With the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) coming out with new textbooks, the high-decibel debates have begun again about the ‘rewriting of history books’. A debate on a media channel within the editors/anchors, led by a senior journalist, that bordered on excitement and noise set me thinking. The journalist was representing the ‘Khan Market Gang’ that is out to create a righteous outrage over the distortion of history by so-called Right-wing ignoble who have no sense of history nor competence. Is this government rewriting history or only writing or bringing back the history already written by authoritative historians?
First major project of rewriting Indian history
But wait, I am moving ahead of myself. Even contemporary history was not spared. The project to write the history of the freedom movement was given to the doyen of Indian historians, Prof R C Majumdar. However, the committee was dissolved to get rid of him. Here is what Sandeep Balakrishna notes:
Three crucial observations emerge from this saga.
- The seeds for the politicisation of the history establishment were sown when politicians were appointed to a scholarly board, a place they had no business to be.
- The precedent of slaughtering historical truths was set because Majumdar would critically examine the roles played by Gandhi and Nehru in the freedom struggle, a taboo that would certainly infuriate the first and currently-serving, socialist prime minister. In the words of Dr NS Rajaram, “What was Majumdar’s crime? He refused to bend history to suit the interest of the Congress.” And so, the stage was set for rampant historical distortions at the hands of Marxist pamphleteers for the next fifty-odd years at all levels: from the school to the university.
- On one hand, we have a project that begins at the dissolution of the board in 1955 to restarting the project in 1956-57 to its eventual publication by the government in 1967: a project that had the complete backing of the government and resources on demand. On the other, we have the illustrious example of a committed scholar working alone, who published the monumental three-volume HFMI five years before the “official” version of the same epoch.
Second major project of rewriting Indian history
The second major and successful rewriting of academic history books began in 1981 with new guidelines about how to write history. In 1981, NCERT set out the following guidelines: “Muslim rulers cannot be identified as foreigners except for early invaders who did not settle here. Aurangzeb can no longer be referred to as the champion of Islam. Shivaji cannot be over-glorified in Maharashtra textbooks. Characterisation of the medieval period as a dark period or as a time of conflict between Hindus and Muslims is forbidden. Historians cannot identify Muslims as rulers and Hindus as subjects. The state cannot be described as a theocracy, without examining the actual influence of religion. No exaggeration of the role of religion in political conflict is permitted.”
Coomi Kapoor has given a summary of the guidelines prepared by NCERT in The Indian Express datelined New Delhi, January 17, 1982. She writes: “History and Language textbooks for schools all over India will soon be revised radically. In collaboration with various state governments, the Ministry of Education has begun a phased programme to weed out undesirable textbooks and remove matter which is prejudicial to national integration and unity and which does not promote social cohesion. The Ministry of Education’s decision to re-evaluate textbooks was taken in the light of the recommendations of the National Integration Council of which the Prime Minister is Chairman. The Ministry’s view was that history had often been used to serve narrow sectarian and chauvinistic ends.” Accordingly, “Twenty states and three Union Territories have started the work of evaluation according to guidelines prepared by the NCERT. In September (1981), two evaluators from each state attended a course at NCERT headquarters in New Delhi. The evaluators are now scrutinising the relevant texts in their home states and submitting their reports. The evaluations will be examined by an expert committee appointed by the state.” (Sita Ram Goel, The Story Of Islamic Imperialism In India, p 7, Voice of India, New Delhi.)
Third major project of rewriting Indian history
In 1989, West Bengal, ruled by Communists, already existing history books were to be sanitised to help the cause of ‘national integration’ based on falsehoods.
Arun Shourie has given some examples of how Marxists tried to make history ‘harmless’. He had received a copy of circular from concerned teachers relating to textbooks for class IX dated April 28, 1989, issued by the West Bengal Secondary Board. In Bengali, it carried the number “Syl/89/1”. The circular marked certain writings as ‘aushuddho’ (incorrect) that needed partial or complete deletion, and ‘shuddho’ (correct) version given by it –
Bharat Katha, prepared by the Burdwan Education Society, Teachers Enterprise, published by Sukhomoy Das.
- Page 140
Aushuddho — “In Sindhudesh, the Arabs did not describe Hindus as Kafir. They had banned cow slaughter.”
Shuddho — “Delete, ‘They had banned cow-slaughter’.”
- Page 141:
Aushuddho — “Fourthly, using force to destroy Hindu temples was also an expression of aggression. Fifthly, forcibly marrying Hindu women and converting them to Islam before marriage was another way to propagate the fundamentalism of the ulema.”
