Textbook Questions

Does this guy Omar even read what he posts? He is objecting to this too, for example:


`` Muslims and Hindus are equal co-heirs to India`s history, whether ancient, medieval or modern. There is no need to be apologetic for foreign invaders and tyrants like Mahmud of Ghazni or Alauddin Khalji or Babur or Robert Clive or Warren Hastings. These were foreigners who will continue to live in infamy in the Indian mind. The specious plea that Muslim sentiments will be hurt if some foreign invaders are shown in their true colours, actually constitutes an insult to our Muslim brothers and sisters. Why should they answer for the crimes of foreign brigands? Did Indian Muslims not suffer as much as Indian Hindus did under their rule? By the same argument, are we now to write hagiographies for Clive, Hastings and Curzon because Indian Christians may be ``hurt``? And what about our Communists? Are they to answer for the Chinese invasion of 1962 ? ``


Pakistan is a country whose weapons and symbolisms have NOT ONE which is indigenous, all are asssociated with foriegners, specifically foreign conquerors who ravaged their lands and people AND WENT BACK to their foreign lands. Obviously for Pakistanis it is a crime not to praise the most destructive and ruthless of conquerors and it is a crime to value ANYTHING indigenous.

But by what logic do Pakistanis expect Indians to subscribe to such Pakistani values, too? India is different, we celebrate our indigenous languages, their literature and local arts as part of our nationhood. In Pakistan these are considered a threat to Pakistani nationhood. I still do not understand, why are Indians supposed to adhere to Pakistani worldview and Pakistani values ?

In India, we grow up seeing ruins of temples in most of N. India. Someday a child grows up and realises how that happened and gets angry at being told falsehoods all the while. That`s when you get a new member of the VHP. It is much much better to adopt a more rational attitude, and less whitewashing to such aspects of visible history to prevent this backlash. Currently the tussle is between two extreme points of view, the total whitewash by the leftists and the total blackwash by the Hindutvists.

But a Pakistani for whom Hindu = fascist by definition would not understand, obviously. The question is why should we even explain when our values are so different?

When Pakistani children are being taught to count corpses at age 7 and to consider armed aggression as the only way to deal with infidels, India might have to finally adapt its education system to teach its children to fight back too.

As usual, Omar.
I genuinely see nothing wrong in J.S. Rajput`s bit. That`s his opinion, we don`t have people drawn and quartered for that. What is your problem?
Romila Thapar is very leftist, and good for her. However, this does mean I`m not going to accept whatever she says as coming from the mouth of God herself. These people were devastated when the Soviet Union broke down. It`s unfair to take their last toy away from them.
The RSS schools are Hindu schools, remember. Having said that, I did ``take up`` some lessons as late as 3 months ago-Class 6 Social Studies, and did not find most of your ``facts``. I did find that 2000 years ago, India was a rich country and traded with blah, blah, blah...wasn`t paying that much attention, but would have leapt at most of these :)
You still don`t understand, do you?
In India, more than anywhere else, for 100 people, there are 101 opinions. We live with that. So should you.

Dost-Mitter

Just trying to clarify & connect some dots -

Wasn`t the geographical name of India , Hindustan - why was it changed to India?

And all those who lived in Hindustan were Hindus - Hindu being more of a geograohical identity and not a religious identity.

Similarly, the Mahabharta and Ramayan being a cultural heritage of the region - rather than having any specific religious connotation. And all being a part of Hindu mythology - mythology coming from the word myths. This also being called Dharama or a way of life.

And the only OPERATIVE religious part being Brahminism. And Brahamism being equivalent to other formal religions like Judaism, Christianity or Islam.

Meaning that Hindus, following the Dharama of Hinduism, could still have different OPERATIVE FORMAL beliefs like Brahminism, Chritianity, Judaism, Islam etc.

It may sound quite stupid - but I am still trying to understand all this confusion.

plats8 -- its ok if u or i make announcements - -but when the person incharge of the ministry says that in public, in the minds of most sensible and rational people, it would be understood as emanating from or reflecting govt policy -- he was speaking not in his personal capacity but as a govt minister -- what other specifics do u want ? -- strange that a govt minister saying this publicly to u guys means nothing --

this should speak for itself --

Appeared in: Economic and Political Weekly, Nov. 16, 2002.

