The Prime Minister has justified the deletion of ten passages from NCERT history textbooks (to 1oe followedsoon by their replacement and then the abolition of history as a separate subject till Class X) on the groundthat these books are "one-sided". How does he know? And how does being Prime Minister give him theauthority to issue such a fatwa? It is nobody's contention that the NCERT books are perfect, but any revisionmust be based on at least a minimum level of competence in the subject. It is significant that the names ofthose writing the new textbooks are being kept strictly secret.
A second justification, offered by BJP spokesmen like V.K. Malhotra, is even more dangerous. The books arenot factually inaccurate, but they are unsuitable because they hurt the "sentiments" of children ofsundry communities and religions. Once again, who decides, when and whose sentiments?
The passage in Satish Chandra's book about the execution of Guru Tegh Bahadur, which no one had objected toeven at the height of the Khalistani movement, suddenly comes under attack, and sadly, first of all from theDelhi Congress just on the eve of Punjab elections. And what if "sentiments" are mutually opposed?References to the oppressive aspects of the varna system and, no doubt soon, any criticism whatsoever of theancient Brahmanical society, are to be deleted. Dalits, subordinated castes, women, have obviously no"sentiments" worth bothering about.
Even more importantly, is it the function of history to ignore all "unpleasant" facts, and becomea collection of moral fables or happy tales, its contents dictated by "religious" and/or"community" leaders chosen by the Sangh Parivar for its political games? Surely, education isworthwhile only if it stimulates rational thinking and questioning and much of inherited common-sensenecessarily comes under scrutiny: as when children learn that, contrary to the evidence of their eyes, theearth moves round the sun. Maybe, the scientific explanation for eclipses should be banned, for it might hurtthe belief that they are caused by Rahu?
But it is dangerous to be sarcastic about such things, for we have a minister who might think this to be agood idea...
"History" of a particular kind is vital for the Sangh Parivar, to consolidate its claim to be thesole spokesman of the "Hindus" who have to be convinced that their interests and emotions are andhave always been unitary and inevitably opposed to those of Muslims or Christians, regardless of differencesof caste, gender class, immense regional variations. There had once been a certain fit between suchassumptions and the habit, derived in part from the British, of slicing up Indian history into"Hindu" and "Muslim" periods, treating religious communities as unchanging blocs anddefining eras in terms of the religion of rulers. All this changed as history-writing came of age andprogressed beyond the deeds of kings and great or evil men. The BJP's doctoring of history, so reminiscent oftotalitarian states, is an attempt to turn the clock back and, if possible, do away with history altogether.
(Sumit Sarkar is Professor of History, Delhi University. This article first appeared in the Times ofIndia, 2 December 2001 and is reproduced here courtesy Delhi Historians Group)
