In the previous story, we spoke with several people and explained that the decline of the madrasa system in Bihar is not the result of a sudden protest, but a gradual process—driven by financial challenges, administrative pressures, and a growing lack of trust. We noted that the system is steadily hollowing out from within.
In this story, we will explore the journey of the madrasa system—from its historical roots to the reforms taking place today—continuing from the background we established earlier.
Historical Foundation: Education, Trust, and Autonomy
The madrasa system in Bihar took shape in the early twentieth century. Madrasa Islamia Shamsul Huda was founded in 1912 and came under government supervision in 1920 under the terms of a Waqf Nama (endowment deed). To manage examinations and certification, a separate administrative body, the Bihar and Orissa Madrasa Examination Board, was established in 1922. At this stage, the board’s role was limited to conducting examinations, publishing results, and issuing certificates. Internal affairs such as administration, teacher appointments, and management of endowments remained in the hands of local governing councils.
A major turning point arrived in 1981. Following persistent public demand and community mobilization, the earlier examination board was dissolved and replaced by the Bihar State Madrasa Education Board. This reform granted national recognition to madrasa certificates and established the board as an autonomous institution. It became a model that upheld the constitutional rights of minorities under Articles 29 and 30 of the Indian Constitution. Decision-making power remained rooted within the madrasa tradition, rather than in the hands of the state.
It was more than an administrative reform—it was a social contract built on trust.
It is also worth noting that, at one point, there was a proposal to nationalize the madrasas in Bihar. However, this move faced strong opposition from Qazi Mujahidul Islam Qasmi, who publicly objected to the plan. He argued that madrasas are sustained by endowment property and community trust; bringing them under direct government control would fundamentally alter the ownership and management of these endowments—something that, he emphasized, would not be acceptable under Sharia (Islamic law).
His reasoning and resistance ultimately halted the nationalization plan at that time. Yet, the situation today reflects a gradual and administrative version of that same policy—implemented quietly, without any formal declaration.
Media Narrative and Administrative Pressure
In recent years, several national television channels have aired sting operations targeting unregistered madrasas in Bihar’s border districts—Muzaffarpur, Sitamarhi, Araria, and Katihar. These reports alleged the use of hawala (illicit) funds, undocumented students, and controversial teaching materials. Although the incidents were isolated, they were presented as representative of the entire madrasa system.
As a result, public perception increasingly linked madrasas with suspicion and extremist ideology. Meanwhile, a legal case concerning the recognition of 88 madrasas in Sitamarhi reached the High Court, which ordered a physical inspection of 1,637 institutions. The resulting delays and uncertainty further deepened confusion and mistrust.
The larger impact, however, was not administrative but narrative: these events reshaped public discourse around madrasas. Then, on April 22, 2022, two key government notifications were issued, marking a formal shift in the center of decision-making.
(a) Formation of Management Boards — Notification No. 396
This notification initiated a structural change in how management boards were constituted. Under it, the process came under the supervision of the District Education Officer (DEO) and required open meetings and designated nominations.
A committee consisting of the Head Maulvi or Senior Teacher, two Waqifs (donors), two guardians, two experts in Arabic or Persian, and one DEO-nominated member was tasked with electing the President and Secretary. The list of selected members had to be sent to the Board for approval within 60 days—if no response came within that time, the list would be automatically approved.
While this arrangement preserved an element of local social trust, the final approval and oversight were now directly under the purview of the District Administration.
(b) Appointment of Teachers and Staff — Notification No. 395
This notification standardized the grade-wise structure of teaching levels (Wastaniya, Faqania, Maulvi) and defined required qualifications (Alim/Fazil, D.L.Ed/B.Ed, etc.) for both teaching and non-teaching posts. It also mandated that recruitment be conducted through a departmental portal, with compulsory counselling, merit verification, and DEO supervision.
Promotion pathways for certain posts were also clarified, and all records were to be uploaded online. The Board would verify the data through the portal; in case of rejection, written reasons were required, and candidates retained the right to appeal.
Previously, teacher recruitment involved an internal process combining examination, interview, and board approval. Now, the process has shifted toward centralized digital governance, district-level monitoring, and qualification-based evaluation—effectively bringing madrasa administration under state regulatory control.
According to Maulana Abul Kalam Qasmi Shamsi, “Affiliated madrasas are minority institutions, and setting rules for their management councils and staff appointments through official government notifications falls within the scope of Articles 29–30 of the Indian Constitution. Under the 1981 Act, the Madrasa Board had the authority to frame such rules—transferring this power to the government department undermines that autonomy.
Many of these institutions operate as waqf (religious endowments), yet the notifications provide no clear exemption for their special status. The requirement for district residency and the emphasis solely on academic marks restrict the selection of qualified teachers, reducing the role of written and oral interviews.
Furthermore, the opportunities for graduates from recognized traditional institutions appear to be shrinking. There is also no clear provision for increasing the number of teachers in line with the expanded curriculum and grade levels. In the case of Urdu-medium schools, the notifications do not specify Urdu proficiency as a standard requirement for teachers of contemporary subjects.”
Amendment Bill 2024: A New Framework
Amid this administrative backdrop, the Bihar State Madrasa Education Board (Amendment) Bill, 2024, was passed by the state assembly.
The government presented the bill as a reform aimed at improving the quality of education, expanding opportunities to include scientific and professional subjects, and making the Board’s structure more transparent and robust.
However, the amendments introduce significant shifts in the system’s center of authority. Under the new provisions, the government gains the power to dissolve the Board at any time and appoint an interim committee or administrator to manage its affairs. Although the law stipulates a three-month limit for such interim arrangements, experience shows that temporary administrations often become permanent in practice.
Moreover, the revised qualifications for the positions of Chairman and Board Members favor bureaucratic profiles over academic leaders traditionally associated with the madrasa system. A substantial portion of the powers related to appointments, reinstatements, and internal disciplinary matters are now defined through departmental circulars and government notifications—further tightening administrative control over the system.
Legal and Administrative Meaning
The 1981 framework sought to balance regulation and autonomy: the state could supervise madrasas, but not directly manage them. The 2022 notifications began shifting this balance toward state control, and the 2024 amendment has now given that shift a legal foundation.
It may be accurate to say that “the curriculum has not changed yet,” but the centers of authority that decide the curriculum and policies have changed—and that transformation will shape the system’s future direction.
In essence, the growing influence of state control, the pressure of media narratives, and the incomplete process of internal reform together create a paradox: the madrasa system continues to exist, but its core and direction are being fundamentally redefined.