On saffronization of education
by Hiren Gohain

Exponents of Hindutva usually believe that theirs is a bold revolt against western hegemony, but in fact it is an imperfect and slavish imitation of that hegemonic system, a caricature.
The term `saffronization of education` appears to denote a fairly innocuous, if dubious process. It is in fact both a treacherous and frivolous response to a grave cultural crisis, a kind of response that is typical of fascism, and fascists have made the most of radical impotence. Democrats with an inadequate sense of history, and leftists and radicals whose smugness is criminal in the light of their own historical consciousness, read in it a silly and disgraceful exercise, something like one of the numerous outcrop of ersatz Hindu cults of the moment. They fail to see that it is a combination of a confident appeal to a brutalized mass consciousness and a coercive imposition of a dogmatic view of national history and culture.
When the BJP, backed by the Sangh Parivar, detected slurs on communities like the Sikhs and the Jains in the impugned history textbooks of the NCERT, Congress stalwarts like A K Anthony and Digvijay Singh also murmured their assent to that reading, oblivious of the fact that those history textbooks (e.g. those by Romilla Thapar and Bipan Chandra, as well as those by Arjun Dev) had been written and approved during long years of Congress rule in the centre. Evidently there is now a change in the climate of opinion which makes critical references to traditions of different indigenous religion acts taboo. The change indicates far more than a turn towards populism. To put it bluntly, there is a confusion between legitimate pride in one`s heritage and an oversensitive, indeed aggressive, attitude towards any critical interrogation of that heritage.
It is common to assume that such symptoms are passing whims and fads of those who occupy positions of power. On the contrary, when the Babri Masjid was turned into a heap of rubble, two of the most eminent and hard-hitting intellectuals among westernized orientals, Nirad C Choudhuri and V S Naipaul, well known for their pugnacious admiration for the west, hailed the barbarous act as a vindication of a dishonoured culture.
In this view at least there is no difference between the diehard saffron brigade and the most intransigent pro-western elements. What is the secret behind this incredible alliance?
J S Rajput, director of the NCERT, in an affidavit before the Supreme Court, as well as in a circular letter introducing a new curricular framework for schools, affirms that the old and superseded framework had erred by overstressing a secular outlook and neglecting the spiritual heritage of the country. That balance was to be restored by introducing value education, and since values according to him are sanctioned by religion, ultimately religious education.
Such views are not exceptional. Sometimes Mahatma Gandhi, Radhakrishnan, and other leaders of both the political and the cultural awakening of India before independence appear to speak in the same vein. But the disturbing new trend is a narrow, bigoted verison of `Spiritual Value`, leaning explicitly on the Hindu heritage.
It is pertinent to mention here that the Indian Constitution bears the traces of an historical context of religious dissension and conflict, and it comes down resolutely in favour of a broad, tolerant humanism. The preamble declares among its sacred goals `Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship`. The secularism implied by the Constitution not only indicates non-discrimination among citizens on the basis of religion, whether in matters of public employment, or in admission to state-funded educational institutions, or in the approach of public administration. But it does not stop there. It goes on to commit itself to protecting the right of all religions. Even K M Munshi, the orthodox Hindu leader, categorically insisted on inclusion of the Christian`s right to proselytize.
Saffronization of education is part of a far-reaching agenda to reverse such historic trends. And it actually harks back to the period of turmoil to which the secularism of the Constitution had been an answer. As if the road not taken then again faces the nation at a point to which it has returned in the course of its wanderings.
Hence, the kind of spiritual education envisaged in the new curricular framework of NCERT is quite contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. The director of the NCERT in a press handout mentioned the inherent ``bigotry and dogmatism`` of ``Semitic creeds`` (read Islam and Christianity) as against the broad outlook of Hinduism. No doubt the spiritual education of the new curriculum would also carefully introduce our young people to this nugget of wisdom.
However, the problem is not simply that of historical regression. There may be some continuity in history, but never pure regression. What appears to be purely regressive is also determined in some way by larger contemporary development. Neocolonialism today requires of its success the prevalence of feudal or semi-feudal ideas and practices. However, such elements, being out of step with the present, and failing to answer the genuine needs of the present, are bound to be overlaid with deliberate self-hypnosis, irrationality and savagery.
In any case it is an oversimplification to say that it is only a question of reactionary revival and regression. The ideology that has hypnotized the masses drawn by the saffron brigade had its genesis in early colonial times during the colonial transformation of Indian society, the introduction of modernity under colonial auspices.
In is this form of modernity that has failed to solve some of the outstanding problems of our social heritage, but it is this form that acquires a dangerous attraction whenever out society and culture enters a blind alley. The uncritical and fanatical worship of a chauvinist version of our past is a product of the same mindset. And it is natural for such a mindset to submit to the hegemony of neocolonialism.
This requires some explanation. How does colonialism continue to shape our consciousness? It manifests itself first in a lack of confidence in one`s own creativity and a dependence on western centres of learning for the very conceptions of academic and cultural excellence.
This mental dependence is also actively promoted by western powers and their lackeys for obvious reasons. Ours is a cruel dilemma as we can neither snap our link with the colonial type of modernity at one go, nor find answer to many of our present dilemmas in tradition. But that hardly excuses a supine surrender to the poisoned charms of a reactionary solution from the past.
That there is an overriding need for thorough revision of the structure of education all over the world has been known for several decades. The International Commission on Development of Education constituted with the world`s leading educationists by the UNESCO, stated in its report of 1972: ``Education follows the laws of every human undertaking, growing old and gathering deadwood. To remain a living organism, capable of satisfying with intelligence and vigour the requirements of individuals and developing societies, it must avoid complacency and routine. It must constantly question its objectives, its contents and its methods.`` (p xvii)
One of the problems the commission had warned all developing countries about had been the strong colonial traces in the present education systems of their countries. ``And just as the political and economic effects of colonialism are still strongly felt today, so most educational systems in Latin American, Asian and African countries mirror the legacy of a one-time mother country or of some other outside hegemony, whether or not they met the nations present needs...`` (pp 10-11)
The legacy of colonialism in the system of education and conceptions about education in these unfortunate countries has been succinctly summed up by J N Pieterse and Bhikhu Parekh in their introduction to The Decolonization of Imagination (OUP, Kolkata, Chennai, Mumbai, 1997): ``Although the effects of British colonialism on different aspects of Indian life and thought varied a great deal, and led to much critical self-questioning, colonial rule did distort India`s understanding of its own past, present and future.
It also weakened India`s self-confidence and capacity to explore and experiment with alternative ways of life and thought. Above all, it encouraged heteronomy, the tendency to judge itself by western standards and to make western approval the basis of is self-respect and self-esteem, especially among the modernists for whom the west represented almost all that they valued.`` (p viii-ix)
The way out of this predicament has been charted by the editors on following lines: ``To be autonomous is to break through the categories of thought constructed by others, to think afresh and analyze one`s predicament and make one`s choices in terms one has rationally and independently arrived at.`` (p ix)
Fortunately for us, Pieterse and Parekh caution against rejecting modernity tout court as it is ``deeply inscribed in all areas of its life (or nation) and is integral to its identity...`` and advocate critical appropriation of its legacy in various fields so as to liberate the mind from the unconscious colonial constraints.
Colonialism had thus made over the inherited social and mental structures of traditional Indian society in a fairly drastic manner and in the process sapped the confidence and self-reliance of the native. It is usually believed by exponents of Hindutva that theirs is a bold revolt against western hegemony, but my thesis is that it is an imperfect and slavish imitation of that hegemonic system, a caricature.
It is at this point that I propose to deal with a surprisingly sensitive topic - the role of the church in colonial economy and society. Surprising because modern historians of India do not care to attend to it at all. I pick up at random a book, which happens to be Ranajit Guha`s Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India (Oxford University Press, paperback, 1997).
The copious indices include not a single reference to the church, in spite of the fact that the church had been quite active on the margins of Indian society, particularly among tribal subsistence farmers. And sensitive because the biased and motivated work of people like Arun Shourie has virtually made objectivity on the issue impossible.
Now the church had been a herald and agent of modernity in many parts of India. Through the selfless labour of countless volunteers, many of whom had laid down their lives in this kind of service, it brought about striking improvements in health, education and general standard of living in many communities. It restored a measure of self-respect to them by protecting and nurturing their languages and introduced them to modern ways of thought at a time when both decay of traditional society and aggressive colonial exploitation had left them prostrated. Even a relatively advanced regional language like Bengali cannot easily forget the services of William Carey, nor the Assamese the work of Miles Bronson in defending the rights of their language and escorting it into the threshold of modernity. But when all is said and done such services had been rendered within the ambit of colonialism. The other side of the coin was a softening up of the mental fibre of independent communities in order to encourage their voluntary submission to colonial rule.
It can hardly be overlooked that the Church had the support of the colonial government in its mission. When the European powers launched the `Opium War` in China in the 19th century to open up the country to the deluge of opium to be released by them, the Chinese rulers resisted for the most natural of reasons. China`s defeat enabled the European powers to force on her a vastly unequal treaty, with provisions like drastic reduction in customs tariff, cession of territory, and significantly ``freedom for missionary activities``.
When the hard-pressed peasantry of Phuloguri, Nagaon district in Assam, driven desperate by a steep hike in land revenue and imposition of taxes on their wretched little kitchen gardens, rose in revolt, they were condemned outright in harsh and brutal language by the Arunodoi, the first newsmagazine in Assamese, an organ of modernity, published by the American Baptist Mission.
There has been some recent attempts to exonerate this conduct with the plea that the rates of taxation had been insignificant, a matter of only a few rupees. These later champions forget how scarce money had been among these peasants, and how in the following century many `rayats` of Assam became landless for defaulting on land revenue at the rate of one rupee per `bigha`. (It must be made clear that we here criticize the church for its association with the colonial system, and not Christianity itself.)
What hurt educated native sentiments in Bengal most was the ceaseless and vehement campaign of the church in early colonial times against Hindu religious ideas and practices. And Bengal was the pioneer of the Indian awakening into modernity in colonial times. No doubt many of their strictures on Hindu superstitions were just and well founded. But their tone was hardly calculated to persuade, as it was a combination of loathing, outrage and patronizing pity. Besides, these often betrayed a woeful ignorance of the finer spiritual speculations and intellectual achievements of the ancient Hindus.
As early as the first decades of the 19th century Raja Ram Mohun Roy faced the hostile propaganda of missionaries like Carey and Marshman against Hinduism. Ram Mohun brought out Precepts of Jesus, Guide to Peace and Happiness in 1820, explaining the irrationality and hollowness of certain teachings of the church which he considered contrary to the gospels of Jesus. He also brought the war into the camp of the enemy by pointing out in An Appeal to the Christian Public that beliefs like that in the Holy Trinity were not warranted by the Bible. But even Alexander Duff who received Ram Mohun`s help in founding his school in Calcutta made a frontal attack on Hinduism including the Vedanta in his India and India`s Missions in 1840.
The Tattva Bodhini Patrika, the organ of the Brahmas, replied to these charges in a series of articles (Ram Mohun Shmaran, published by Raja Ram Mohun Roy, Smriti-Raksha Samiti, edited by Pulin Bihari Sen et al. in 1989, pp 84-88). But the climax was reached in the attack by Reverend Hastie, principal of the General Assembly`s Institution, run by Scottish General Missionary Board. In the pages of The Statesman he attacked Hinduism as betraying ``mere animal licentiousness``, ``senseless mummeries``, ``loathsome impurities, and bloody barbarous sacrifices``. He went on to say that ``debasing idolatry`` produced ``a mass of shrinking cowards, unscrupulous deceivers, of bestial idlers, filthy songsters, and degraded women``, and their only hope of salvation lay in embracing Christianity. It is significant that Reverend Hastie in the same of breath referred to the benefits of the ``English sense of justice``, ``the invincibility of the new power``, ``our English enlightenment`` and ``powerful scholars of Europe``.
It appears that Revered Hastie`s conviction about the inferiority of Hinduism had been strengthened by the confidence derived from association with a conquering power. If his campaign persuaded some Hindu youths, it provoked an even more powerful tide of Hindu defensive passion. Among the numerous educated Hindus who protested against Hastie`s sweeping and ignorant indictment, Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, the first great novelist of modern India, and the first systematic exponent of ``Hindu nationalism`` was one (Tapan Raychaudhuri, Europe Reconsidered, Oxford University Press, 1988, pp 6-9, p 122). And his views had a wider and deeper appeal than the modern, scientific, secular outlook of the `Young Bengal` movement inspired by European rationalism.
Bankim Chandra`s notion of a Hindu nation was a major cultural response to the ethnocentric European propagation of modernity. The favourite and loaded term for modernity in early colonial Bengal had been `Sabhyota` (an extended connotation of `civility`) (See Hiren Gohain, The Idea of Popular Culture in Early 19th Century Bengal, K P Bagchi and Sons, Kolkata, 1990) and Bankim Chandra had had resort to contemporary European ideas of nationhood and nationalism to construct a collective Hindu identity as a counterweight to the pressures of European ethnocentrism.
It is significant that he excluded Muslims from its fold, and indeed identified the Muslims as the source of defilement and degradation of the Hindus. Significantly his opponent Reverend Hastie also invoked the Muslim bogey in his rhetoric, and reminded the Hindus how English rule had freed them from the Muslim yoke. Evidently the idea of Hindu nationhood emerged out of an intellectual compromise with the reality of colonial power.
It is hardly a matter for surprise that in his powerful fictional work, Anadha Math, translated practically into every modern Indian language, where he proclaims the gospel of Hindu nationalism, he also identifies the decaying Muslim rule as the chief obstacle to Hindu regeneration and perceives the colonial regime as ``a divinely ordained tutelage`` for the rise and education of modern Hindus as a nation.
Thus, both a growing sense of inferiority, and of mortified self-respect, combined with an aspiration for new strength in a newly and narrowly constructed nationhood, had been legacies of a hegemonic colonial culture. And even in the heyday of swadeshi terrorist offensive against British rule, Bankim Chandra`s Ananda Math had as much prestige with the revolutionists as the Gita.
The excluded Muslim elite naturally took to the ideal of a pan-Islamic qaum, largely under Wahhabi influence. It is significant that Maulana Mohammed Ali categorically rejected nationalism as the path of salvation for India during the heyday of the Khilafat movement.
He went on to assert stoutly: ``God made mankind and the Devil made the nation``. Most significantly he warned against the temptation of a revival of the lost domination of any community, be it Hindus, Muslims or Sikhs. (Amalendu De, Samaj O Sanskriti, Kolkata, 1981, pp 47-49). But the Muslim reaction had little impact on the powerful under-tow of Hindu revivalist thought in the course of Indian nationalism.
This is the excruciating dilemma of modernity in India. It had awoken into consciousness with a profoundly confused notion of national identity, under the manipulative pressures of colonial rule.
In my little monograph on early 19th century Bengal I had had an occasion to underline the fact that the potentiality of a truly democratic, revolutionary and secular nationalism implicit in the `Young Bengal` movement did not find much favour with the educated modern intelligentsia of Bengal, primarily because of middle-class opposition to extension of democracy and to true radicalism.
The continuity of the colonial class structure into independent India reinforced, and was itself in turn reinforced by, Hindu chauvinism. In the meantime, the erstwhile revolutionary later reconciled to British domination, V D Savarkar, invoked Hindutva as the basis of Indian nationalism, and the mentor of the RSS in the 1950s and the 1960s, Guru Golwalkar, reiterated the same ideas in We, or, Our Nationhood Defined.
From imperialism the enemy had quietly changed shape to turn into Islam. Then as now, the erroneous and fatal identification of the enemy has been the product of a collusion between colonialism and native ruling elites.
The idea of a ``composite nation`` proposed by Gandhi had a greater popular democratic potential, but perhaps his lack of revolutionary class-outlook failed to instil it with transforming power.
The only viable and healthy response to the cultural crisis of modern India was popular and radical democracy. Instead of which we are imbibing a concoction brewed under colonial patronage, with predictable consequences. And a mechanistically oriented left movement, unable to discern the traces of colonial consciousness in modern Indian culture, can find no antidote to this poison. Attempts to correct the error are met with a volley of foul and vulgar abuse, which after all is a hoary defensive mechanism.

