The Madhya Pradesh government has taken a firm stance against Madrasas, issuing an order to investigate those imparting religious education to non-Muslim children without the consent of the students or their guardians. The order, citing Article 28 (3) of the Indian Constitution, states that any Madrasa affiliated with the state government or receiving state funds must cease all government grants and face legal action if they are found to be violating this rule.
The move comes after the government received numerous complaints alleging that Hindu children were enrolled in Madrasas without their or their parents’ consent. The investigation, launched in February and March, led to the closure of 56 Madrasas across the state.
Madhya Pradesh School Education Minister Uday Pratap Singh emphasized that the government is committed to ensuring that no student is forced into any religious education against their will. He stated that every educational institution, including Madrasas, must adhere to the New Education Policy (NEP 2020) and respect the right to education.
The government’s decision has been met with criticism from the opposition Congress party. Spokesperson Abbas Hafeez accused the government of prioritizing communal harmony over education quality. He argued that the government’s actions are driven by a desire to create religious divisions, claiming that children are often forced to attend Madrasas due to the lack of alternative educational options in their areas. He also highlighted the government’s previous directive to organize Guru Purnima celebrations in schools and colleges, questioning whether permission was sought from parents of non-Hindu students.
Hafeez argued that Madrasas operating under the Madhya Pradesh Board are legal and that the government’s focus should be on improving educational standards rather than targeting religious institutions.
This controversy highlights the ongoing debate around religious education and the role of the state in regulating it. The Madhya Pradesh government’s actions have raised concerns about potential discrimination and the implications for the freedom of religious practice. The situation remains fluid with potential legal challenges and public discourse on the issue likely to continue.
