Muslim teachers to challenge Indian state’s madrasa ban in top court

Indian Muslim students recite from the Quran in Jama Masjid Wazeer-un-Nissa during the month of Ramadan at Madrasa Imam Anwaarullah in Hyderabad on June 14, 2016. (AFP/File)
Short Url
Updated 26 March 2024
Follow

Muslim teachers to challenge Indian state’s madrasa ban in top court

  • Article 30 of India’s Constitution guarantees the right of minorities to run educational institutions
  • Around 2.6 million students in Uttar Pradesh receive education at Muslim religious schools

Muslim teachers said on Tuesday they would appeal a verdict by a court in Uttar Pradesh, which has effectively banned Islamic schools in India’s most populous state.

Last week’s ruling scraped a 2004 law governing madrasas in Uttar Pradesh, with the Allahabad High Court saying it violated India’s constitutional secularism and ordering that students be moved to conventional schools.

Islam is the second largest religion in Uttar Pradesh, accounting for some 20 percent of its 230 million population. Around 2.6 million students in the state study at Muslim religious schools, according to the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrasa Education data.

“We are going to the Supreme Court, no doubt about it. The Allahabad High Court’s ruling is unconstitutional, it violates Article 30 of the Constitution that allows for minorities to run own educational institutions,” Wahidullah Khan, secretary-general of the All-India Teachers Association Madaris Arabia, told Arab News.
“We have hope that the Supreme Court will give us justice.”

Madrasas provide a system of education in which students are taught Qur’an, Islamic history and general subjects like math and science.”

“Teachers are highly qualified in madrasas. What is the point of putting the kids in different schools? Our kids are as good in English education as kids in normal schools,” said Azaz Ahmed, president of the Islamic Madrasa Modernization Teachers Association of India, which also plans to challenge the high court’s ruling.

Ahmed said he was hopeful that despite the Uttar Pradesh chief minister’s announcement, the state’s government would step in to prevent the dismantling of Islamic schools.

“We are planning to approach the Supreme Court, but what we need is immediate relief. Hope the government takes some prompt action and finds a way out,” he said.

Iftikhar Ahmed Javed, chairman of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrasa Education and member of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, told Arab News the state’s administration was also discussing whether the verdict should be challenged in the top court.
“I feel that the verdict should be challenged in the Supreme Court. But this decision must come from the chief minister, education minister and big bureaucrats,” he said.

“The verdict is a big setback.”

Javed said most madrasa students in the state came from poor backgrounds and the schools offered them education for free. They were also no burden on the state budget as out of nearly 25,000 madrasas, only 560 receive government funding.
“They are run on zakat or donations,” Javed said. “If the madrasas get closed, then poor people will be the victims, particularly girls who will not be encouraged to go to any other school … If you attack education, then society gets diminished, and this is the challenge before us.”

Another challenge will be getting his party’s government on the same page.
On Saturday, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, also a BJP member, told Indian media his government respected the court’s order and would implement it in phases.

For Asad Rizvi, a political commentator in the state’s capital of Lucknow, it was not likely that Adityanath would backtrack on the plan.
“In Uttar Pradesh, long before the Allahabad High Court verdict, there have been consistent attempts by the state government to disturb Muslim primary education,” Rizvi told Arab News.

“Just before the Allahabad High Court verdict, the government terminated the contracts of all those teachers who were teaching science in madrasas. Those teachers were both Hindu and Muslims, and Muslim kids were the beneficiaries.

“Muslims who can’t afford education, even in government schools, used to get basic education in these madrasas. Madrasas have been playing an instrumental role in advancing the country’s literacy rate.”


House Republicans barely defeat Venezuela war powers resolution to check Trump’s military actions

Updated 23 January 2026
Follow

House Republicans barely defeat Venezuela war powers resolution to check Trump’s military actions