tragedy of pakistan,

At least for the last 3 years i had been posting about the k for kafir education. It was denied by the tahmed, ylhs and other educated pakistanis on chowk. Now the americans are after teh education. Omar the great rip van winkle has woken up, he has found evidence of k for kafir education.

It is the spineless nature of the educated pakistanis is the bane of pakistan. Pakistanis beleive that it is all a case of propaganda. If the ilks of omar had written about k for kafir education 5 years ago, the situation would have been very different.

It is time for the pakistanis to write about the burning down of hindu temples. Omar, have you heard anything about it. mOmar, killers are called freedom fighters in dawn, can you talk to the owners of dawn, as once you said you are very influential.

#76 to quote u gujju: ``Most Indian muslims dont really consider themselves to be `Indian`. Majority of IMs may be peace loving , law abiding , and only a tiny section may take to violent means - But the fact is , all of them are actively or passively (as in most cases) , anti-India.`` -- dude it can safely be said that you`re a racist -- i suppose u at least admit it openly :) -- i suppose irfan pathan also acted in a very anti-india fashion when he bowled so brilliantly in pakistan -- it was a well-orchestrated ISI plot right ! hahahaha you`re such a lamer man

jang jee i suppose u should have read teh stuff on that site more closely -- its always better to make changes in a subtle manner so that no one notices -- plz go thru the following, if u have the time that is and see how ncert wanted to re-write india`s history:
the following para particularly stands out and it is reproduced here too: (it reeks of ideology -- and i hope u have the proof u wanted jang jee)

``Habib & Co. have been slaves of this logic all these years. Muslims and Hindus are equal co-heirs to India`s history, whether ancient, medieval or modern. There is no need to be apologetic for foreign invaders and tyrants like Mahmud of Ghazni or Alauddin Khalji or Babur or Robert Clive or Warren Hastings. These were foreigners who will continue to live in infamy in the Indian mind. The specious plea that Muslim sentiments will be hurt if some foreign invaders are shown in their true colours, actually constitutes an insult to our Muslim brothers and sisters. Why should they answer for the crimes of foreign brigands? Did Indian Muslims not suffer as much as Indian Hindus did under their rule? By the same argument, are we now to write hagiographies for Clive, Hastings and Curzon because Indian Christians may be ``hurt``? And what about our Communists? Are they to answer for the Chinese invasion of 1962 ?``

---

PREFACE

The Indian History Congress (IHC) was for years a premier forum of scholars involved in the teaching and conduct of research in history. It was established in 1936 by renowned scholars who, despite considerable political pressure and personal economic adversities, made many sacrifices so that the Indian people are not humiliated by western treatment of their history. IHC once boasted of a formidable membership — Jadunath Sarkar, R. C. Majumdar,
T. V. Mahalingam, D. C. Bhandarkar, K. A. Nilakanta Shastri, to name a few. For decades the IHC`s annual conference had been a major fixture in the annual calendar of intellectually stimulating events. These attracted not just historians, but also political essayists, journalists, students and professionals from diverse fields. They flocked to the venue out of curiosity in their nation`s past, to learn whatever they could from the assemblage of scholars as monographs, dissertations and papers throwing newer and newer light on complex questions from the past were read out.

The relationship between the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) and IHC is at least three decades old. During this period, scholars linked to IHC, out of genuine concern that the history taught to young school children of the country be free from mistakes, political bias and prejudice towards particular communities, freely extended their expertise to the designing of NCERT`s textbooks which, thanks to the wide distribution network enjoyed by the latter, helped in the process of historical understanding by a generation of Indians. Though there was no formal framework under which this co-operation was extended, it was a dialogue process. NCERT, a professional and autonomous body committed to developing scientific educational frameworks and capacities for their smooth implementation, benefited from this arrangement because history is a sensitive subject with immense ramifications on the national fabric. The unity in diversity, which the founding fathers of the nation envisaged, could easily be torn apart if history books were adulterated with rhetoric. The youth of the country could have been misled into perceiving a completely wrong notion of our nationhood.

However, the linkage between NCERT and IHC got snapped some years back. To some extent, the change in IHC`s own vision was responsible for this. It was no secret to those in the know, that IHC had undergone a


vi

metamorphosis from a forum of historians to a club of Leftist scholars who often called themselves ``eminent``, sometimes ``liberal``, or ``progressive`` and, always, ``secular``. They purged this once proud institution of people who disagreed with their views on what constitutes the ``right`` history. With time, IHC`s publications began to betray a strong Leftist bias. As often happens with institutions intolerant to diversity of opinion, a coterie raj began to dominate its affairs. From that point onwards, IHC`s credibility itself became history. Like-minded politicians and gullible intellectuals from other fields came to steal the show at its annual conferences. Instead of serving the cause of history, IHC degenerated into a veritable backroom for political personalities. The conferences themselves became media events with celebrities from unrelated areas (on a few occasions, even from cinema) gracing the dazzling ``inaugurations``.

