FOLLOW US:

Muslims and Islamophobia (05 Apr 2012 NewAgeIslam.Com)
Increasing Communalisation: Shutting the School Doors on the Muslim Child

By Hem Borker

April 5, 2012

The increasing communalisation of social spaces is limiting the educational choices of Muslim students.

That a news report in The Hindu titled “In Delhi's nursery classes, Muslim children are a rarity” (March 19, 2012), found mention in the Rajya Sabha the same day, leading to “heated arguments” and a “verbal duel” in the Upper House, is symptomatic of the polarisation of public discourse on the education of Muslims. Almost any discussion on the subject slides into binaries: religious vs secular, exclusion vs appeasement, rights vs politics, reality vs rhetoric, and conservatism vs systemic discrimination.

A study

In 2009-10, as part of the National CRY Fellowship Programme, I had conducted a series of interviews with 20 Muslim families residing in Zakir Nagar, New Delhi, on the question of what shaped their schooling choices for their children. Unanimously, the parents regarded modern mainstream education as the single most important factor which safeguarded their children's future and clearly articulated a preference for sending their children to reputed private schools. However their narratives echoed the contesting dilemmas many faced on account of “being Muslim”; dilemmas which illustrate the manner in which the increasing communalisation of social space subtly limits choices or renders them non-existent in something as fundamental as education.

“We want schools that do not discriminate against our children.”

This statement highlights the increasing sense of helplessness and exasperation parents feel at the difficulty their children face in gaining admission to private schools. Many talked about their “feeling” that private schools have some sort of a “prefixed quota of just this much and no more Muslims”; some parents cited how the neighbourhood points seemed to have marginal weightage in the case of private schools nearby, while others talked about having to use “jugaad” to get their children admitted saying that this was not an option available to the ordinary Muslim.

Respecting minority sentiments

Many talked about consciously opting for Christian schools rather than the Hinduised regular public schools, as, at some level, Christian schools are “good” and respect minority sentiments. They also explained the choice in terms of pragmatism as Christian schools are generally convents, have a better command over the English language, and have a strong emphasis on discipline.

Parents shared experiences of their children being “unnecessarily picked on, classified in front of their peers and harassed by teachers.” In many of the interviews, parents repeatedly made references to derogatory comments made by teachers on the eating and dressing habits (headscarf or extra-long skirts) of Muslim children. This was corroborated by the children when I asked them about things they did not like about school. Many of them talked about how they did not like being singled out (on account of their religion), examples being a teacher adding “Miyan” to the child's name while taking attendance (“I don't know why my teacher keeps adding ‘Miyan' to my name ... everyone has started saying that”) or the cricket coach's insinuating reprimands (“Isko bouncer mat dena, sar tod dega ... ye sab garam mizaz ke hote hain”) or as a 10-year-old girl said, “Nobody in school wants to play hide-and-seek with me. Everyone says Muslims cannot be trusted with secrets.”

Parents described themselves as being very “conscious,” “mindful” and “careful” about the choices they were making vis-à-vis their children's education — what the school environment was like, where to send their children to play or for dini talim. The choices available often lay at two ends of the spectrum — “excessively religious” people in the neighbourhood who kept on preaching Islamiyat or the excessively modern who tried to act like “everyone else.”

For many parents the biggest worry was how to straddle these two extremes. Their responses constantly brought up the dichotomy of the “Good Muslim” and the “Bad Muslim” and the difficulty they faced in ensuring that their children are brought up in “Muslim ways” without falling into the “conservative trap.” In fact this concern was shared at various points in the interviews. Parents would juxtapose their own education back home (generally where they were a part of larger families in a more “Muslim milieu”) with that of their children's education (in a nuclear set up in Delhi, where, as parents, they consciously tried to familiarise their children with the culture). Many parents mentioned how in their families, “family values” included orienting their children towards religion and conformity with a certain moral discipline. These situations often put the parents in an awkward position limiting their options to Muslim managed schools which respected their culture but did not provide the secular grounding required for the children not to feel alienated in the future.

Educating the girl

Many parents expressed the difficulties they faced in choosing appropriate schools for their girls. For parents, many of whom aspired to remain true to their native roots located in rural or semi-urban Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, it was difficult to locate schools which ensured that their girls could avail the benefits of a modern secular education that provided some degree of certainty of access to respectable marriages and, if need be, appropriate employment but did not corrupt them into western ways; an institution which was not co-educational , had a modest dress code and was located nearby to ensure that the parents could reach them quickly in case of a “threatening” (danga-fasad) eventuality. I noted that in the case of girls, unlike boys, in the event of an absence of a combination of these criteria the parents generally made compromises on the quality of schooling and sent the girls to nearby (often unrecognised) schools within Jamia Nagar which promised girls education (not co-education), held classes in Urdu and sometimes imparting Deeni Talim, and had the Salwar Kameez as the uniform. But the drawback was that these schools were not necessarily recognised by boards such as the CBSE/ICSE or had classes up till class 12.

