History textbooks have been the subject of controversies that are whipped up every now and then. A report, titled “Distortion and Misrepresentation of India’s Past: History Textbooks and Why They Need to Change,” prepared by the Public Policy Research Centre (PPRC) in June 2021 is yet another attempt to do so. Before we consider the “findings” of this report, it might be useful to know some things about the institution—PPRC—that carried out this study.

The most prominent member in the PPRC’s board of directors is Vinay Sahasrabuddhe, a Rajya Sabha member and a national vice president of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) from 2014–20. President of the premier cultural body, Indian Council of Cultural Relations, he is also the chairperson of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Education, Women, Children and Youth and Sports. The committee has recently called for suggestions on the subject “Reforms in the Content and Design of School Text Books.” Another member of the board is Nalin Kohli, currently the national spokesperson of the BJP, and formerly convenor of the party’s National Media Cell. While claiming to produce “dispassionate and objectively conducted research” to “reduce the ability of those with vested interests to influence public policy debate,” the organisation mentions that another board member, Sumeet Bhasin has had a “3 decades old” association with the party.

The website’s homepage is, unsurprisingly, a carousel of its policy research documents being released by, or presented to, the who’s who of the ruling establishment—including the Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah, Vice President Venkaiah Naidu, among others. The document that is analysed briefly here deserves careful scrutiny precisely because of this link.

Textbooks in Context

The “research” project starts with the assertion that “(t)he First Prime Minister of India was responsible for outsourcing the entire educational framework to this (the left-liberal) lobby,” which supposedly “set a dangerous precedent, thereby, advocating fallacious theories for pummelling the truth” (p 3). Further, we learn that “all voices of dissent were strangulated in order to entrench the leftist ideology among the youth of our nation, a dangerous trend which had led to many unnecessary dissentions (sic) and mutinous acts against the state” (p 3). So, it seems that Jawaharlal Nehru wilfully promoted an educational framework that drove the youth to “mutinous acts” against the very state that he was presiding over!

Sadly, those engaged in this research project show no historical sense when analysing curricular frameworks. Nowhere does this critique of the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) textbooks note that there have been several changes in the textbooks since the first time they were conceived under Nehru, reflecting developments in the craft of history as well as the concerns of historians across diverse historical perspectives.

Nor do they seem to be aware of the successive educational policy frameworks adopted, for example, the first National Policy Statement on Education, 1968; National Policy on Education, 1986; National Curriculum Framework, 2000; National Curriculum Framework, 2005; etc. The alleged dominance of the “left-liberal lobby” is made to appear like a conspiracy hatched by Nehru with the complicit participation of historians like Irfan Habib, Satish Chandra and Romila Thapar.

Note that scholars like R.C. Majumdar (belonging to “nationalist school of thought” and celebrated for presenting “the correct narrative on Indian history” in the report) played a crucial role in selecting the team of scholars for the first history textbooks of NCERT. Indeed, it was Majumdar’s letter, during Nehru’s prime ministership, that invited Thapar to join the advisory board of the NCERT for textbook writing (Thapar et al 2017: 52).

Closer to our times, the National Curriculum Framework, 2005 was, in many ways, a landmark document, envisioning school education as inclusive. It ideally recognised and respected diversities, and visualised the learner as an active participant in the process of developing an understanding, rather than as a passive recipient of knowledge. The textbooks critiqued in this report were developed under this framework, trying to translate this vision into something tangible. As in every such attempt, the constant need for refinement, qualification, and revision must be acknowledged. The question before us is, however, whether the document under discussion contributes to the process. Or is its agenda somewhat different?

A Worrying Agenda

The agenda driving the project is laid out towards the end of the document (pp 100–01), where it states that:

The re-writing History project must emphasize on the glorious part of Indian history, including our civilizational greatness and the contribution of Indian civilization to the world vis-à-vis scientific know-how present in the ancient period, developments in the field of medicine, the value of Sanskrit language, rationality behind Vedic rituals, etc. … The glorification of the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal period must be brought to an end. The destructive nature of Islamic rule in India must be highlighted, including the systematic desecration of Hindu, Jain, and Buddhist temples as well as places of learning and knowledge … In order to erase the memory of the “Dark Age” of Indian history, the roads named after the Islamic invaders must be renamed.