It is difficult, nay impossible, to work with intellectuals who are blinkered by political rhetoric. NCERT discovered this when the process of curriculum renewal began in 1999. To understand how this happened, it is absolutely necessary to understand the background to the developments which finally culminated in IHC publishing History in the new NCERT text books _ a Report and an Index of Errors in 2003, the prompter for this riposte by NCERT.

In 1999, when NCERT began the long-overdue process of reviewing the national curriculum framework for school education, the scholars then dominating IHC (some of whom were associated with the NCERT since the 1960s), adopted a curious position. They decided that history ``cannot be changed`` and that whatever they had written three decades earlier was still worthy of being taught to students in the 21st Century. Not only was this unreasonable, they also missed an essential point. Besides their irrelevance in the light of a changed world situation and modern discoveries by contemporary scholars, the history books of NCERT, which were originally developed in the 1960s and updated only superficially in subsequent reprints, needed to be discarded for two reasons.

First, separate books on history were no longer necessary for students up to the Class X stage. The 1988 Curriculum Framework had clearly stated that history, along with geography, civics and economics, was to be taught from a single text on Social Sciences to secondary students. Somehow, this policy directive was not implemented by NCERT then, but by 1999, there was no avoiding the inevitable. By the late 1990s, it was clear to many, including the members of the famous ``School Bag`` Committee headed by Professor Yash Pal, that young children were being unnecessarily burdened with too much academic material in all disciplines, especially in history.


vii

So, at the outset, it was decided that the new national curriculum framework for school education would treat the 1988 recommendation as immutable. It was considered unnecessary and unhealthy to force thick tomes on students when only a maximum of 30 per cent marks could be allocated to each subject. It was suggested that history would be taught as a separate subject only to those who opt for it in the higher secondary classes with a view to pursuing college education in the humanities. In the same way, it was decided to
end teaching physics, chemistry and biology from separate texts up to the secondary stage.

The underlying rationale behind this reform was simple: In the age of information explosion, when basic facts can be accessed far more easily than before, it was no longer necessary to burden school goers with the task of memorising them from voluminous text books. From the standpoint of social justice it was unfair to force youngsters from economically challenged backgrounds to devote so many more hours on learning facts which may not prove useful in the long term. In the vast majority of homes, young people need to carry out household chores, often supplement family earnings, apart from going to school. So, a ``humungous`` syllabus discriminated against them because only children drawn from the creamy layer of society have the luxury to devote long hours each day to follow up at home on what is taught in school. The old policy gave the rich an unfair advantage in the preparation for examinations. In an age where both the parents working is more the norm than exception, it was impossible for the mother to supplement the teacher`s work. This, again, created a hiatus between the competitiveness of the rich and the underprivileged. The middle and upper classes got away by employing private tutors. This too was implied injustice for the vast majority for whom the domestic finances hardly permitted recourse to costly ``coaching classes``, leave alone hiring teachers by the hour. In fact, many of our children are still first generation school-goers with neither parent educated enough to be of help at home.

So, to end this, NCERT decided not only to streamline and update the course content, but also simplify it considerably for secondary students _ provide a level playing field as it were. And not just in the Social Sciences. Generations of students had complained, to no avail, of a fear of mathematics and the complicated content in the sciences. The language learning process had also to be modernised. Undoubtedly, this posed a tough challenge to professional educationists because along with the problems, there was also an awesome diversity of aspirations to consider. Some wanted the course content to be made more ``difficult`` to enable the meritorious achieve higher levels of success in the future, both at home and abroad. One special interest group wanted an


viii

emphasis on the sciences while another stressed the ``new`` concerns like the environment and consumer concerns. There were also the concerns of the new socio-economic reality of the post -1991 economic reforms period. The world at large had expanded as well as shrunk, thanks to the geopolitical and technological factors. In short, it was a complex jumble. It is doubtful whether education planners of any other country had to address so many issues while drafting a new curriculum. Thanks to their professional expertise and dedication, the team inherited by me at NCERT on my assumption of its charge in July 1999, performed outstandingly to develop, in consultation with national and regional authorities on politics, economics, society, commerce and diverse other fields, the NCFSE-2000 whose value has been acknowledged all over the country. But that is a different story.

So, it was clear that there would no longer be history books but history portions for students between Classes VI and X. This necessitated commissioning the writing of new Social Science textbooks which would have to be a collaborative effort by academics drawn from the disciplines of history, geography, civics and economics. With that in view, I approached some of the authors of the existing textbooks as well as other historians, to discuss a new strategy. However, to my dismay, the reaction of the dominating school of historians was entirely negative. Far from appreciating the need for rationalising the course content, they adopted a combative stance built on grounds, which to a physicist like me, were quite confounding (at least at that stage) and beyond the realm of academics. In fact, instead of engaging me, the head of NCERT directly, they rushed to the national and regional media with their concern that the Government, through NCERT, was about to ``change`` , or ``saffronise`` or ``pervert`` or ``corrupt`` or ``communalise`` history. Through interviews and TV talk shows they sought to hammer home their point of view that 1) Indian history has not changed ; 2) It can never change ; 3) The ``Government`` is seeking to ``change`` History ( probably in emulation of Joseph Stalin who liked to say `` History is written by the victor `` ) ; 4) India`s ``composite culture`` would be irreparably harmed because NCERT would bow to fringe elements and introduce communal interpretations of India`s past; and 5) Pressure, both political and judicial, should be brought on NCERT to continue with the old text books which, they believed, have a certain timeless quality about them.

Paranoid hallucinations took over some of these historians, whereas their peers in the disciplines of geography, political science, mathematics, the sciences and languages, reflected the most progressive attitudes. The latter appreciated the need to revise and, often overhaul, the entire course content. With a new millennium approaching, youngsters had to be enriched with a broader vision.


ix

While developing global citizenship values in them, we also had to keep in mind the concern articulated by every generation of parents in India _ to keep the young anchored to our civilisational values.

The second reason for discarding the old books was simple. History, to an extent, permitted by the sanctity of facts, does require frequent revisitations. Those who argue that ``History cannot be changed`` are either professionals of some other discipline or plainly ignorant. Often, facts do get changed in the light of some discovery of fresh material like a book or an archeological site. The excavations at Mohenjodaro and Harappa pushed back the antiquity of India`s history by several millennia.There are numerous other examples, but this is not a document on that subject.

History, as stated by the renowned scholar E.H. Carr, is a continuous dialogue between the present and the past. A common example goes like this : Since you and I were not present a hundred years back, we don`t have first-hand experience of things that happened then. To learn about them we have to rely on material from that age and the interpretations based on them by credible authorities. Often the material, or the interpreter or both, need to be discarded in favour of newly discovered material or a new kind of interpreter. There may be societal, political or even legal reasons behind such reconstructs. For instance, nobody in the Russia of 2003 would be willing to give any credence to the report on the discovery of the bodies of dead Polish officers in the Katyn forest as published in the Pravda of 1941. Why ? Because, Russians have learnt to take the Pravda with oodles of salt over the past six decades. The NCERT history books had been written, as stated before, in the 1960s. Can any professional historian anywhere in the world justify the continuance with them in the 21st Century ? Has the Indian society not undergone change since then? Does the present generation not deserve a fresh re-look at their heritage in the light of new discoveries and path-breaking research? To suggest in the negative would imply that history is static or that Indian historians had been inactive all these years, or both. Quite unacceptable.

The broad heads under which history is taught to students of the higher secondary stage in various Indian school systems are Ancient India, Medieval India, Modern India and Contemporary World. The titles of the NCERT textbooks are compatible with this classification pattern. In each of these areas, scholars have been active not only in India, but abroad too. Indian history, because of its living legacy, is now taught in more and more universities in the western world. To discount the contributions of the new generation of scholars, to ignore the freshness of their approach and punch holes in their analyses only because they are new, would be a horrible shame.


x

I would have been overjoyed had the IHC appreciated this necessity. It was curious that they did not. For, every annual session of this august body sees scholars, newer and newer batches of them, present for wider scrutiny of their dissertations and new publications. So why the reluctance to participate in the new textbook enterprise? Did they feel at any point that status quo ante ought to be maintained where school texts were concerned, reserving the fruits of their dynamic activity to older students? If so, it was most unfortunate. School level history is about all the history that 95 per cent of Indians read. Only a microcosm prefers to study history as an Honours subject even among Humanities under-graduates. If there is such a change-resistant protocol in the IHC, it was time, I decided, a new set of experts had to be approached.

