shahariagaon, located a little over 100 kilometers outside the state capital of Guwahati. Mustafa was charged under various sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.  

Eleven other people were also nabbed in the operation that took place in four districts over a three-day period between July 27 and 29. The eleven others arrested were “connected to Islamic fundamentalism having linkages with global terror outfits such as the ABT and the AQIS,” according to Special DGP (law and order) G.P. Singh. They hail from Barpeta, Goalpara and Guwahati, and were picked up from Guwahati’s Hathigaon area. Then on August 20, two imams were arrested from Goalpara.

The Shahariyagaon madrasa, where Mufti Mustafa taught, was demolished on August 4, after which Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma said that Assam had become a “hub of terrorist activities”. NENow quoted him as saying, “Jihadi activity is very different from terrorist or insurgency activities. It starts with indoctrination for several years, followed by active participation in promoting Islamic fundamentalism, and finally going for subversive activities.” He thanked peace-loving Muslims of Assam for aiding in the capture of the terror module members, and asked citizens to remain vigilant and report any suspicious activity.

On August 22, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma announced that the state government is in the process of putting together a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to monitor the entry of Imams from outside Assam into the state. Sarma was quoted by the Times of India as saying, “We have made an SOP that if any imam comes to a village in the state and the villagers do not know him, they should immediately inform the police. Only after the police verify the antecedents of these imams, they will be allowed to stay.” He said a government portal was being developed for such imams to register themselves when they came to Assam. He also clarified that this registration was not required for local imams.

After this, on Monday, August 29, authorities demolished the Shaikh Hind Mahmudul Hasan Jamiul Huda madrasa, a private madrasa located at the Joshihatapara area in Barpeta. According to Assam-based English language news portal Pratidin Time, this madrasa was allegedly established by a Bangladeshi national named Saiful Islam alias Harun Rashid alias Mohammad Suman, who allegedly had links to ABT.

The third madrasa to be demolished was the Markazul Ma-Arif Quariayana madrasa located in Bongaigaon’s Kabaitary part IV village. It was demolished purportedly due to having an unsound structure and that was built on private land without proper permit. Though local authorities also said it had terror links.

The fourth madrasa was demolished allegedly by local villagers themselves! On September 6, villagers of Darogar Alga in Pakhiura Char of Goalpara district tore down a madrasa in wake of news of its alleged links to terror groups.

But now, Indian Express reports that villagers had carried out the demolitions after being allegedly asked to do so by the local police. Rahim Badshah, a villager who was one of the persons who pulled down the madrasa and a reed house on the same premises, told the publication that he did it after he was asked by Shukur Ali, another villager, to do so. He said Ali told him that Goalpara SP and DSP had asked him to demolish the madrasa.

But police have denied the allegations. Goalpara SP VV Rakesh Reddy told IE, “Some local villagers got agitated after they got to know the madrasa premises were being used for anti-Indian activities. They pulled down the structure in resentment and set an example that they wouldn’t want to be party to any anti-Indian activity. It was a voluntary act and the administration or police weren’t part of it.”

Related:

Assam developing SOPs for Imams coming from ‘outside’

HC paves way for Assam government’s move to ‘secularise’ provincialised Madrasas

Assam to shut down gov’t run madrasas, Sanskrit tols?

Jamiat Ulama to contest decision to convert all madrasas into regular schools in Assam

The post Discrepancy in reason for Madrasa demolished in Kabaitary: AAMSU  appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a shot in the arm for the Assam government’s purported strategy to “secularise” madrasas in Assam, the Gauhati High Court has upheld the Assam Repealing Act 2020. In a judgment delivered on Friday February 4, 2022, the HC said, “… we uphold the validity of Assam Repealing Act, 2020 and the subsequent executive orders and communications of the Government,” but put on record an important clarification.

“We must clarify at the very threshold that the changes brought about by the above legislative and executive action of the State are for the “Provincialised Madrasas” alone, which are Government schools. This is not for the “Community Madrasas” or the “Qawmi Madrasas” and “Maktabs”, which continue to function in Assam as usual. We have also been informed by the counsel representing the petitioners, Mr. A.R. Bhuyan that these Madrasas continue to get financial aid from the State. Thus the change in curriculum has been brought about only in ‘Provincialised Madrasas’,” clarified the court explaining the scope of the ramifications of its order.

