 |
|
The recent changes implemented by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) in its Class 8 Social Science textbook, specifically within the chapter titled ‘Reshaping India’s Political Map’ in Exploring Society: India and Beyond (Part 1), signify a significant shift in the way Indian history is being presented to students. These revisions, coinciding with the National Curriculum Framework for School Education (NCF-SE) 2023 and the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, demonstrate a move towards highlighting the perceived religious intolerance and brutality exhibited during Muslim rule in India. This approach represents a notable departure from previous NCERT textbooks, which either omitted or downplayed these aspects of history. The article explicitly points out the change in portrayal of several historical figures, notably Babur, Akbar, and Aurangzeb, who are now depicted with greater emphasis on their alleged acts of violence and religious persecution. Babur, the founder of the Mughal dynasty, is described as a “brutal and ruthless conqueror,” who engaged in the slaughter of populations, enslavement, and the construction of “towers of skulls.” This depiction contrasts with earlier portrayals that focused more on his military conquests and establishment of the Mughal empire. Akbar, known for his policies of religious tolerance, is now presented with accounts of massacres, such as the alleged killing of 30,000 civilians during his attack on Chittorgarh. The textbook also includes a quote attributed to Akbar boasting about the destruction of temples and the establishment of Islam in conquered territories. Aurangzeb, often depicted as a religiously zealous ruler, is portrayed with a firm conclusion that his personal religious motives were evident in his actions, including the demolition of temples and schools. The Delhi Sultanate period is characterized by “political instability and military campaigns,” during which temples were destroyed, and cities were plundered. The textbook emphasizes the iconoclastic motives behind these actions, attributing them not only to plunder but also to the deliberate destruction of religious images. The inclusion of specific instances, such as Malik Kafur’s attacks on Hindu centers, further underscores this point. Jiziya, a tax historically imposed on non-Muslims, is now described as a “source of public humiliation” and a financial incentive for conversion to Islam, a stark contrast to its earlier neutral portrayal as a tax paid by non-Muslims. The revised textbook also presents a contrasting image of Shivaji, the Maratha ruler, who is described as a “master strategist and a true visionary” who respected other religions and rebuilt desecrated temples. This depiction emphasizes the resistance to Mughal rule and highlights Hindu figures as symbols of resistance and resilience. While the textbook acknowledges the “terrible deeds and atrocities” committed by some invaders and rulers, it adds a disclaimer that present-day individuals bear no responsibility for these past actions. This statement appears to be an attempt to mitigate potential backlash or criticism arising from the depiction of historical events. NCERT defends the new textbook by stating that it reflects the NEP 2020 and the NCF-SE 2023, emphasizing a new approach, syllabus, design, and pedagogical tools. They dismiss comparisons with older textbooks as “fruitless,” suggesting a fundamental shift in the understanding and presentation of history. The Union Minister of State B.L. Verma supports the new textbook, emphasizing the importance of learning about the Mughal rule and accepting the truth of what happened. However, critics like Prof Mohammad Suleman, a founding member of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), condemn the revisions as a distortion of history, arguing that a country can only progress when history is viewed in its true context. These textbook changes are part of a broader pattern of revisions carried out by the Modi government since 2017, including the addition of references to government schemes, ancient Indian knowledge systems, and figures deemed “nationalist icons.” In 2022-23, NCERT cited pandemic-related academic stress as justification for removing entire chapters on the Mughals, reducing descriptions of Mughal-era administration, and erasing references to the 2002 Gujarat riots and Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination involving the RSS. These changes reflect a broader effort to reshape the historical narrative in Indian schools, emphasizing certain aspects while downplaying or omitting others. The implications of these textbook revisions are far-reaching, potentially influencing the understanding of history among future generations of students and shaping their perceptions of different communities and historical events. The controversies surrounding these revisions highlight the complex and contested nature of history, particularly in a diverse and multi-religious society like India. The debates surrounding the portrayal of historical figures and events reflect deeper ideological and political divisions within the country. The challenge lies in presenting a balanced and nuanced account of history that acknowledges the complexities and contradictions of the past while promoting understanding and reconciliation among different communities. The NCERT’s revisions risk perpetuating historical grievances and promoting a divisive narrative that could undermine social cohesion. A more constructive approach would involve engaging with diverse perspectives, promoting critical thinking, and fostering a deeper understanding of the historical context in which events occurred. This would require a commitment to intellectual honesty, transparency, and a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths. Ultimately, the goal of history education should be to empower students to become informed and engaged citizens who are able to critically analyze the past and contribute to a more just and equitable future.