However, the pitch was not queered by NCERT but by the ``eminent historians`` who rally under the IHC`s banner. They continued levelling baseless and ludicrous allegations in the media. The sentiments echoed in Parliament as well where many hours of acrimonious debates was generated over ``saffronisation`` of history _ whatever it meant. ``Eminent historians``, some of the tallest names in Indian scholarship in the past few decades, had spread all kinds of apprehensions about the NCERT`s new texts months ahead of their publication! When they hit the stands, the new books were scrutinised minutely. There was an element of tragi-comedy in the sight of reputed scholars rushing to the Press with the fruits of their nit-picking : a spelling mistake here, an oversight there. Often, their attacks took a personal tone. Every effort was made to damage the image of a national institution like NCERT which has a certain standing in the global family of education research bodies, just because its present Director, for reasons political or otherwise, was not pliable.

But the method behind this dastardly madness was unmistakable. One has to go back a few years in time to understand the context. In the mid-1990s, NCERT expressed a valid concern at the runaway tendency of some spurious publishers to cash in on the demand for history textbooks. Then, as now, history textbooks published by NCERT, despite their high academic standards and the credibility of the authors, had limited penetration all over the country. NCERT books` reach was restricted to schools affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE). It is healthy for each state to have its own textbook publishing tradition. It is only now that states like Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Jharkhand and Haryana are coming forward to adopt /adapt NCERT texts for their state boards. But there is no doubt that history should be taught with a local flavour. The NCERT textbooks are rightly perceived as being ``too national``. The Bengali or Marathi or Himachali child has every right to
know greater details about his own background than what could be afforded by NCERT.


xi

In every department of life, whether economy or polity or gender equity or industry or trade or scientific research or music or medicine or environment awareness ….. ancient period was the most glorious epoch in India`s history. It is part of our common heritage and belongs to every Indian _ irrespective of present religious affiliations. When we see all around us a fixation for ``phoren`` goods and adoration for products of western science, a feeling rightly grows that Indians have forgotten their own past. Who knows, there may be a future in which Indian industry would surge ahead by shedding its slavish reliance on discarded technology from the west, using Indian discoveries authored by Indian scientists. And will that not result in more jobs for Indians of all religious denominations?

Habib & Co. have been slaves of this logic all these years. Muslims and Hindus are equal co-heirs to India`s history, whether ancient, medieval or modern. There is no need to be apologetic for foreign invaders and tyrants like Mahmud of Ghazni or Alauddin Khalji or Babur or Robert Clive or Warren Hastings. These were foreigners who will continue to live in infamy in the Indian mind. The specious plea that Muslim sentiments will be hurt if some foreign invaders are shown in their true colours, actually constitutes an insult to our Muslim brothers and sisters. Why should they answer for the crimes of foreign brigands? Did Indian Muslims not suffer as much as Indian Hindus did under their rule? By the same argument, are we now to write hagiographies for Clive, Hastings and Curzon because Indian Christians may be ``hurt``? And what about our Communists? Are they to answer for the Chinese invasion of 1962 ?

So, recalling our glorious forebears may help us achieve a national goal _ our future generations may be inspired to revive that spirit which somehow got trampled under the hooves of the invaders` horses. Albert Einstein had said, ``We owe to the Indians who taught us how to count, without which no worthwhile scientific discovery could have been made``. William Jones wrote: ``From the Vedas we learn a practical art of surgery, medicine, music, house building under which mechanised art is included. They are encyclopedia of every aspect of life, culture, religion, science, ethics, law, cosmology and metereology``. Arnold Toynbee summed up eloquently: ``A chapter which had a western beginning will have to have an Indian ending. At this supremely dangerous moment in human history, the only way of salvation is the Indian way``.

The fundamentally flawed yardstick for judging what constitutes ``secular history`` did our ``eminent historians`` in. Index, as the detailed riposte of the new NCERT authors included in this publication will bear out, betrayed, if


xii

anything, the insufficient knowledge of its authors. Their denial of certain immutable facts about India`s history, was not based on reason, but polemics. In their zeal, they forgot even what their own fellow travellers and they themselves had written, even in the old NCERT textbooks. This publication contains examples too numerous to quote here, on this aspect.

To top it all, the exercise was not carried out ethically. The authors, all the three of them _ Irfan Habib, Suvira Jaiswal and Aditya Mukherjee _ did not do IHC proud by quoting whole passages from the NCERT texts wrongly and partially. There seems to be a loony fringe or a lowest common denominator out there to cheer every time such a ``passage`` was held up for ridicule. And the language of a most intemperate variety was employed to denigrate the authors in particular and NCERT in general. Condemning a fellow historian, even if perceived as ``inferior``, with terms like ``barbarian``, `` woolly-headed``, ``must be day-dreaming``, etc. casts the ``eminent critics`` in poor light. Such practices were the hallmark of the intellectual gangsterism employed by totalitarian establishments to suppress dissent. But it would not work in free societies. The Executive of IHC certainly owes the nation an explanation if not an apology for clearing these phrases for publication. After all, the use of the word ``Indian`` lends to its name , at least to the uninitiated, a near official aura. If, on the other hand, other prefixes like ``Democratic`` had been used, one could have accommodated such vituperative remarks. It needs to be pointed out here that at least one of the authors of Index was present in the NCERT Committee which examined ``communal`` text books in the mid-1990s. Experience should have taught him that such skewed yardsticks cannot produce any acceptable logic.

This time, however, he has identified the ghost. The Sangh Parivar. ``The textbooks draw heavily on the kind of propaganda that the so-called Sangh Parivar publications have been projecting for quite some time``, the Report says before proceeding to ``sum up`` under 13 heads, what in IHC`s view, constitutes the flawed approach of the NCERT texts. But, as our authors will bear me out in the related Chapters, not one passage in these books has been sourced from any non-historical material. Most of the time, they have referred to the works of Romila Thapar, R.S. Sharma, Irfan Habib himself, D.C. Sircar R.C. Majumdar, Jadunath Sarkar, Jawaharlal Nehru, Mahatma Gandhi, Servapalli Radhakrishnan, Sumit Sarkar and a number of foreign scholars. There is no basis for the allegation that the publications of the Sangh Parivar have been sourced. Now, if the Sangh Parivar`s publications have referred to Romila Thapar or R. S. Sharma, or the latter have referred to the former, NCERT cannot be held responsible. In Index, Habib hectors ad infinitum on


xiii

the unacceptability of this line in Ancient India and that in Medieval India, but the authors have sprung a neat surprise on him. Often, as in Medieval India, the statement objected to had been quoted from a work by Habib himself. In other times, Habib has implicitly rubbished the works of other eminent historians like Thapar, Chandra and Sarkar. Indeed, the new NCERT texts are not vastly different from the old ones on this score. If the facts were ``secular`` then, how could they be transformed into ``communal`` now? This is something our illustrious historians have got to answer for.

So, it is now clear that he and his ilk had been up to some game all these years. They have revealed this while condemning the new authors on their ``wrongs``. Like school masters evaluating answer scripts, Habib & Co. have sought to ``mark`` NCERT on the new books _ virtually a ``B`` here and a ``C`` there and a ``D`` on the whole _ but in the process, only ended up corroborating the old adage ``Who will judge the judge ?`` Index, with its pockmarked contentions and obtuse grammar, is a shabby give away. Generations of Indians had been cheated of the right knowledge about their 9,000-year history. If, as the Index claims, NCERT is ``distorting history``, it is only because of the statements its books have borrowed from the works approved by IHC. If we are wrong today, it is only because they were wrong yesterday. So, this brouhaha over ``saffronisation`` has produced positive results after all. India`s history is a fit case for general overhaul. It is time we undid the damage surreptitiously perpetrated through the past 30-35 years of Marxist domination of this academic discipline.

What did they have to gain by suppressing from the public domain the findings of research activity which effectively rang the curtains on the impugned Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) ? Even the redoubtable Romila Thapar would not venture to say today with the old confidence that the AIT is any more valid than other discarded contentions. Yet, why does Habib continue to harp on it? To say that the NCERT books show ``no concern`` for people speaking ``Dravidian and Austro-Asiatic languages`` is blatant misrepresentation which has been accounted for by the concerned historian elsewhere in this book.

