The SC ruling upholding the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, marks a victory for religious education - but at what cost to India’s progress? While the judgment emphasizes the state’s responsibility to ensure that madrassa students receive an education that prepares them for contemporary life, the ruling also perpetuates an insular approach to learning that fails to equip students with essential skills for a modern economy.
At the heart of the Court’s decision is a noble ambition: to enable madrassas to blend religious study with secular subjects, thereby meeting basic educational standards. The court viewed this hybrid model as a bridge between tradition and modernity, helping madrassas equip their students to compete in a world increasingly defined by technological and scientific proficiency. However, this assumes that madrassas will embrace a broader curriculum when in fact the reality paints a more regressive picture.
Last year, the Darul Uloom Deoband, one of the most influential Islamic seminaries, had issued a fatwa banning the teaching of English and other languages besides Urdu and Arabic. This move, accompanied by strict mandates discouraging students from engaging with subjects beyond classical Islamic texts, epitomizes a mindset resistant to reform. Such edicts directly contradict the Court’s call for educational inclusivity.
A monolithic religious education, when devoid of critical engagement with diverse worldviews, lays the potential groundwork for insularity and even radicalization. With the SC’s endorsement, these madrassas will continue to operate under a framework that promotes limited secular content. The consequences of this are far-reaching. While madrassa education may instil a deep understanding of Islamic culture and philosophy, its isolation from mainstream educational disciplines denies students access to knowledge that is vital for socio-economic advancement. Without grounding in subjects like science, mathematics, and modern languages, students remain at a disadvantage in job market.
Furthermore, this approach raises questions about the adherence to Article 21A, which guarantees the right to free and compulsory education for children aged six to fourteen. A well-rounded education is essential for social mobility, and in its absence, madrassa graduates risk being marginalized, lacking the necessary skills for careers beyond religious vocations.
While the Supreme Court’s decision appears to champion educational diversity, it also sends a message that religious schooling need not conform to the same standards as public education. This verdict, though legally sound, is ultimately a regressive step for Indian society. Rather than drawing madrassa students into the mainstream, it risks leaving them on the margins of progress, confined to an educational model that is both narrow and insular—and, in some cases, vulnerable to extremist ideologies. For India to thrive, every child needs a broad, balanced education - an aspiration this judgment regrettably does little to fulfil.
Comments