There is more, but for the present we will focus on these recommendations and their implications.

Backward? and Glorification?

One of the objections against the present NCERT books is that they portray the ancient period as “backward,” while the medieval period has been “glorified” (pp 3–4). How true are these claims?

A quick survey through the NCERT textbooks on ancient India in the current series revealed that the term “backward” was used just once in Class 6, to explain how dates were calculated in terms of BC and AD, and once in Class 12, to explain how scripts were deciphered by moving backwards from known examples to relatively unknown and earlier scripts. In other words, the term “backward” was not used anywhere to denigrate either ancient societies or kingdoms.

The report claims that the “glorification” of the medieval rulers, was ensured in the textbooks by representing the rulers as “just,” “benevolent,” and “messianic” (p 4). Again, searching through the relevant textbooks for Classes 7 and 12, indicates that none of these terms were used.

There are specific charges as well. One of these is a supposed plot (no less!) of “tarnishing” the Vedas (p 11). This is startling, if not shocking, considering that the Gujarat state board textbooks, held up as models to be emulated in the report, use virtually identical paragraphs from the NCERT books when introducing the Vedas. Compare the NCERT textbook for Class 6, with the Gujarat state board textbook for Class 6. The NCERT text (NCERT 2020–21a: 35) is as follows:

You may have heard about the Vedas. There are four of them—the Rigveda, Samaveda, Yajurveda and Atharvaveda. The oldest Veda is the Rigveda, composed about 3500 years ago. The Rigveda includes more than a thousand hymns, called sukta or “well-said.” These hymns are in praise of various gods and goddesses. Three gods are especially important: Agni, the god of fire; Indra, a warrior god; and Soma, a plant from which a special drink was prepared.

These hymns were composed by sages (rishis). Priests taught students to recite and memorise each syllable, word and sentence, bit by bit, with great care. Most of the hymns were composed, taught and learnt by men. A few were composed by women. The Rigveda is in old or Vedic Sanskrit, which is different from the Sanskrit you learn in school these days.

Compare the above with what follows, from the Gujarat state board textbooks (2014b: 1):

Vedas are believed to be the ancient books of Indian Culture. There are four Vedas – Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Sam Veda and Atharva Veda. Rig-Veda is the oldest Veda. It is believed to have been written approximately 3000 years ago. There are around 1028 hymns for worshipping different gods and goddesses, mainly Agni, Indra and Soma. Agni—the God of fire, Indra—the God of War and Soma is a plant from which a special kind of drink used to be prepared which was consumed by the deities. Rishis or sages recited the Vedic mantras and Suktas. The Gurus (teachers) divided the Vedic hymns into alphabets and words and asked the shishyas (disciples) to recite them and made them learn by heart. Mostly, the compilers, learners and teachers were men but, there are some instances of women also being a part of Vedic recitation. The Rig-Veda was written in “Vedic Sanskrit” or “Prak Sanskrit.”

Differences, if any, are minor. Also, the preoccupation with hunting out examples of “backwardness” and “glorification” means that the authors of the report have had no time to notice some rather startling errors in the Gujarat state board textbooks, which are supposed to be models for the future. This is all the more surprising given the mention of Majumdar and Jadunath Sarkar (p 5), both stalwarts who valued factual accuracy.

These are a couple of examples of the kinds of inaccuracies:

By the middle of the 4th Century BC, people started living in “kuccha” (unbaked) brick houses. People tamed animals like sheep and goat and made clay pots on the potter’s wheel which they painted using natural colours. They learnt how to make pots from metals like copper and bronze. This civilisation later came to be known as the Harappan Civilisation. (Gujarat State Board of School Textbooks 2014a: 22)

The date that is suggested for the Harappan civilisation is clearly way off the mark, by more than two millennia!