While these daily struggles are in no way representative of the Muslim experience of education, they do highlight the vicious nature of the problem. On one side the policy discourse refers to educational backwardness as one of the main causes for real and/or perceived alienation of Muslims and acknowledges inclusive education as a panacea; on the other, these real life situations demonstrate the everyday issues Muslims face in accessing these very opportunities, leading to further isolation, exclusion and excessive reliance on “Muslim managed services and networks.”

Hem Borker is pursuing her D.Phil in Education at the University of Oxford.

 Source:  The Hindu, New Delhi

URL: http://newageislam.com/muslims-and-islamophobia/hem-borker/increasing-communalisation--shutting-the-school-doors-on-the-muslim-child/d/6994

 


COMMENTS
  • Dear Mr. Col. Pradeep Srivastava Sir, in any count, out of 100 numbers, any figure above 50 is Majority and any figure below 50 is Minority. In India around 80 percent population is Hindu so they are Majority and around 20 percent population is Muslim so they are Minority.
    This Majority and Minority has got nothing to do with communal ism until now, where it is only a statistical nomenclature.
    Majority of people are Audience and Minority are Actors. Majority are Poor, Minority are Rich. Majority are under 6' for men and under 5'-6" for women, Minority are above these figure for their height. Majority are nationalist, Minority are true nationalist.
    So you now get it, what is Majority and what is Minority.
    It is absolutely another matter where the term Majority and Minority is used by people of communal bent of mind.
    Your surprise that how come Muslims are Minority indicates similar trend. I wonder, what is the problem if Muslims are Minority?
    In fact, to be honest, it is good that Muslims are Minority in India. Had they been Majority, we know what would India have been. The best example of worst case scenario is Pakistan where Muslims are not just Majority but absolute Majority, where they constitute almost 100 percent.
    This I say even being a Muslim.
    The other examples are all those nations where any one community is overwhelmingly present and dominate the ones and twos trying to survive there.
    As for what Muslims in India have done for India, let me tell you, that they have done what Hindus haven't done for India.
    Muslims have broken away from their family, for India. While one brother went for Pakistan, the other chose to stay in India, even though knowing fully well that, Hindus would be hounding him for the crime of his brother.
    Such love for their fatherland can only be equated by those Hindus who braved to live in Pakistan. I think they are braver; in fact, doubly brave. First they are more brave because they chose to stay in their motherland despite being surrounded by absolutely disproportionate number of hostile Muslims around them. Remember, they did not run away like coward L. K. Advani's family. Such disproportionate hostile surrounding Indian Muslims never had nor do they have till now as they are surrounded by only 80 percent of total population unlike their counterparts surrounded by almost 100 percent.
    Then as a second reason these Hindus in Pakistan are more brave than the Muslims of India are because Pakistan turned as non-secular state which was not the original intent as per Jinnah and as acknowledged by L. K. Advani and Jaswant Singh.
    While it was easier for Muslims to survive in India because of the likes of Gandhi and Nehru from Hindu community, Hindus in Pakistan had no mai-baap.  So the Hindus who braved the situation and are still braving it, not leaving their motherland are doing the real Vande Mataram.
    Some people will always be there who will say it was shrewdness of Gandhi and Nehru that they gave longevity and credibility to India by making India a secular country, but the other aspect of this is that they had no choice as Muslims refused to leave India their father land, and stayed as a force to reckon with.
    India had to be secular.
    India had to be secular, because India was no Pakistan. Pakistan was made up by communal Muslims, India was made by secular Muslims. Yes of course secular Hindus as well! In fact for every secular Muslim of India, there were almost 4 secular Hindus who all put together made India the way we find it now. Meanwhile Jansanghis were like communal Muslims who wanted to make India mirror image of Pakistan and who still are twisting and turning to do something for that end. But that end would would be the end of India, the way India is- the land of peace for all and prosperity, tailormade for each class, swad-anusaar.
    Before posting any reply, please bear in mind, that I sniff like a sniffer from the sniffer sqad, any suggestion, that India should be like what these Jansanghis want and then tear apart whatever honorary title any one carries. Col. Purahit was a bad example and Ghaddar of India, while I come from the community of Param Veer Chakra Shahid Abdul Hamid, the one from minority community. Minority in both senses. As a Muslim in India and as a true nationalist. But minority or whatever, I too can be deadly as much as I am Indian- Secular and Patriotic. Pseudo nationalists, pseudo-seculars stand no chance to escape my sniffining ability. Hunting them is my job as well as my rashtra-prem.