The 13 points raised by the authors` Index only contribute to the chargesheet against their professional honesty, apart from competence. I know I am in
a dangerous territory here. Questioning the credentials of Prof. Habib and his ilk would be tantamount to blasphemy in certain scholarly circles. But being a man of science, questioning the saints is part-habit to me. Science is so sacred to me that anything not based upon evidence naturally drops into my radar screen. I am willing to accept circumstantial evidence, even the near-scientific basis of certain inexplicable phenomenon, but certainly not bogus claims. When


xiv

NCERT began the exercise of rewriting textbooks, all textbooks, my singular request to the authors was to write the books based on well established facts and evidence. Even though each word written in this book here is the author`s individual view and response to the IHC criticism, I am sure by writing this they were not merely giving clarifications but had the interest of the school children at heart. This has resulted in unprecedented acceptability of the new syllabi and textbooks based on them. The Indian school system can now count on the backup support from first-rate institutional backup where research, training and publication are concerned. Even those public personalities who formerly subscribed to the rhetoric over ``saffronisation`` are now unshackling themselves and reflecting their pride in this truly national institution. And why should they not ? After all, those who prescribe and proscribe are doomed to be washed away by history. The IHC had better take note of this truism.

J.S. Rajput

Director

New Delhi National Council of Educational

August

jang bhai, for u:

Guest lecturer (at Dartomouth) Romila Thapar painted a bleak picture of India`s religious distortions of Indian history Monday.

Thapar focused her lecture on the ``centrality of historiography,`` and the need for a more analytical investigation of the history presented in school textbooks. She also highlighted the desire of the majority to create a ``religious nationalism`` that prescribed an ``Us versus Them`` conflict. Drawing on parallels to American cultural discord, she spoke at length on the shortcomings of a partial recount of history as a way to define a national identity.

Thapar argued that in India, each new political regime has replaced history textbooks by ``government fiat,`` without the consultation of the educational board designed to oversee such decisions. Rather than expanding on the previously used texts, the government has printed new versions that omit historical events not corresponding to the prescribed national identity; texts containing what Thapar labeled ``updated, refereed knowledge.``

Indian religious nationalists are the latest group to rewrite historical textbooks in an effort to further their ideas of Indian national identity. Their view of ``religious nationalism,`` Thapar claimed, sets up a division between the ``self`` and the ``other,`` and these terms must then be defined by the narratives of history textbooks.


Thapar elaborated on the cultural and historical context surrounding the Indian national identity, portraying the current regime`s view of ``self`` as India`s Hindi majority and the ``other`` as the Muslim minority, part of which broke off to form Pakistan in 1947.

Thapar argued that the nationalist view of India as a Hindu ``monolithic religious community`` led to the development of a ``Hindutva ideology;`` an ecclesiastical belief in which one national religion triumphs --Hindu -- and other religions are considered foreign.

She stated that ``politicizing religion marginalizes social inequalities,`` and criticized Hindutva because ``empowerment of the weak has no place in this ideology.``

Underlying Professor Thapar`s message on the dangers of religious nationalism was the idea that India is in the midst of ``post colonialism`` defined by the ``dissembling of colonial institutions as well as a dialogue with its colonial past.`` But Thapar did not view India`s situation as a dialogue, rather as a ``borrowing of the colonial past.`` That is, India is not learning from its colonial errors, but rather repeating the same mistakes.

Thapar concluded her lecture with a number of caveats. She advised that history ``must be rewritten`` because it is not a ``frozen body of knowledge,`` and that one must view history ``as a process, not a narrative of events.``

She closed with the line, ``It is not enough to understand what is happening, it is also necessary to change it.``

Thapar, who teaches at Jawarhalal Nehru University in India, was brought to campus to deliver this year`s Robert F. Allabaugh Class of 1934 Memorial Lecture.

jang bhai, aur specifics post karoon or is that all? let me know dearie :)


In the Name of History

Examples from Hindutva-inspired school textbooks in India

Communal historiography is quite old in India but the new additions reflect greater contemporary use in dividing society along communal lines. They are also stronger in the language and expressions used. Communal bias is woven into school textbooks with preposterous ëfactsí in a way that can only have dangerous consequences for the educational standards in this country.

In the name of curriculum reform there is an attempt to rewrite textbooks along communal lines on a scale that will submerge all secular interpretations in school level teaching. A whole generation would grow up with their collective memory of a shared heritage destroyed and with ideas and information that have no basis in reality. A successful implementation of these texts on a widespread scale will mean the triumph of unreason as well as a tremendous and sudden deterioration in the quality of education, where the minimum criteria of correct empirical data and a scientific temper and reason are thrown to the winds. Our children will be little suited to face the real world or the world of scholarship


These books already form an integral portion of the curriculum in the 20,000 or more Vidya Bharati schools and also the Shishu Mandirs. The introduction of these texts into the Government schools in the BJP ruled states has massively increased the number of children who are being being made victims of this second rate and poisonous ëknowledgeí The take over of educational bodies from the highest levels to those determining the syllabi in schools, will carry this wave of fascist propaganda into the entire educational process. Coupled with other forms of popular education they could change our entire ways of looking at ourselves, and also propel our political visions along fascist rather than democratic lines.

We give below a sampling of these texts:



SOME GEMS FROM THE SANSKRIT GYAN TEXTS


Sanskrit Gyan texts are taught in Vidya Bharati schools and Shishu Mandirs. The recent RSS sponsored agenda paper on education that the Central Government tried to present before the Conference of the State Education Ministers suggested that these and similar texts be made compulsory for all schools.

The students are tested on dubious ëfactsí such as:

Ram Janmabhoomi is the birthplace of Ram.

Iran was first settled by Indians (Aryans).

Homer adapted Valmikiís Ramayana into an epic called Iliad.

Greek philosophers like Herodotus and Aristophanes were influenced by the Vedas.

The Egyptian faith was based on Indian traditions according to Plato and Pythagorus.

The language of the Native American Indians evolved from ancient Indian languages.

The cow is the mother of us all, in whose body Gods are believed to reside.

The Ayurveda is the finest medical system of the world, and it naturally evolved in India

Jesus Christ roamed the Himalayas and drew his ideas from Hinduism.

In the text books distributed in Vidya Bharti schools the map of India is shown as including not only Pakistan and Bangladesh but also the entire region of Bhutan, Nepal, Tibet and even parts of Myanmar ( ``punnya bhoomi Bharat`` )

A SAMPLE FROM THE HISTORY TEXTS



These texts are being used in Shishu Mandirs and Government Schools in BJP controlled states.


Ancient history:

Rama and Krishna took birth here to destroy evil and defend justice, religion and Sarasvati, and god took birth here many times to make this land pure. India is referred to as Sone ki chiriya and jagadguru( p 4 ,Gaurav Gatha (henceforth GG), the textbook for Class 4, Sarasvati Shishu Mandir, written in an extremely emotional and provocative style.)


Our land has always been seen with greedy eyes by the marauders, barbarous invaders and oppressive rulers. This story of invasion and resistance is our 3000 year long Gaurav Gatha . When this proud tradition actually began is difficult to say because no books were written at that timeÖbut we believe that the first man was born in this land(p. 8 GG)


To our ancestors these marauders were like mosquitoes and flies who were crushed (p. 8 GG)

Bacchus and Dionysis, among the earliest invaders, suffered such a defeat that feelings of terror ran in Greece(p. 9, GG) Darius had to face such a defeat that never could Iran raise its eyes towards India (p. 10 GG)


About 2200 years ago Indiaís trade was spread far and wide; foreign markets were filled with goods made in India. Heaps of gems and jewels and gold and silver filled the treasures People of the entire world used to look to India rith greedy eyes(p. 12 GG)


Mahapadma Nanda had so much wealth that if divided among the population, every person would get Rs. 50 lakhs each (p. 13 GG)


Alexanderís army was defeated at the hands of Puru and Alexander himself had to seek forgiveness(p., 15 GG)


Then came Demetrius Öthe preaching of ahimsa had weakened North India. The Kshatriyas--followers of the Vedic religion were-feeling frustratedÖ.the ruler of Magadha was a Buddhist. So he did not come forward to fight. But then was the country enslaved/ Did the enemy become victorious in the birthplace of Bhagwan Rama? No, no (p. 31, GG)


Pushyamitra destroyed the Greeks. After this the people of Greece could not attack Bharat Later they came only as refugees. As beggars they begged for their lives but never dared to look with proud eyesÖthe great man who destroyed the Greek power from its very roots was emperor Pushyamitra. India is proud of him even today. Every day we remember his name.(p. 35-37, GG)


Asoka advocated ahimsa. Every kind of violence came to be considered a crime. Even hunting, sacrifices in yajnas and use of arms began to be considered bad. It had a bad effect on the army. Cowardice slowly spread throughout the kingdom. The state bore the burden of providing food to the Buddhist monks. Therefore people began to become monks. Victory through arms began to be viewed as bad, Soldiers guarding the borders became demoralised. (p. 30, GG)


With the finds of bones of horses, their toys and yajna altars, scholars are beginning to believe that the people of the Harappa and Vedic civilisation were the same. (High School Itihaas Bhaag (henceforth HSIB)1, p. 43, history textbook for secondary schools, Government of U. P. revised in 1992 to suit the communal interpretations of Indian history. This book seals with the history of India from pre- historic times to 1526.)