There is an iron pillar in Delhi with inscriptions in Sanskrit. It mentions the Gupta period as the Golden Era of Indian History. (Gujarat State Board of School Textbooks 2014b: 86)

Anyone with a knowledge of the Gupta age and its inscriptions would be aware that this inscription refers to a ruler named Chandra and his military exploits. But there is no mention of either the word “Gupta,” far less of “a golden age.” Erroneous statements, such as the above, which the young learner will not be in a position to verify, are problematic and misleading.

Incidentally, the NCERT Class 6 book, apart from describing the inscription, also mentions the pillar as “a remarkable example of the skill of Indian crafts persons” (NCERT 2020–21a: 114).

Obsession with Quantification

While these errors are worrisome, far more problematic is the way in which, in the name of analysis, charts are strewn through the report, counting the number of references to terms such as caste, varna, etc, as well as references to those who are regarded as important figures. Some of these are converted into percentages, and others into graphs. This seemingly scientific procedure ignores the fact that the references to each of these terms and people occur in specific contexts.

One instance of the absurdities that results from this strategy must suffice. Graph 12 (p 90) of the document tries to compare the number of references to three “Islamic” chroniclers with the number of references to Chanakya. There are several problems with this comparison. First, the document identifies Ibn Batuta, Alberuni and François Bernier as “Islamic chroniclers.” Anyone with even an elementary knowledge of medieval history would be aware that Bernier was a Christian. This reveals the level of ignorance of those who undertook the exercise, and seems to be yet another attempt to mislead the unwary. Second, while both Alberuni and Ibn Battuta were Muslims, the former was from Central Asia, while the latter was from Morocco. The former lived during the 10th–11th century, while the latter lived in the 14th century. Branding them as “Islamic chroniclers” does not do justice to their distinct locations in terms of space and time. Third, virtually all the references to these men who visited the subcontinent are from a single chapter in the Class 12 NCERT book (Theme 5), which introduces learners to how the accounts left by people who visited the subcontinent can be used as historical sources, and the cautions that need to be kept in mind. Why this rich discussion has been reduced to a mindless mathematical exercise is baffling, to say the least.

Anxieties about Caste and Gender

The authors of the report are clearly troubled by the fact that caste and gender hierarchies have been part of our history, even as these have been contested both in the past and at present. Acknowledging these histories of discrimination and oppression is an ongoing process, whose necessity and even urgency cannot be overstated. Given that each of the Gujarat state board textbooks begins with the fundamental duties as laid down in the Constitution, it is worth reminding the authors of the report that the duty of upholding the Constitution makes it imperative to acknowledge and address issues of discrimination rather than sweep them under the carpet as disrupting the image of a glorious past.

Suppressing information about these discriminations would be violative of the fundamental duties, especially (a) and (h), which state: (a) to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem; (h) to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform.

The Parliamentary Standing Committee has called for recommendations to highlight the role of “great historic women heroes.” This token exaltation of certain individuals, however, does not emerge from a systematic gender sensitive approach. Sadly, such considerations are already operational in the Gujarat state board textbooks which confine their interest in gender to naming a few “great” women occasionally, implicitly projecting them as examples of gender equality. Yet, throughout the textbooks, language generally tends to be gender insensitive, with “man” being taken to be representative of humanity. There is no acknowledgement, let alone discussion, of the constrictive artifice of patriarchal power that made women’s achievements so difficult in the first place. On the contrary, as this report notes and celebrates (p 47), the Gujarat textbook compliments the “chastity” of women when it declares that, “Rajput women (Rajputani) were known for their chastity and fearlessness” (Gujarat State Board of School Textbooks 2014c: 21). One might even wonder what this implies about women of Brahmin or “lower” caste background.