    By sadaf - 10/1/2012 7:50:25 PM
  • The content and sentiments of this research is understood, however the author dosent seem to have traveled in the interiors of our Nation. Just by interviewing some people in areas around New Delhi does not make sense. It is not only the case with minorities (so called- as I do not understand in what sense muslims are minorities in India), but situation is same with all economically weak sections in our country. Has a survey been conducted as to number of child's per couple in these so called minorities, more number of kids, less they have capability of looking after them, so they come up with any funny reasoning to abuse the system rather doing some thing themselves. We always forget words of Kennedy " Ask what you have done for the country, not what your country can do for you"
    The article to me looks like using of words "Muslims", "Minorities","Communism" ads spice and sells more, instead in present day's India words like "Under Privileged", "Population Problem" etc etc will have more meaning and nationalistic, than adding fuel to communism fire every now and then.

    By Col Pradeep Srivastava - 10/1/2012 7:57:34 AM
  • The problem is majority is never secular. It is the problem of majority. Be it Hindu majority or be it Muslim majority or be it any majority. The minority secular group realise this and has great toleration of absence of secularism of majority. They tolerate it as long as majority are indifferent or have resistance to put-off communals. But when minority communals vitiate the atmosphere where majority remains no more indifferent and turns communal then the minority secular takes the beating. This thesis blames Majority but not more than Minority- the communal one. Secular minority always takes the beating. I haven't heard of seculars conducting riots even anywhere. Even in India or let us say USA, anywhere. Can anyone say that since Hindus are secular as India is supposedly secular country, and those Hindus have gone ahead to riot against communals? But we have examples of communal Hindus rioting against seculars. Same case happens everywhere. The issue is not about Hindus or Muslims but about who the characteristic of crowd and role of majority therein. In Pakistan secular Muslims are feeling heat and from not communal Hindus but communal Muslims who have communalised the majority. And when secular Muslims are not safe in so called Islamic country, and then it is easily acceptable that secular Hindus are also not safe. Same case happens here in India and the role reverses. Secular Hindus aren't safe from communal Hindus and so it is acceptable that secular Muslims aren't safe. In fact a communal Muslim in India is much safe in his locality than a secular Muslim who lives away from Muslim dominated locality. The only reason that Communal Hindus aren’t able to communalise India as much as communal Muslims have been able to communalise Pakistan is because of strong presence of Muslims in India who too want secularism as majority of communal minded Muslims left for Pakistan. Such secular Muslims support secular Hindus. It is another matter that such secular Muslims as well as Hindus are called pseudo-seculars by communal Hindus. The ratio of 80:20 has got to do with it, where 80 Hindus find resistance of 20 Muslim too much to make India a communal country. Had the ratio been 80:20 in Pakistan with 80 Muslims wanting to communalise Pakistan and 20 secular Hindus resisting it, Hindus in Pakistan would have fared almost equally as Muslims in India are doing. But there are many other factors too. Pakistan was made communal from day one while India was secularized by Nehru. And this is evident from the angst communal Hindus nurse against Nehru and gratitude secular Muslims feel for Nehru. Pakistan couldn’t have a secular Muslim leader as India had as secular Hindu leader. Of course it will be questioned as to why Pakistan couldn’t have someone as secular or as charismatic as Nehru then yes that is ponder able. But can I say it was sheer luck of India that we had Nehru and therefore we aren’t wasting ourselves as Pakistan is doing. But if there is doubt that Muslims cannot produce anyone as secular as Nehru and equally or more charismatic then let me remind that Kemal Ataturk was no less than Nehru and today Turkey is unlike other so called Islamic countries because there was Kemal Ataturk. Today India is what it is because there was someone called Nehru. And gradually this Nehru culture will get diluted and India will come out bright and shining example of communal country communalized by Hindu but till then we have some time to breathe. Or perhaps this 80:20 ratio will continue to be resistance of complete domination of 20 by 80. By the way, which other country has 80:20 ratio of majority to minority and Muslims have made a Pakistan of it or even worse?

    By sadaf - 4/6/2012 1:04:19 PM
  • Mr Sharma: Your opinion is simply of a terrorist justifying the fanatic feelings - if a Kafir is abused in Pakistan, you will abuse in India. By the way, it has been practised by the Jansanghees in India even before 1947 when Pakistan was not created. Such shameless creatures have no morality, honesty or character to be called a teacher whose job is the most constructive in the builing of the nation. If any kid fails to forget this insult, he may follow Sharma's theory.
    By Raihan Nezami - 4/6/2012 9:02:37 AM
  • One feels it when it pinches. Just imagine the plight of Hindu students in Islamic countries especially in Pakistan where they have to mug up abuses against themselves. Muslims need secularism when they are in minority, but give no consideration to the sentiments of Kafirs when they are in majority as they have the divine and sole right to possess the truth and go to heaven.
    By ashoksharma - 4/6/2012 5:32:34 AM

Compose Your Comments here:

Name
Email (Not to be published)
Comments
Fill the below text
 
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the articles and comments are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect that of NewAgeIslam.com.