The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), India’s apex child rights body, has come under attack following a report published by ThePrint alleging that its interventions in unregistered madrasas amount to an “anti-madrasa campaign.” The article, authored by journalist Heena Fatima, accuses the statutory body and its former chief, Priyank Kanoongo, of selectively targeting Islamic seminaries under the guise of rescuing non-Muslim children.
However, Kanoongo and child rights activists argue that NCPCR’s actions were focused on ensuring children receive proper education and are not subjected to forced religious indoctrination, abuse, or radicalisation. The controversy comes amid growing scrutiny of the lack of regulation in madrasa education, with multiple reports surfacing of children being forcefully converted, denied formal education, and even subjected to exploitation in certain seminaries.
ThePrint’s Accusations and NCPCR’s Response
The article, titled “NCPCR has been on an anti-madrasa campaign—to rescue Hindu children,” claims that the commission, under Priyank Kanoongo’s leadership, disproportionately focused on madrasas while ignoring similar institutions like pathshalas and monasteries. It further alleges that NCPCR’s actions were driven by a political agenda rather than genuine child welfare concerns.
However, this assertion has been strongly refuted by Kanoongo, who has maintained that his nine-year tenure at the NCPCR was devoted to child protection across all religious and educational institutions, with madrasas forming just 10 per cent of his overall work. He also pointed out that while traditional Hindu and Buddhist educational institutions adhere to the broader Right to Education (RTE) Act, many madrasas remain unregistered and lack basic regulatory oversight, making them vulnerable to misuse.
मैंने मदरसों पर सवाल क्यूँ उठाया है?
मेरा NCPCR अध्यक्ष का कार्यकाल समाप्त होने के बाद माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने यह सवाल पूछा था।
हमने अदालत हजूर को पहले भी बताया था कि हिंदू बच्चों को मदरसे भेज कर इस्लामिक तालीम देने की शिकायत मिली थी इसलिए जाँच की थी ।
अब हिंदुओं के… pic.twitter.com/5AwXOfaIar
— प्रियंक कानूनगो Priyank Kanoongo (@KanoongoPriyank) February 12, 2025
Rescuing Vivek: A Case That Exposes the Larger Issue
While ThePrint downplays concerns of religious indoctrination, cases such as that of Vivek, a Hindu boy abducted and converted inside a madrasa, highlight the urgency of NCPCR’s work.
Vivek, who went missing in Chandigarh in 2016, was recently found in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, under the name Mohammad Umar. His family had lost all hope until authorities discovered his original identity through an Aadhaar verification attempt made by an individual named Matloob.
Investigations revealed that Vivek had allegedly undergone forced religious conversion inside a Saharanpur madrasa, where he was reportedly groomed to adopt an Islamic identity. A case was subsequently registered on October 14, 2023, under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, with legal action taken against four accused, including a Maulvi, a Maulana, and a village head.
While one of the accused secured bail, others remain at large. Vivek, now adjusting to his new life, recalled significant details about his time in the madrasa, including changes in his diet and plans to get him married.
Supreme Court’s Observations and the Debate on Madrasa Regulation
The issue of madrasa regulation was recently raised in the Supreme Court, where Justices questioned whether NCPCR had taken similar action against Hindu pathshalas and Buddhist monasteries. While critics of the commission cite this as proof of bias, child rights activists argue that madrasas face a unique set of challenges, including reports of radicalisation, unrecognised curriculums, and sexual exploitation cases that warrant urgent reform.
Deflection or Genuine Concerns?
NCPCR’s efforts to rescue non-Muslim children from forced religious conversion and ensure that madrasas adhere to India’s national education standards have been repeatedly misrepresented as an attack on a particular community. ThePrint’s latest article is seen by many as an attempt to deflect from the larger issues plaguing unregulated madrasas, including cases like Vivek’s.
Kanoongo has repeatedly emphasised that protecting children from religious indoctrination, radicalisation, and exploitation is a constitutional duty, not a political agenda. Critics who attempt to portray these efforts as Islamophobic are, in effect, shielding an unjust system that denies children their fundamental rights to quality education and a safe upbringing.