Caste identities, likewise, are played down. This is particularly remarkable in the case of the poet-preachers within the bhakti tradition. The authors of the report complain that the opposition to the caste system by the bhakti saints is the central narrative in NCERT books, and that the Kerala board textbooks seem to be “focussed excessively on the caste narrative” while discussing the role of saints like Kabir. To prove this, they cite a box item from the Class 7 textbook of the NCERT. This refers to Kabir’s rejection of major religious traditions of both Hinduism and Islam, the role of the priestly classes therein, the language and style of his compositions as well as his opposition to caste (once!). Moreover, the report itself notes that Kabir’s opposition to caste was “indeed an important element of his philosophy”! Yet, the approach of the Gujarat state board textbooks, which gloss over the caste affiliations of Raidas and Tukaram are held up as exemplary (p 42). Thus, histories of caste painstakingly brought to light through scholarship over decades, are now sought to be brushed aside simply because they do not fit into the mode of glorification.

A Litany of Names?

One of the attempts behind the NCERT endeavour was to try and reduce the burden of rote learning. To do this, information was contextualised, apart from discussing, wherever possible, why something was worth knowing, and how one arrives at a historical understanding. The report in question seems to advocate jettisoning this pedagogical strategy in favour of a retreat to a litany of names—ideally of kings and occasional queens, of victories and defeats in battles, returning us back to a topdown approach to history. There is no scope for discussing the lives of ordinary people—farmers, forest dwellers, pastoral people, craftspersons, the vast majority of the people, attempts to throw light on the significance of whose histories was one of the features of the NCERT books.

The problem with focusing only on rulers, especially when combined with a divisive, polarised communal perspective, as advocated in this report, is particularly acute in the context of medieval history. The troubling underlying assumption is that history is only about great men, either political (rulers, etc) or religious (saints, etc). From this perspective, the only job of the historian is to tell inspiring or damning stories about great men, and occasionally women. It is also assumed that people are what they are because of their religion. Other considerations, such as those of caste, region, class, etc, are considered irrelevant. From this perspective, historians who study multiple factors (and their long-term convergences as historical processes) that shape human actions are condemned as having an ulterior agenda of hiding something and telling a lie. Any sign of addressing complexity is dismissed by treating Hindus and Muslims as homogeneous communities, perpetually in opposition to one another. Predictably, there is no space in such a historical narrative for the perennial struggle between (mostly Hindu) zamindars holding hereditary rights in land produce and the hapless, hard-working peasants who also happen to be Hindus.

Interestingly, not a single scholarly work, or a primary source is cited by the researchers of this report in support of their numerous (evidently counter-factual) claims. Indeed, there is not even a halfhearted attempt to do so. This establishes the authors’ ignorance about how historical research is conducted. It also indicates that they are assured of the support of credulous, complicit and powerful men eager to endorse all unverified claims.

The closest that this “research report” comes to engage with the question of “sources”—so crucial for any project of historical enquiry—is at the end of the text with the reproduction of a right to information (RTI) appended as Annexure I. This RTI filed with NCERT in November 2020 wanted to know the “source of information” for the assertion in a Class 12 textbook (NCERT 2020–21c: 150) about Aurangzeb’s support for temples. The reply by the NCERT simply states that “this information is not available in the files of the Department.” This had led to dubious shout fests in reality shows that masquerade as news debates on certain TV channels highlighting the apparently “baseless” claims of the textbooks that NCERT had finally admitted to. Anyone with even an elementary idea of the publishing process would know that no textbook publisher (or for that matter the academic publishers in the higher education market) does or can maintain a record of sources drawing on which their authors make their claims. What happens if we file an RTI with the NCERT today asking them to provide information about the sources on the basis of which the mathematics textbook claims that pi is a constant denoting the ratio between the perimeter and the radius of a circle? Well, the only possible response the NCERT can give is that “this information is not available in the files of the Department!” Hopefully, that will not change the value or character of pi.

Of course, there are sources indicating that Mughal rulers, including Aurangzeb, made grants to certain temples (even as they also occasionally destroyed temples). However, an RTI application to the concerned publisher is not the best method of conducting archival research or for ascertaining the veracity of available evidence.

