The Print recently published an article trashing the National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) for its momentous efforts to rescue non-Muslim children trapped in madrassas and indoctrinated with hate literature fed to them by Islamists.
In its latest report, ThePrint sought to malign NCPCR’s efforts to rescue Hindu children as an ‘anti-madrasa campaign’—a dog whistle to brand the statutory body as anti-Muslim and attack its former chief Priyank Kanoongo for scrupulously doing his job and harbouring malice towards Muslims for his pointed endeavours to free madrasas from turning into potent breeding grounds for terrorism and religious bigotry.
The article titled “NCPCR has been on an anti-madrasa campaign—to rescue Hindu children” targets former NCPCR chief Priyank Kanoongo and the statutory body, characterising their efforts to rescue Hindu children from madrasas as yet another stick to beat Muslims.
Unsurprisingly, the author of the piece, Heena Fatima, laments that NCPCR, which had shown little interest in probing into the workings of madrasas before the Modi government came into power, has suddenly started showing interest in the Islamic seminaries, many of which are unregistered and face serious allegations of peddling religious supremacism, indoctrinating young impressionable minds, and being centres of sexual exploitation.
Fatima bemoans the fact that Priyank Kanoongo has an unwavering focus on madrasas even after his tenure at the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR). She criticises Kanoongo for being critical of madrasas and arguing that they operate without proper regulation, fail to meet educational standards, and potentially misuse funds.
Funnily, Fatima relies on denunciations from Madarsa boards and Muslim organisations to mount a critique of Priyank Kanoongo, claiming his actions to regulate madrasas, rescue children, and bring them up to the national educational standards are politically motivated and aimed at strengthening the ruling BJP’s vote bank.
The piece also highlights a Supreme Court observation that raised questions about NCPCR’s campaign against madrasas, asking if it had undertaken similar actions against monasteries, pathshalas, and other such centres. While Kanoongo then responded by saying that he devoted only 10 per cent of his time to madrasas and 90 per cent to child-related work during his nine-year tenure at the NCPCR, it is significant to highlight that monastery, pathshalas don’t challenge the existing educational system as the madrasas do, in addition to the ubiquity of crimes reported in madrasas.
The latest article in ThePrint attempts to downplay the issue of religious conversions occurring in madrasas, as well as the struggles faced by non-Muslim children who are compelled to adopt Islamic practices and culture, which erases their cultural roots.
For instance, even as ThePrint tries to shield Islamists from using madrasas to wage their jihad against a predominantly Hindu society, the NCPCR, under Priyank Kanoongo, rescued a boy named Vivek who had gone missing in Chandigarh in 2016 and was found eight years later in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, living as Mohammad Umar after an alleged forced religious conversion at a madrasa in Saharanpur. A case was filed against four individuals, including a Maulvi, a Maulana, and a village head, on October 14, 2023. One accused was later granted bail, while the others remain at large.
The case came to light when a man named Matloob attempted to change the boy’s Aadhaar details, but biometric verification revealed his original identity. Authorities were alerted, leading to Vivek’s rescue and reunion with his family. Legal action was taken under IPC Section 420 and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act.
Vivek, now adjusted to his new life, recalled only events from Saharanpur, mentioning dietary changes and marriage plans.
Thus, ThePrint’s article is nothing but a brazen attempt to whitewash the harsh realities surrounding unregulated madrasas and their role in indoctrination, forced conversions, and exploitation of children. By framing the NCPCR’s legitimate rescue efforts as an “anti-madrasa campaign,” the publication seeks to deflect attention from the deeply entrenched issues plaguing these institutions.
Instead of acknowledging the pressing need for oversight and reform, ThePrint paints Priyank Kanoongo’s efforts as politically motivated, ignoring the several cases that underscore the perils faced by non-Muslim children trapped in these environments. The case of Vivek, among others, exposes the real and alarming threats that warrant urgent intervention.
While critics like Fatima attempt to spin the narrative, the truth remains unaltered—protecting children from radicalisation, unlawful conversions, and exploitation is a constitutional obligation, not a political agenda. The NCPCR’s actions under Kanoongo’s leadership were not about targeting a particular community but ensuring that all children, regardless of religion, are protected against abuse and accorded access to quality education in compliance with national standards. Those attempting to undermine these efforts are, in effect, defending an unjust system that prioritises religious indoctrination over children’s rights and well-being.