According to statistics submitted by the state government before the court, at present there are 250 provincialised madrasas that cater to students of class 6 and 7. There are 133 senior madrasas where students from class 8 to 12 are educated. Then there are 4 Arabic Colleges for students from class 6 to those pursuing Post Graduate degrees. There are also 14 Title Madrasas where post graduate education is imparted.

Brief background of the case

The matter pertains to a decision taken by the Assam state government in 2020 about government aided madrasas and Sanskrit tols in the state. The on December 14, Himanta Biswa Sarma who was Assam’s Education and Finance Minister at that time announced, “The word ‘madrasa’ will be removed from the name of these schools. The High Madrasas will now be called High Schools and a 50-mark paper on the Quran will be dropped from the syllabus.” The decision was made to secularise education, reasoned the minister. In the same month, the Assam unit of the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind has decided to legally contest the decision.

The services of the teachers of these Madrasas as well as the entire staff employed in these Madrasas were provincialised in the year 1995-96, by virtue of an Act, known as the Assam Madrassa Education (Provincialisation) Act, 1955. The Madrassas in question are of three types –
(a) Pre-Senior Madrasas; (b) Senior Madrasas, and (c) Title Madrasa.

The court recorded the events as they transpired in the run up to the passage of the Assam Repealing Act as follows:

“A decision was then taken by the Government of Assam on 13.11.2020 in its meeting of Council of Ministers to convert the “provincialised” Madrasas into regular High Schools and to withdraw the teachings of theological subjects in such Madrasas. There was a similar decision taken in the same meeting to convert the “provincialised” Sanskrit Tolls into Study Centres. In Sanskrit Tolls, inter alia, religious instructions were being given, though these too were fully maintained out of State funds. 

6. This was followed by an Act of the State Legislature, called Assam Repealing Act, 2020, which received the assent of the Governor of Assam on 27.01.2021. The Act repealed the Assam Madrassa Education (Provincialisation) Act, 1995 and the Assam Madrassa Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Reorganisation of Educational Institutions) Act, 2018. This was followed by a series of executive orders passed by the Government of Assam. The first order was issued on 12.02.2021. This order converts Madrasas into High Schools and brings it under the State Education Board. Religious teachings and instructions in these Madrasas are withdrawn. Fresh admissions under the old course were barred from 01.04.2021. It also directed that the teachers teaching theological subjects would now be provided training for teaching general subjects of their aptitude. Further, the State Madrassa Education Board was dissolved and all records, bank accounts, etc., of the Board was transferred to the Board of Secondary Education, Assam. The State Madrasa Board also stands dissolved vide Notification dated 12.02.2021.”

The Petition

The present petition Imad Uddin Barbhuiya and ors vs. State of Assam (WP-C 3038 of 2021) was moved by 13 people who claim to be either owners of the land on which the Madrasas were constructed or the members of the management committee or the mutawallis.

They argued that this decision to convert government aided madrasas into regular government schools by the State Government “amounts to an invasion of their fundamental rights given to them under Articles 25 and 26 as well as under Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India. It has further been argued that this is also violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”

Their counsel Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde argued that “Articles 29 and 30 confers four distinct rights on the minorities. First is the right of any section of the minorities to conserve its own language, script or culture [Article 29(1)]. The second is the right of all religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice [Article 30(1)]. The third is the right of an educational institution not to be discriminated against in the matter of State aid only on the ground that it is under the management of a religious or linguistic minority [Article 30(2)]. The fourth is the right of the citizen not to be denied admission into any State maintained or State aided educational institution on the ground of religion, caste, race or language [Article 29(2)].”

He further argued that “the petitioner Madrasas are educational institutions established by a religious minority for the purposes of imparting education including religious education to minorities within the State of Assam.” Therefore, the State’s decision of withdrawing subjects on theological aspects and converting Madrasas to ordinary high schools, by bringing them under the State Education Board, is a “direct violation of the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right of the individual petitioners as well as that of the Madrasas, which are established by members of the minority community.”

However, Advocate General of the State, Mr. Devajit Saikia argued that all the State has done is that “it has removed religious teachings which are in the form of religious instructions, from Government schools. The schools from where these teachings have now been stopped are not private institutions, leave aside minority institutions. They were provincialised way back in the year 1995-96 and since then they have lost their minority status. Since these institutions are not minority institutions and all the teaching as well as non-teaching staff of these institutions are Government servants, there is no question of Article 29 and 30 coming into play in any manner in the present case.”