Just for the record, here are a few pieces of information: Outside the Daoji Temple of Mathura dedicated to Baldev, there is an inscription that states: “The Mughal king Aurangzeb had built the main hall (naqqarkhana) of the temple in 1672 and donated five villages to this temple for the functioning of this hall…” Similarly, the former Allahabad Mayor Vishambhar Nath Pandey reportedly (Mani 2015) told the Rajya Sabha in July 1977 that a number of temple priests had deposed before the committee (set up by him), headed by Justice T.B. Sapru, that they were recipients of grants from Aurangzeb, and also had documents supporting such claims. In certain other cases, the documents are more easily traced. The fact that the Mughal state under Aurangzeb issued a total of 28 grants in Sylhet district of Bengal alone to Hindu religious or scholarly men (some of whom were attached to temples) is evident from the “Register of Sanads” (Sylhet District Collectorate Record Room, 17: 75, 243; 18, Nos 94, 154, 158, 279; 19, Nos 334, 618, 619; 20, Nos 851, 853, 959; 21, Nos 397, 400).

Wider Context

Finally, we need to remember that this report has appeared at a juncture when wide-ranging changes are being contemplated, and in some cases implemented, often at a breakneck pace. These include plans to introduce a common syllabus for history in undergraduate courses in central universities. The new syllabus is a backward-looking exercise, ignoring the advances made in recent decades in studying the histories of marginalised groups, environmental histories, and histories of gender relations amongst other themes. At a different level, the national educational policy is likely to make access to education more difficult for ordinary people, as privatisation will probably be systematically encouraged. It will also involve far more centralisation and control than we have at present.

Also note that last year, in the midst of the pandemic and the lockdowns which disrupted routine pedagogical processes as well as much else, “changes” and exclusions were introduced into courses by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), ostensibly to lighten the burden of students who were grappling with the admittedly acute crises in the process of coping with various online modes of learning. These exclusions involved dropping chapters on environment, evolution, reproduction, ecology, mathematical reasoning, federalism, popular movements, gender, caste, citizenship, and secularism among others. Sadly, in the case of the Gujarat state board textbook for Class 6 (Chapter 2), which might now become the model, the representation of hunting gathering societies as “primitive” persists. In a situation when one of the most pervasive challenges is from environmental degradation and climate change, revisiting our understanding of so-called “primitive” societies may be crucial for future generations.

In other words, a broad understanding of the past is a necessity rather than a luxury. It is in this context that the attempt to circumscribe the contents of history textbooks, and confine them to a one-point agenda of polarisation on the basis of religion becomes particularly dangerous, and needs to be challenged at all levels.

References:

Gujarat State Board of School Textbooks (2014a): Standard-6 Social Science: First Semester, Gandhinagar.

— (2014b): Standard-6 Social Science: Second Semester, Gandhinagar.

— (2014c): Standard-7 Social Science: First Semester, Gandhinagar.

— (2014d): Standard-7 Social Science: Second Semester, Gandhinagar.

Mani, Rajeev (2015): “Aurangzeb Gave Temples Grants, Land,” Times of India, 13 September, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/aurangzeb-gave-temples-grants-land-historian/articleshow/48940506.cms.

NCERT (2020–21a): Our Pasts-I: Textbook in History for Class VI, New Delhi.

— (2020–21b): Our Pasts-II: Textbook in History for Class VII, New Delhi.

— (2020–21c): Themes in Indian History, Part II, New Delhi.

Thapar, Romila, Ramin Jahanbegloo and Neeladri Bhattacharya (2017): Talking History: Romila Thapar in Conversation with Ramin Jahanbegloo with the Participation of Neeladri Bhattacharya, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

(Kumkum Roy teaches at the Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Pankaj Jha teaches at the Department of History, Lady Shri Ram College for Women, University of Delhi, New Delhi. Article courtesy: Economic and Political Weekly, Mumbai.)