The Darul Uloom at Deoband in Uttar Pradesh is arguably the world’s most important seat of religious learning of the Sunni branch of Islam after Cairo’s Al-Azhar, with the history of the famous madrasa going back nearly 150 years. Naturally, the controversial change of guard for the office of “mohtamim”, or vice-chancellor, and the

peremptory setting aside of the appointment of Ghulam Ahmed Vastanvi as V-C by the dominant section of the governing council, has attracted political comment as well as speculation pointing to a divide between moderates and others in the country’s Islamic sub-culture and social milieu. However, surmises reached on this basis alone miss the basic problem — the somewhat pre-modern ways of functioning of the Darul Uloom establishment. Further, there appears an artificial conflating here of the dynamics of the imposing madrasa’s power structure and the symbolism that the persona of Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi evokes in the minds of many — not just Muslims — after the 2002 pogrom in Gujarat with Mr Modi at the helm.
The power structure at Deoband has centred on the Madani family for generations, a somewhat unhealthy state of affairs. Members of this illustrious family have been in Parliament and have enjoyed the patronage of those in power in UP and New Delhi. Although Darul Uloom is thought to have only a peripheral influence over Muslim voting patterns, its strength lies in its training of the ulema (maulvis and maulanas) who run madrasas up and down the country. Given the history, the Madanis have had a disproportionate say in the management of Darul Uloom. This stable equilibrium was disturbed when Mr Vastanvi (a member of the governing council, or Majlis-e-Shura), from faraway Gujarat, defeated a Madani to take the V-C’s post in January. Possibly changing equations within the ruling family, as it were, brought about this unusual situation. Generally, Darul Uloom V-Cs have come from UP. Shortly after his appointment, Mr Vastanvi sparked a controversy among Muslims in the country by appealing to them to leave the unfortunate events of 2002 behind and move on, apparently even suggesting that in Gujarat Muslims had gained — like other communities — as Mr Modi’s administration had provided an impetus to economic growth. The observation set in motion the process that led to Mr Vastanvi’s ouster on Sunday. On account of a sense of grievance the Muslims (and many others) still harbour against Mr Modi, the V-C’s opponents could mobilise enough support within the governing council to displace him.
The quality of Mr Modi’s rule in respect of the welfare of the Muslim minority in the state remains contentious. Nine years on, many Muslims displaced by serious communal violence, and living in camps, have not found the courage to return to their homes, although some upper crust Muslims may have benefited from the chief minister’s economic policies. The ulema in India (as indeed in Pakistan) usually stick close to power. Mr Vastanvi runs many colleges and madrasas in Gujarat. This could have motivated his controversy-generating statements. Equally, he may have been concerned about his community being bogged down by the past. But all things considered, it does appear that the so-called Modi debate has turned out to be no more than a convenient pretext to revert to the established order of things at Deoband. The wider question — which should, above all, concern the ulema and the Muslim community as a whole — is the non-modern, even somewhat opaque, manner of running leading institutions. Some would argue that the net is not cast wide enough in constituting the governing council. Many Muslims of repute, integrity and claim to eminence in modern fields, are not encouraged to be a part of administering important institutions of the community.