AG Saikia drew a distinction between religious instruction and religious teachings or religious philosophy, and further argued that “what was being taught in these schools was nothing but religious instructions, which is in violation of the Constitution of India. This has now been stopped.” He would then submit that “not only the Madrasas have been closed but a similar action has been the case of “Sanskrit Tolls” as well where inter alia religious teachings were imparted in Sanskrit language Therefore, the State has been religiously neutral while implementing the mandate of Clause (1) of Article 28 of the Constitution of India.”

The Judgment

In its judgment the court agreed with the AG’s submission that “provincialization” was akin to “nationalization”. The court observed, “When the Central Government brings something within its control and ownership, which earlier was under private ownership, that would be “nationalisation”; like the nationalisation of Banks in the year 1971. This was done by the centre. A similar action at the level of a State, i.e. a province, would be called “provincialisation”. Naturally, when the Madrasas in Assam were provincialised in the year 1995 by a State Legislation, it cannot be called “nationalisation of Madrasss”, it has to be “provincialisation of Madrasas”. The effect, however, in both cases remains the same.”

The HC further observed, “We have absolutely no doubt in our mind that the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in S. Azeez Basha’s case is fully applicable in the present case. The venture Madrasas, which were established by a minority community, would cease to be an educational institution established by a minority community once such a school has been provincialised under the 1995 Act or the subsequent Provincialisation Acts. We have already seen the meaning of provincialisation and the way provincialisation changes the nature of the school, inasmuch as, it is now fully under control of the Government and in fact the teaching and the non-teaching staffs of the Madrasas are Government servants, which has never been in tough. Therefore, these are not minority institutions anymore.”

The court said, “Consequently, the claim of the petitioners that these Madrasas are minority institutions and were established and administered by the minority is a claim which has no foundation and is hence not acceptable.”

The entire judgment may be read here:

Related:

Assam to shut down gov’t run madrasas, Sanskrit tols?

Jamiat Ulama to contest decision to convert all madrasas into regular schools in Assam

The post HC paves way for Assam government’s move to ‘secularise’ provincialised Madrasas appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On Monday, December 14, Assam’s Education and Finance Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma made an important announcement about government-run madrasas in Assam. He said, “The word ‘madrasa’ will be removed from the name of these schools. The High Madrasas will now be called High Schools and a 50-mark paper on the Quran will be dropped from the syllabus.” The decision was made to secularise education, reasoned the minister.

High Madrasas are run by the Board of Secondary Education in Assam, and are equivalent to classes 9 and 10 of regular schools. The decision effectively ends High Madrasa exams beyond 2022. Not only will High Madrasas be converted into High Schools, theological courses will also be discontinued. This applies to 189 government-run High Madrasas in Assam.

Additionally, the State Madrassa Education Board, Assam, which looks after pre-senior madrasas, senior madrasas, Arabic colleges and title madrasas, will be also dissolved after declaration of results of the examinations conducted in 2021-22 as per the government’s decision.

Now, the Assam unit of the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind has decided to legally contest the decision. The Jamiat held a four-hour meeting at the Garigaon madrasa in Guwahati on Tuesday, December 15, and decided to legally challenge the government’s decision if it brings in a new ordinance or act. Hafiz Bashir Ahmed Qasimi, general secretary of the state Jamiat, also told The Telegraph, “At the same time we will also request the government to modernise madrasa education instead of shutting them down.” Addressing the matter of secularsing education, Qasimi told The Telegraph that the Quran wasn’t only about religion, “It is high standard literature. The madrasa syllabus can be modernised.”

In October this year, Sarma had announced that all madrasas and Sanskrit tols in the state will be shut down soon. He had reasoned then, “There should be no religious education with government funding.” However, he clarified that this only applied to government run institutions saying, “We have nothing to say about privately-run madrasas and Sanskrit tols.”

The state government will table a bill to this effect in the Assembly on December 28.

Related:

Assam to shut down gov’t run madrasas, Sanskrit tols?

The post Jamiat Ulama to contest decision to convert all madrasas into regular schools in Assam appeared first on SabrangIndia.