Regulating seminaries

Should not be avoided any further

The historical role of the state has undergone many evolutionary stages. Today it stands at a crossroads. One road leads to a free market economy while the other leads to command economy. However, there are many shades in between these two extremes. Given the variety of forms, the role of the state today has become rather puzzling. Because of this the line between the rights and accountabilities has also become blurred whether we consider individuals or institutions.

In almost all man made systems those at the top of the economic pyramid want to enjoy all rights without accountability while those at the bottom of the pyramid are required to be accountable for all minor or major missteps san their rights. At the institutional, community and societal levels, the same rule is operative. Watching this unjust system, accountability at the bottom of the pyramid is also withering away. This is becoming quite pervasive in our country. If allowed to continue it will deepen socio-economic inequalities and socio-religious conflicts thus making our state ungovernable.

Neither a free market economy nor a command economy per se will help resolve socio-economic or socio-religious conflicts, the real causes of the menace of extremism or terrorism. If so, then what is the way out? Without compromising individual freedom and institutional autonomy, a transparent and consensus based regulatory framework is a critical and urgent need of the hour. This is imperative to ensure that socio-economic and religious educational institutions are working under a system to control the incidence of extremism and terrorism alongside economic opportunities for those at the bottom of the socio-economic pyramid.

In case our present government fails to take necessary steps in the direction of evolving a transparent regulatory institutional framework for different considerations, it could make some institutions disproportionately powerful thus challenging the writ of the state. Religious seminaries are a case in point. How and when it started is a part of our documented history. No need to belabor it here. Partly, however, it resulted from our rulers’ desire to perpetuate their personal rule by using these seminaries. This underscores the need for a rational discourse for a regulatory framework to regulate the working of religious seminaries.

Instead of putting this complex governance challenge under the rug, it needs to be debated in a dispassionate manner. Such a step has also become an absolute necessity due to irrefutable evidence that many of these seminaries, either by default or knowingly, are breeding grounds for the proliferation of extremists and terrorists. Therefore, the need to regulate them cannot be wished away. It is rather sad that successive governments in Pakistan had failed to act to develop a proper regulatory framework for a proper oversight on the working religious institutions. Since the religious institutions are under the spotlight today, let us examine the need for regulating them.

The major reason advanced against regulation of seminaries is that since they are providing religious education to the poorest of the poor and developing them to advance the cause of religion, these should not be brought under regulation. Here we are making a distinction between registration and regulation. It is reliably learnt that a large number of these seminaries are registered and that only a handful are not. Being registered is one thing and being regulated is quite another. Without giving any control over the syllabi of these institutions, it cannot be known what sort of education and values are being promoted. Without prejudice to these institutions, it will not be out of place to state that the degree of bigotry, prejudice against minorities, and sectarian hatred emanate from many of these institutions. The pulpits of mosques serve the same unfortunate purpose.

Frist of all, it is imperative that for the purpose of regulation, all of these be placed under a ministry. The ideal place will be the Ministry of Religious Affairs. Many Muslim countries follow this practice. Why should we be an exception? They have their federation, called Wafaq-ul-Madaris, to protect their due rights. Yet like all other social institutions, these ought to be brought under the Ministry of Religious Affairs for the purpose of regulation. No civil society organisations can operate without being registered and regulated for what they do and the sources of their funding.

Second, to play a more positive role the education these seminaries impart should not only prepare their students to be religious scholars but also rational thinking and reflective human beings. To achieve this, the syllabi followed in these institutions should be subjected to review by the Ministry of Religious Affairs. While one accepts the fact that religious seminaries based on sectarian differences require different reviews, the Ministry can develop a roster of scholars from different sects to help standardise the syllabi and to clean them from hate material. This cannot be left to the whims of individual seminaries. The government should show no let up on this score.

Third, the governance and management structures of these seminaries should also be evaluated. Any system which is not open to external oversight can easily decay and could engage in activities opposed to its original mission and opposed to common good. Over the years many of the religious institutions had become closed systems resisting external reviews. While for the government third party external audits have become operating norms, why can’t the same principle apply to the seminaries? Given the fact that quite a few of these seminaries are perceived as breeding grounds for extremism and terrorism, they should be compelled under a regulatory regime to present themselves for external review without any fear. Most of all, the government should also have regulatory provisions to appoint independent governors on the boards of these institutions. This will strengthen rather than weaken these institutions. Minimum professional management structures, similar to other professional bodies, should also be prescribed under regulatory framework.

Fourth, the funding sources of these institutions need to be disclosed and must be in the spotlight of public. Also, the utilisation of these funds must be recorded according to established accounting practices. To maintain transparency in the working of these seminaries, the accounts of these institutions should also be auditable by external auditors. The audited reports should be shared not only with the donors but also with the controlling ministry.

Fifth, the profiles of those employed as teachers must be made public or at least must be disclosed in the brochures of various seminaries. The teachers in any educational institutions condition the attitudes and behaviours of their students. In the seminaries those only teachers with both religious as well as formal education from regular academic institutions should be appointed. A minimum qualification must be prescribed.

Lastly, it is rather unfortunate to know that most of the seminaries have acquired the status of small fiefdoms within the country. They have developed hardened attitudes of resisting any attempt to bring these seminaries under the writ of the state. Taking this as a cue so as not to be subjected to any regulatory framework, many private sector educational institutions are also averse to any regulation by the state. This is a dangerous trend and needs to be halted. It is hoped that a transparent regulatory framework while protecting the interests of the private operators in different spheres of the economy will also protect the interests of the citizens, a key state responsibility. Only weak governments will shun this responsibility.