The narrative presented in the revised NCERT textbooks raises several critical questions about the nature of historical interpretation, the role of ideology in shaping historical narratives, and the potential impact of these narratives on societal harmony. The emphasis on the “religious intolerance” and “brutality” of Muslim rulers, while perhaps not entirely without historical basis, can be seen as a selective interpretation of history aimed at promoting a particular ideological agenda. By focusing disproportionately on the negative aspects of Muslim rule, the textbooks risk creating a distorted and incomplete picture of the past. This approach can lead to the perpetuation of stereotypes and prejudices against Muslims, undermining efforts to promote interfaith dialogue and understanding. Furthermore, the glorification of Hindu figures like Shivaji as symbols of resistance to Muslim rule can further exacerbate these divisions. While Shivaji’s role in resisting Mughal expansion is undeniable, portraying him solely in this light ignores the complexities of his reign and the broader socio-political context in which he operated. A more nuanced approach would involve acknowledging the achievements and contributions of Muslim rulers while also recognizing the injustices and atrocities that were committed during their rule. Similarly, the textbooks should provide a more balanced and comprehensive account of Shivaji’s reign, highlighting both his successes and his failures. It is also important to consider the motivations behind the textbook revisions. The Modi government’s emphasis on “ancient Indian knowledge systems” and “nationalist icons” suggests a desire to promote a particular vision of Indian identity that is rooted in Hindu traditions and values. This vision may not be shared by all sections of Indian society, and its imposition through the education system can be seen as an attempt to marginalize and exclude those who do not conform to this dominant narrative. The removal of references to the 2002 Gujarat riots and Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination involving the RSS further reinforces this impression. These omissions suggest a desire to sanitize the past and present a more favorable image of certain groups and ideologies. The claim that these changes were made due to “pandemic-related academic stress” is not convincing, as the topics removed are central to understanding modern Indian history and politics. Moreover, the fact that these revisions were carried out without broad consultation with historians and educators raises concerns about the lack of transparency and accountability in the curriculum development process. The NCERT’s defense of the new textbooks, stating that they reflect the NEP 2020 and the NCF-SE 2023, does not address the substantive criticisms leveled against them. While it is important to update the curriculum to reflect new knowledge and pedagogical approaches, this should not be done at the expense of historical accuracy and intellectual honesty. The emphasis on a “new approach, syllabus, design, and pedagogical tools” should not be used as a justification for promoting a biased and divisive narrative. The implications of these textbook revisions extend beyond the classroom. The narratives presented in schools can shape the way individuals perceive their own history and identity, influencing their attitudes towards different communities and cultures. If students are taught a distorted and incomplete version of history, they may be more susceptible to prejudice and discrimination. This can have a negative impact on social cohesion and national unity. In a diverse and multi-religious society like India, it is crucial to promote a historical narrative that is inclusive, balanced, and nuanced. This requires a commitment to intellectual honesty, transparency, and a willingness to engage with diverse perspectives. The NCERT’s revisions fall short of this standard, and risk perpetuating historical grievances and undermining efforts to build a more just and equitable society.
The controversy surrounding the NCERT textbook revisions also highlights the broader challenges of teaching history in a politically charged environment. History is never simply a neutral recounting of facts; it is always an interpretation of the past that is shaped by the perspectives and biases of those who write it. In a society like India, where historical narratives are often intertwined with issues of identity, religion, and politics, it is particularly difficult to present a version of the past that is acceptable to all. The challenge for educators is to find a way to teach history in a way that is both accurate and sensitive to the diverse perspectives and experiences of different communities. This requires a commitment to critical thinking, encouraging students to question and analyze different interpretations of the past, and to develop their own informed opinions. It also requires a willingness to engage with difficult and controversial topics, such as the partition of India, the 2002 Gujarat riots, and the caste system. Avoiding these topics or presenting them in a sanitized manner does a disservice to students and prevents them from developing a deeper understanding of the complexities of Indian society. The NCERT’s revisions appear to be moving in the opposite direction, selectively emphasizing certain aspects of history while downplaying or omitting others. This approach is likely to further polarize society and make it more difficult to build consensus around a shared historical narrative. A more constructive approach would involve engaging with diverse voices and perspectives, promoting open and honest dialogue, and fostering a deeper understanding of the historical context in which events occurred. This would require a commitment to intellectual honesty, transparency, and a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths. Ultimately, the goal of history education should be to empower students to become informed and engaged citizens who are able to critically analyze the past and contribute to a more just and equitable future. The NCERT’s revisions risk undermining this goal, and it is imperative that educators, historians, and policymakers work together to ensure that history is taught in a way that promotes understanding, reconciliation, and social cohesion. The long-term consequences of these textbook revisions are difficult to predict, but they could have a significant impact on the way future generations of Indians understand their own history and identity. It is therefore crucial that these changes are carefully scrutinized and debated, and that steps are taken to mitigate any potential negative impacts. This requires a commitment to intellectual honesty, transparency, and a willingness to engage with diverse perspectives. Only then can we ensure that history education contributes to a more just, equitable, and harmonious society.
Source: Babur ‘ruthless’, Shivaji a ‘visionary’: New NCERT textbook marks sharp historical shift