Aryan culture is the nucleus of Indian culture, and the Aryans were an indigenous race. `` But about the Aryans who were the builders of Bharatiya Sanskriti in Bharat and creators of the Vedas, this view is gaining strength among the scholars in the country that India itself was the original home of the Aryans.``(P. 48, HSIB 1.) Archaeological and literary evidence does not support this theory.


Chanakya desired to ``see the entire Bharat united into one nation.``(P. 77, HSIB 1) empire building is deliberately confused with nationhood.


In a revised textbook three lines have been interpolated which reflect an utter disregard for facts. These lines are``It is worth mentioning that inspite of such a large empire, Asoka had got his edicts engraved only in one script (Brahmi) and one language Pakti-Sanskrit). This symbolises the national unity of the times``.


The entire period of Indian history from the death of Harsha till the 12th century has been described as the Rajput kaal (p. 168).


The qualities of ancient traditional self-pride, love of freedom, the feeling of pride towards Indian culture among Rajputs confirm the view that the Rajput race is the descendent of ancient Kshatriya families (p. 170 HSIB 1). That they had their ancestry in certain invaders is dismissed as a conspiracy of western historians.


Medieval history:
The religious factor was the predominant factor in policies and conflicts throughout the medieval period
Muslim rule in India was a foreign rule ( the reference is to the medieval period of Indian history when the rulers were Muslims, although factually even this is incorrect if one takes the entire country into account)
Lakhs of foreigners came during these thousands of yearsÖbut they all suffered humiliating defeatÖ.There were some whom we digestedÖwhen we were disunited , we failed to recognise who were our own and who were foreigners, then we were not able to digest them. We were not able even those who for some compulsion had separated from us. Mughals, Pathans and Christians are today some of these people.`` ( Itihaas Ga Raha Hai for Class5 in Shishu Mandir schools)
Islam spread in India solely by way of the sword. The Muslims came to India ``with the sword in one hand and the Qoran in the other``Ö"Numberless Hindus were forcibly converted to Islam on the point of the sword. This struggle for freedom became a religious war, Numerous sacrifices were made in the name of religion. We went on winning one battle after another. We did not let the foreign rulers settle down to rule, but we were not able to reconvert the separated brothers to Hinduism.``( Itihaas Gaa Raha Hai)
Arabs (barbarians) came to convert people to their religion. Wherever they went, they had a sword in their hand. Their army went like a storm in all the four directions. Any country that came in their way was destroyed, Houses of prayers and universities were destroyed. Libraries were burnt.. religious books were destroyed. Mothers and sisters were humiliated. Mercy and justice were unknown to them. (p.s.52-53 GG)
The second phase of the freedom struggle began with the invasion of India by Mahmud of Ghazni (Gaurav Gatha Class 4)
Mohammad Ghori killed lakhs of people, Visvanath Temple and Bhagwan Krishnaís birth place were converted into mosques. In turn he was killed by Prithviraj Chauhan( p.s. 67-68, GG )
Qutb Minar was constructed by Samundragupta, and its original name was Vushnu Sthambha ( p. 73, GG)).
The ëforeigní ruler Muhammad bin Tughlak transferred his capital from Delhi to Deogiri in South India out of fear of the Hindu kings (p. 73, GG ).
When Peshava Madhav Rao came to the throne no one could raise his eyes. The English, the French and the Portuguese shivered; they presented gifts in homage in his court with their heads bowed. Delhiís emperor was his puppet. Moghul power had ended. Nizam and other Muslim states with bowed heads sought his (Peshavaís ) refuge. The entire country was in a sense independent (p. 111 GG)
Due to the circumstances, it ( Islam )gradually assumed the form of a military religion ( sainik dharma) and with the force of arms, with a lightening speed it advanced and became an international religion.( p. 184, HSIB 1)


Now the sword of Islam was transferred from the Caliphs to the Turks (p. 189, HSIB 1)

The aim of Mahmud of Ghazni and Mohammed Ghori in coming to India , apart from plunder was the spread of Islam in India(p.s. 190, 195, HSIB1).


Allauddin imposed 50% land revenue on the Hindus. ( p. 228 HSIB 1).


Hindus acceptd turkish political supremacy only under compulsion. They retained their identity even while leading the life of insult and humiliation. (p. 260 HSIB 1).


Most of the Sultans adopted a policy of religious intolerance. They commited atrocities against hindus, demolished idols and temples.because of this the Hindus had surrendered to the Sultanate but they were always making efforts to destroy the Sultanate ( p.278 HSIB 1 )


The followers of Islam in this country whether they came as traders or as invaders-but with this country they could never establish full cultural harmony. One basic reason for their seperateness was the basic principle of their religion which is monotheismÖthere was continuous mutual struggle between the two cultures (p. 280, HSIB 1)


The indian society during the Sultanate period was divided into two main classes-ruling or muslim classes and ruled or non-Muslims of whom the Hindus were the majority) the majority of the population of the state was hindu but the Muslim class was patronised by rulers. Hindu was merely the payer of taxes . Inspite of being conquered in the political field, Hindus did not lose courage. To regain their lost independence, they went on raising their voices from time to time. Because of this historians have called it the ``period of resistance``. (p. 281, p. 283, HSIB 1)


In India the nature of the mussalman state was a religious state (p.282, HSIB 1)


By adopting jauhar vrat, women defended their religion and chastity.(p. 183 HSIB1)


Child marriage, jauhar, sati, purdah, jadu-tona and superstition were all due to the fear of the muslims (p.,. 284 HSIB 1)
The Babri Mosque was constructed after destroying a temple, which in turn stood on the exact spot where Rama was born.( High School Itihaas Bhaag 2, p. 146. This book covers the period from invasion of Babur to recent events)


The epithet intolerant is constantly used for Jahangir, Shah Jahan and Aurangzeb


The Qoran was the basis for the state policy of Aurangzeb, and whatever policy was adopted for running the Government was basically for promoting Islam9 HSIB 2, p. 119)


Destruction of temples and schools attached to them and the building of mosques in their place was a general policy with Aurangzeb .(HSIB 2 p. 120)

Shivaji and Rana Pratap were fighters for national liberation. All the ëHinduí kings who fought for their kingdoms against the Moghuls are presented as such.
In the text books from Maharashtra, the medieval history of Maharashtra begins and ends with Shivaji. All other historical figures exist only in reference to him.


Modern Indian history:
About 190 pages of the book deal with the history of modern India, of which only 20 pages are devoted to the nationalist movement (HSIB 2), of which 3 pages are devoted to Dr. Hedgewar. Important nationalist leaders are mentioned incidentally in comparison. Quit India movement has 1/2 page, Jinnah is the villian.


Although there are 60 pages on the entry of the British and establishment of british rule, there is nothing that would promote an understanding of colonialism (HSIB 2)


Peoples movements find no place.


The book is full of factual errors, inconsistencies, and chronological lapses.


The Muslims are solely blamed for the partition of India.


The RSS as an organisation is presented as central to the Freedom Movement. Dr. Keshavrao B. Hegdewar is one of the tallest leaders of the freedom struggle. Statements of a large number of national leaders have been quoted in praise of the RSS.


In the section dealing with the movement against the partition of Bengal the name of Hegdewar has been added as a leader of the movement, the other names mentioned being those of Tilak, Aurobindo Ghose, Lajpat Rai and Bipin Chandra Pal.


In the context of the civil disobedience movement there is no mention of the Lahore Congress or Purna Swaraj.


