Since January 2025, authorities in the northern Indian state of Uttarakhand have sealed more than 200 madrassas as part of a state-led crackdown on unregistered religious schools. The government claims these institutions were operating “without registration” and in violation of guidelines set by the state’s Madrasa Board.
Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami has also ordered an investigation into the funding sources of madrassas. He has publicly stated his belief that Muslims are engaged in what he refers to as ‘Madrasa Jihad’ and ‘Taalim Jihad’ in Uttarakhand.
The campaign has sparked concern among minority communities, legal experts, civil society groups, and members of the judiciary, raising questions about due process, religious freedom, and the broader intent behind the closures.
Haridwar-based social activist Taufiq Elahi Qasmi has criticized the ongoing campaign, alleging that it targets Muslim religious education and unfairly stigmatizes the community. “This campaign is being carried out to restrict the religious education of Muslims and defame the Muslim community,” he said.
Qasmi disputes the government’s characterization of madrassas as illegal, noting that most are built on privately owned or waqf land, and claims that no government property has been encroached upon.
In a detailed statement, he said, “This is the first government in the state to create religious divisions in an otherwise peaceful and harmonious region like Uttarakhand. Previous BJP governments were also in power here, but we did not witness this level of prejudice or acts that incite communal tension.”
According to him, the government did not issue any clear or specific notice before sealing the madrassas. He claims that only a general directive was circulated, advising that children enrolled in these institutions be admitted to government schools. He further describes the notice as largely symbolic and lacking in procedural detail.
Social activist Hafiz Shah Nazar stated that 214 madrassas have been sealed across Uttarakhand to date. According to him, efforts by the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, in collaboration with local religious scholars and activists, have led to the reopening of 30 of these institutions.
This figure, he said, is based on a review of records compiled by the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, Uttarakhand. However, media reports have so far consistently cited a lower number, stating that around 180 madrassas have been sealed.
Lockdown at home due to Quran tuitions
Seventeen madrassas have been sealed so far in the Ramnagar area of Nainital district of Uttarakhand. According to Sub-Divisional Magistrate Pramod Kumar, the action followed inspections related to the institutions’ educational practices, building conditions, and documentation.
However, the management of the affected madrassas claims they were neither issued formal notices nor given an opportunity to respond or present their case before the closures.
The list of sealed institutions includes both small and long-established madrassas such as Madrasa Anwar-ul-Quran, Madrasa Faizan Raza, Madrasa Nasir-ul-Uloom, and Madrasa Gulshan-e-Gousia. These madrassas, located in Muslim-majority neighborhoods, have reportedly been providing basic religious education for decades.
It is essential to distinguish between two types of religious education in the region: part-time Quranic instruction offered in private homes or mosques, known as Maktab, and full-time madrassas, which are typically registered under a society or trust and provide boarding, lodging, and comprehensive religious education.
The state government has taken action against both. In some cases, even private homes where a few children were receiving part-time Quran tuition were sealed. Critics argue that these measures were carried out unilaterally, without due process.
One such case involves the personal residence of Maulana Raees in the Ramnagar area, which was sealed by authorities. According to local accounts, he was providing basic religious instruction only to children from his own family, and only after they had completed their regular school studies.
In this context, local activist Hafiz Shah Nazar submitted a request under the Right to Information (RTI) Act to the Uttarakhand Madrasa Board, seeking clarification on the approval process for madrassas and maktabs.
In its written response, the Madrasa Board stated that only full-time madrassas require official approval. At the same time, maktabs—informal institutions offering part-time religious education—do not fall under this requirement.
Hafiz Shah Nazar explained the distinction between the two: Maktabs function similarly to tutoring or coaching centers, providing basic religious instruction for a short time—typically in the early morning or evening—before or after regular school hours. In contrast, madrassas offer full-time education and boarding facilities, operating as comprehensive religious schools.
It is worth noting that most of the children attending these institutions were already enrolled in government or private schools during the day. They visited the religious centers—referred to as maktabs—either in the early morning or evening for part-time religious instruction.
At Madrasa Irshad-ul-Uloom in Dhandira, near the town of Roorkee, for example, children received basic religious education in the morning before heading to their regular schools. They returned in the evening, after the Maghrib (sunset) prayer, for another session of religious study.
All of this is occurring amid ongoing concerns about educational inequality and a sense of marginalization within the country’s minority communities. The government frames its actions as efforts to ensure transparency and regulate educational institutions.
However, many view the crackdown on madrassas as part of a broader strategy that increasingly limits the autonomy, educational initiatives, and religious freedoms of the Muslim community.
The government’s position is that many of these institutions are not approved by the Madrasa Board, and that the subjects taught in most madrassas—such as Hifz-e-Quran (Quran memorization), Nazra (basic Quran reading), and Qiraat (Quranic recitation)—are not included in the Madrasa Board’s official curriculum.
This raises a question posed by activist Hafiz Shah Nazar, if madrasa operators were to apply for approval, on what basis would the Board grant it? He argues this reflects a contradictory policy.
From a constitutional perspective, such institutions may be considered “unrecognized” at most. However, labeling them as “illegal” is not only inaccurate but also appears to be part of a campaign that unfairly stigmatizes minority communities.
Judicial Intervention
The government’s strict policy faced legal challenges in the Uttarakhand High Court. On April 3, 2025, the court ordered the reopening of Madrasa Inaam-ul-Uloom in Dehradun. Later, on July 11, permission was granted to reopen four additional madrassas, including Madrasa Irshad-ul-Uloom (Dhandera), Madrasa Darul-Uloom Qasimi (Saleempur), and Madrasa Faiz-e-Aam (Gujjar Basti).
Representing the state government, Advocate General S. N. Babulkar argued that these institutions were operating in violation of government regulations. However, the petitioners contended that their institutions were legally registered societies providing religious education, and that the properties were sealed without proper legal notice or authority.
The High Court also directed the state government to clarify the legal basis and procedures governing the sealing of madrassa properties.
Is this campaign about reform or prejudice?
According to official sources, there are 419 madrassas registered with the Uttarakhand Madrasa Board, of which 192 receive government grants.
The government maintains that its goal is to create a more transparent and organized education system. However, critics argue that these measures not only undermine religious freedom but also conflict with principles of educational equity and constitutional rights.
The key question remains: Will the government engage in dialogue, provide training, and offer guidance to help regularize these institutions? Or is the sole approach to label them “illegal” and proceed with closures?