Shuddho — Though the column reproduces the sentences only from “Fourthly….”, the Board directs that the entire matter from “Secondly…. to ulema” be deleted.
Bharatvarsher Itihash, by Dr. Narendranath Bhattacharya, published by Chakravarty and Son.
- Page 89:
Aushuddho — “Sultan Mahmud used force for widespread murder, loot, destruction and conversion.”
Shuddho — “There was widespread loot and destruction by Mahmud.” That is, no reference to killing, no reference to forcible conversions.
- Page 89:
Aushuddho — “He looted valuables worth 2 crore dirham from the Somnath temple and used the Shivling as a step leading up to the masjid in Ghazni.”
Shuddho — “Delete ‘and used the Shivling as a step leading up to the masjid in Ghazni’.”
- Page 112:
Aushuddho — “Hindu-Muslim relations of the medieval ages is a very sensitive issue. The non-believers had to embrace Islam or death.”
Shuddho — All matter on pages 112-13 to be deleted.
Itihasher Kahini, by Nalini Bhushan Dasgupta, published by B. B. Kumar.
- Page 132:
Aushuddho — According to Todd [the famous chronicler of Rajasthan annals], the purpose behind Allauddin’s Chittor expedition was to secure Rana Rattan Singh’s beautiful wife, Padmini.”
Shuddho — Delete.
- Page 161:
Aushuddho — “The early Sultans were eager to expand the sway of Islam by forcibly converting Hindus into Islam.”
Shuddho — Delete.
Bharuter Itihash, by P. Maiti, Sreedhar Prakashini.
Most extensive deletions are ordered in regard to the chapter on ‘Aurangzeb’s policy on religion’. Every allusion to what he actually did to the Hindus, to their temples, to the very leitmotif of his rule — to spread the sway of Islam — is directed to be excised from the book. […] He is to be presented as one who had an aversion — an ordinary sort of aversion, almost a secular one — to music and dancing, to the presence of prostitutes in the Court, and that it is these things he banished. The only allusion to his having done anything in regard to Islam which is allowed to remain is that “By distancing himself from Akbar’s policy of religious tolerance and policy of equal treatment, Aurangzeb caused damage to Mughal rule.”
Shourie noted that Muslim historians of those times were, actually, in raptures at the heap of Kafirs who have been dispatched to hell. Muslim historians are forever lavishing praise on the ruler for the temples he has destroyed, and for the hundreds of thousands he has got to see the light of Islam.
The teachers furnished extracts from the textbook for Class V to Arun Shourie that wrote –
“…. after the Revolution in Russia – the first exploitation-free society was established.”
“…. Islam and Christianity are the only religions which treated man with honour and equality….”
There is no mention of these religions having no women gods and secondary status of women in both religions. There is no mention of slavery being legitimised by many of their holy scriptures.
For these eminent historians, Kashmir had no Hindu past. There is no mention of Acharya Abhinav Gupt, or of the great emperor Lalitaditya who ruled from Caspian seas to Bengal, Assam. We know of Bakhtiar Khilji blazing along the Gangetic plains to Bengal after burning of Nalanda University but not about Assamese King Prithu who stopped and defeated him, nor of brave Lachit Borphukan who did not allow Aurangzeb entry into Assam. We know that Vasco de Gama “discovered India” but not that a Gujarati trader in innocence guided him to India and he had better and bigger ships than Vasco. The inhuman inquisition of Hindus and Muslims by imperialist Church backed by the Portuguese is obliterated from mainstream history.
We hardly read about the wonderful marine history of India or of the great empires of Chola, Pallavas and Pandian of South India that spread over the entire Southeast Asia. Left historians whitewashed the Moplah violence, conversions, and rapes as a peasant uprising. How many tribal freedom fighters like Birsa Munda or Rani Gaidinliu are mentioned in school history books? Why is Marxist historians’ history being defended ferociously even after new data has come to light? Research on the Saraswati-Indus civilisation link and the submerged city of Dwarka was sought to be stopped by Marxists. Any self-respecting historian would be celebrating this discovery that connects many dots of our ancient history with the discovery of an approximately 9000-year-old city.
Thoroughly researched works of Gandhian Dharampal based on authentic documents of British that talked about scientific, technological and educational achievements were sidelined and never allowed to be made mainstream. Suppressing historical facts deliberately is not history writing. To conclude, let us reframe the debate. It is about “writing of Bharatiya history”, not rewriting of history.
The reviewer is a well-known author and political commentator. Views expressed are personal.
Read all the Latest Opinions here
Comments
0 comment