WASHINGTON: The House rejected a Democratic-backed resolution Thursday that would have prevented President Donald Trump from sending US military forces to Venezuela after a tied vote on the legislation fell just short of the majority needed for passage.
The tied vote was the latest sign of Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson’s tenuous hold on the majority, as well as some of the growing pushback in the GOP-controlled Congress to Trump’s aggressions in the Western Hemisphere. A Senate vote on a similar resolution was also tied last week until Vice President JD Vance broke the deadlock.
To defeat the resolution Thursday, Republican leaders had to hold the vote open for more than 20 minutes while Republican Rep. Wesley Hunt, who had been out of Washington all week campaigning for a Senate seat in Texas, rushed back to Capitol Hill to cast the decisive vote.
On the House floor, Democrats responded with shouts that Republican leaders were violating the chamber’s procedural rules. Two Republicans — Reps. Don Bacon of Nebraska and Thomas Massie of Kentucky — voted with all Democrats for the legislation.
The war powers resolution would have directed Trump to remove US troops from Venezuela. The Trump administration told senators last week that there are no US troops on the ground in the South American nation and committed to getting congressional approval before launching major military operations there.
But Democrats argued that the resolution is necessary after the US raid to capture Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and since Trump has stated plans to control the country’s oil industry for years to come.
The response to Trump’s foreign policy
Thursday’s vote was the latest test in Congress of how much leeway Republicans will give a president who campaigned on removing the US from foreign entanglements but has increasingly reached for military options to impose his will in the Western Hemisphere. So far, almost all Republicans have declined to put checks on Trump through the war powers votes.
Rep. Brian Mast, the Republican chair of the House Armed Services Committee, accused Democrats of bringing the war powers resolution to a vote out of “spite” for Trump.
“It’s about the fact that you don’t want President Trump to arrest Maduro, and you will condemn him no matter what he does, even though he brought Maduro to justice with possibly the most successful law enforcement operation in history,” Mast added.
Still, Democrats stridently argued that Congress needs to assert its role in determining when the president can use wartime powers. They have been able to force a series of votes in both the House and Senate as Trump, in recent months, ramped up his campaign against Maduro and set his sights on other conflicts overseas.
“Donald Trump is reducing the United States to a regional bully with fewer allies and more enemies,” Rep. Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said during a floor debate. “This isn’t making America great again. It’s making us isolated and weak.”
Last week, Senate Republicans were only able to narrowly dismiss the Venezuela war powers resolution after the Trump administration persuaded two Republicans to back away from their earlier support. As part of that effort, Secretary of State Marco Rubio committed to a briefing next week before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Yet Trump’s insistence that the US will possess Greenland over the objections of Denmark, a NATO ally, has alarmed some Republicans on Capitol Hill. They have mounted some of the most outspoken objections to almost anything the president has done since taking office.
Trump this week backed away from military and tariff threats against European allies as he announced that his administration was working with NATO on a “framework of a future deal” on Arctic security.
But Bacon still expressed frustration with Trump’s aggressive foreign policy and voted for the war powers resolution even though it only applies to Venezuela.
“I’m tired of all the threats,” he said.
Trump’s recent military actions — and threats to do more — have reignited a decades-old debate in Congress over the War Powers Act, a law passed in the early 1970s by lawmakers looking to claw back their authority over military actions.
The war powers debate
The War Powers Resolution was passed in the Vietnam War era as the US sent troops to conflicts throughout Asia. It attempted to force presidents to work with Congress to deploy troops if there hasn’t already been a formal declaration of war.
Under the legislation, lawmakers can also force votes on legislation that directs the president to remove US forces from hostilities.
Presidents have long tested the limits of those parameters, and Democrats argue that Trump in his second term has pushed those limits farther than ever.
The Trump administration left Congress in the dark ahead of the surprise raid to capture Maduro. It has also used an evolving set of legal justifications to blow up alleged drug boats and seize sanctioned oil tankers near Venezuela.
Democrats question who gets to benefit from Venezuelan oil licenses
As the Trump administration oversees the sale of Venezuela’s petroleum worldwide, Senate Democrats are also questioning who is benefiting from the contracts.
In one of the first transactions, the US granted Vitol, the world’s largest independent oil broker, a license worth roughly $250 million. A senior partner at Vitol, John Addison, gave roughly $6 million to Trump-aligned political action committees during the presidential election, according to donation records compiled by OpenSecrets.
“Congress and the American people deserve full transparency regarding any financial commitments, promises, deals, or other arrangements related to Venezuela that could favor donors to the President’s campaign and political operation,” 13 Democratic senators wrote to White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles Thursday in a letter led by Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff of California.
The White House has said it is safeguarding the South American country’s oil for the benefit of both the people of Venezuela and the US