Author: C R Irani
Publication: The Statesman
Date: February 10, 2002
Introduction: What Buddhadeb and
Anil have said is based on knowledge; Basu's harangue is based on a desire
to continue hoodwinking the Muslim community
On 8th August 1994, the West Bengal
Board of Madrasa Education Act (39 of 1994) was passed to regularise what
the CPI(M) government were already doing. It came into force on All Fools
Day 1995; it provides for a Board of 27 members, wholly under government
control. No elections have ever been held, because Government have not
framed Rules. There are High Madrasas, Junior High Madrasas, and madrasas;
distinctions, inter se, are obscure but all impart instruction in Arabic,
Islamic history and culture and theology. Senior madrasa education includes
Islamic jurisprudence or Shariat law.
The State government exercises total
control under the Act; the purpose will be clear shortly. The Board merely
advises Government. The Board's term is 4 years but indefinite extensions
are permitted. There is an Appeals Committee and a Tribunal for administrative
convenience, but in all matters recourse to Civil or Criminal Courts is
barred. Annual meetings must be held each July and Board meetings every
quarter. Meetings are not held. The Board has a Fund for contributions,
fees, endowments and Government grants, all to be recorded and Section
26(d) provides that any other sums received by or on behalf of the Board
from any source whatsoever must be recorded.
The Act is exhaustive and the state
government uses it brazenly to seek and retain Muslim votes. Government
subventions keep registered madrasas, afloat. Between 1780 when the first
madrasa came up, till 1977, there were 238 madrasas. After 1977 the Left
Front formed the Board without legislative sanction and until 2002, the
number more than doubled to 507. The annual budget allocation at the end
of Congress rule was Rs 5,70,000; for 2000-2001 it was Rs 115 crores. One
is driven to the conclusion, on the evidence, that madrasas are intended
to produce votes for the CPI(M). It is pointless for Syed Shahabuddin to
urge that Muslims have the protection of Article 30 of the Constitution
to establish educational institutions of their choice. The retort simple
is that the Constitution does not require the state also to finance and
run the institutions. That you cannot eat your cake and have it is an old
established maxim!
Buddhadeb makes a factual and honest
statement on 19th January. He concedes that unregistered madrasas need
to be investigated, particularly their source of funds - Gulf money funneled
through Bangladesh. He adds that some of them who enjoy petrodollar sponsorship,
are not affiliated to the Madrasa Board, and that investigations have begun
with Central Intelligence agencies to weed out the corrupt ones. His statement
was reported in all newspapers, including the party organ Ganashakti, the
same day. Next day he says he has specific information that illegal madrasas
are on anti-national propaganda. On 28th January, Anil Biswas supports
the Chief Minister and reiterates that madrasas in the state outnumber
those in Bangladesh and some unaffiliated ones often indulge in anti-national
propaganda. Forward Bloc's general secretary says the issue has security
ramifications. A full three weeks later on 6th February the upright chief
minister is howled at by Jyoti Basu and forced to plead that all media
including Ganashakti, have misquoted him! Some bright spark in the CPI(M)
has discovered that Muslim tend to vote en bloc and this must continue,
whatever the risk to national security. This is an insult to Muslims in
good conscience; it is also a comment on CPI(M)s contempt for the community,
which they want to manipulate like puppets.
Instead of a transparently untenable
plea of being misquoted, the party should have joined their leader, Buddhadeb
in efforts to safeguard national interests. Take a good hard look at the
registered madrasas, which have been provided unlimited state funds without
accountability. The unregistered ones should be put under a scanner.
To return to Shahabuddin, the Constitution
allows minorities of language or religion to establish and administer educational
institutions of their choice. He says nothing about registered madrasas
because the cost is borne by the government. He claims the protection of
the Constitution only for madrasas run on petrodollars to borrow Buddhadeb's
phrase. The only advantage of registration being unlimited public funds,
why should those funded from overseas register? If he disputes the proposition,
he should ask for repeal of the Act, which openly controls the Board. Is
the reason that the state government far from exercising control uses the
Act malafide to produce a steady supply of dependable but unemployable
voters? The government has a perfect right to inquire into the source of
funds. The Constitution only prohibits interference in educational institutions;
it cannot be interpreted as granting immunity from other laws, like general
regulation of funds from overseas. Article 30 is not available to commit
offences.
What Buddhadeb and Anil have said
is based on knowledge; Bastes harangue is based on a desire to continue
hoodwinking the Muslim community. In the process he scores another brownie
point in his campaign to harass Buddhadeb!