The shishu mandir text book is worse on all these counts, and the RSS and its leaders are said to have removed the evils which hundreds of years of slavery had givenÖthis Sangathan became an object of pride for the country ( p. 86 )


SUBSTANTIAL amendments and additions that suit the RSS ideology have also been made in grammar, literature and political science books for Classes IX, X, XI and XII in Rajasthan.
In one of the texts, ``A New Collection of Poems and Literary Writings`` (Nutan Gadya Padya Sangrah--the original title in Hindi), prescribed for Class IX, there are, among others, four articles, one each by Prof. Rajendra Singh (Rajju Bhaiya), RSS chief; Tarun Vijay, editor of the RSS weekly Panchajanya; K.C. Sudarshan, also an RSS ideologue; and Dr. Jalamsingh Ravlot of the Swadeshi Jagran Manch. All four articles were added this year.


In a textbook for Class XI, titled Political Science - An Introduction and Indian Political Thinkers, a chapter on Deen Dayal Upadhyay has been added. This 1998-99 edition describes him as a person who had deep respect for ``ancient and highly sophisticated culture of India``, who envisaged an ``ideal Dharmarajya`` and who was upset that ``while designing the Indian Constitution, the natural and national values had been ignored.`` The 20-page section highlights his belief in ``Akhand Bharat`` which was all for dissolving the 1947 Partition and cites the occasion in April 1964 when he along with Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia conceived of a ``Mahasangh`` in which India and the partitioned countries (Pakistan and Bangladesh) would be included.


Rana Pratapís heroic deeds are the subject of a poem in the High school Hindi syllabus. The poem Haldighati, written by Shyam Narain Pandey was banned in 1975 as it was found to incite communal feelings.

---

Bred on hatred, ready for the Bomb

Be it India or pakistan, the state, the mainline media, teachers and text- books, and the family connive to poison young minds


However different the focus and approach of over 28 different peoplesíñlevel peace efforts between Pakistan and India in the past half century, it is not insignificant that scores of individuals and organisations involved in these efforts have, while owing allegiance to varied initiatives thrown up similar conclusions.

A common resolution at the end of every IndiañPak peace conference is to work towards a winding down of the hate/hysteria consciously spawned about ìthe otherî by the respective states of India and Pakistan, by large sections of the mainline media of both countries, and, most spuriously, by our respective text books and oral education in schools. The rather less visible but more permanent impact of prejudice and stereotype unleashed within the family is a factor that also needs to be taken into consideration.

The fact that the Pakistan-India rhetoric often gets blurred and confused into the dialectics of the MuslimñHindu discourse with its own set of imposed prejudices is, in a sense, unavoidable given the peculiar circumstances behind the creation of both countries, a division of two nation states on communal lines. So, if Pakistan was sought and attained as a ìland of the pureî for Muslims, postñ1947, community lore in majority India, spawned consciously and systematically by Hindu right wing organisations like the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the Hindu Mahasabha, has created an army of young minds, prepared to hold and defend the motherlandís honour (from future divisions) for whom the country carved out was ìPaapistanî (land of the sinner) and remains as such, sinister in design, even today.

Pakistanís text books manipulated history and even systematically demonised any evidences of composite cultures or united struggles or shared allegiances of region or language outside religion. But ours have not been unblemished either. If the shared history of several thousand years was sought to be overlooked by the systematic attempt to Islamise history in Pakistan, a process during which even the word ëHinduí was demonised, our own systematic efforts, at one level more subtle, at another as crude, have not been unblemished.

Columns on these pages in the past have dealt with the demonisation of todayís Indian Muslims and the marginalisation of other minorities through, among other things, the systematic manipulation and distortion of historical events (ìinvasions and attacks by Mohammedansî among other things) and images to suit the Hindu communal design. For todayís argument, however, I shall restrict myself to the Pakistan-India discourse and attempt to show how even ìsuperior and magnanimous Indiaís text-booksî have not just been singularly wanting but served the overall purpose of both nation states postñ1947 ó that is, keeping hate sentiments on the boil. A book of national songs (ìHamare rashtra geetî) used in schools and recommended in the curriculum in New Delhi and some parts of Uttar Pradesh has two songs that bear mention. One, called Pakistan ki jhanki (A glimpse of Pakistan) and the other titled Pakistan ki history (The history of Pakistan.) seek to whip up sustained contempt and aversion to a neighbour, ìa country of the devil carved out of the motherland.

Hamara Itihas aur Nagrik Jeevan, (Our history and civic life), the part 3 text book for schools in UP has a chapter, number 13, on ìOur Neighbouring Countries.î After lamenting at the outset of this section that poverty, famine, drought and disease are the outcomes of war, the first para concludes: ìat the time of the 1962 IndoñChina and 1965 and 1971 IndoñPak wars, it is evident that it was because of the selfishness of the leaders of our neighbouring countries and their expansionist policies that they declared war on our great, peaceñloving nation and disrupted our progress.î

In the subñsection in the same chapter that deals with Pakistan particularly, the text book reads: ìPakistan is our closest neighbour. Before Independence, a part of India...To date, the history of Pakistan is one of sectarian strife, political assassination, individual aggrandisement and conflict..... Fundamentalism, fanatical sloganeering and mass hysteria have marked Pakistanís governance. Its leaders have used such sloganeering to divert the attention of their toiling masses from real issues...India has always believed, and followed a policy that it is only through friendship and coñoperation that India and Pakistan can progress. Even today we carry the hope our relations with Pakistan improve and both developing nations grow with speed towards prosperity.î

Do these words display scant honesty to facts and a fair share of superiority? Has the Indian leadership always been magnanimous in extending a hand of friendship to the land and people across the border? Was the 1971 war launched by Pakistan? Did former prime minister Indira Gandhi and now Atal Behari Vajpayee never use the forever convenient ìexternal threatî to let loose a fear psychosis, win an election, declare Emergency, test the bomb?

Our hope however is the minds of the young. The great thing about young minds is their hyperñactiveness, their abiding curiosity, their desire to shock and scandalise and ó what may defy any such demonising efforts eventually ó their ability to pursue a strand of thought that challenges them to take a fresh or new direction. The rider however is that one makes sustained and consistent efforts to open channels of communication with them.

That has been my experience with Aman, the South Asia studies and Peacepals programme. Launched on a hunch with the abiding support of Mrs. Gomti Venkateshwar, former principal of the Bombay International School, Mumbai and Mr. Sami Mustafa, principal of the Centre for Advanced Studies, Karachi, we have together ensured that over 75 children between Karachi and Mumbai are in regular touch with each other. Writing letters, asking questions, having arguments and disagreements even... but communicating.

How did we begin? It was close to August 1996, the onset of the 50th year of Independence for both countries. Through my research for Khoj, the secular education module that is being compiled, and my obsession for different facets of the struggle for Independence against the British, gross lacunae in our printed textñbooks had begun to stare me in the face.

Believe it or not, despite half a million lives lost and over eight hundred thousand persons displaced during partition, followed by a half century of reflection on the tragedy, our text books and our teachers had nothing more than trite phrases laced with the ever-prevalent prejudice to offer to future generations on Partition.

A period that had caused unimaginable trauma and displacement, scarred lives, distorted visions, even reassured some with hope in humanity. But we refused to impart fair and evenñhanded knowledge to our children. Formation of the Muslim League, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, Lahore Declaration, Direct Action Day ó these are the four subñheads with three paras each that we deal with the entire period. The result? Confusions, question marks, ripe condition for manipulation and prejudice coming from other sources to breed.

We were going into the 50th year of independence of both countries. What better start to the next 50 years than opening up a channel of communication between some children of India and Pakistan. Freeing them of ìourî, ìthe adultî burden that we have been forcing them to carry all these years, and allowing them, as all genuine learning should, to make their own choices, ask their own questions, make up their own minds.

I asked one batch of the children at BIS in Mumbai if they would like to write to children in Pakistan, become penpals with them. On two conditions, was the startling, but actually predictable, reply: Provided you first do a module on Partition ó why, how, what happened? And Kashmir ó why and what is happening with us? Done. We had a detailed discussion on the two subjects requested and animated, excited and endless discussions that followed. Only after that did the Peacepals exchange begin. It is, fortunately, still continuing.

What is as heartening is that through CCís Learning pages and Khoj pull-out (it will resume next month), the message of Aman has spread to a wide network of readers. And youngsters ó who have joined in the Aman exchange, desirous of a friend across the border, perturbed by the latest round of hateñmongering which has reached unprecedented proportions with the testing of nuclear bombs by first India and then Pakistan ó write to us every month.

Apart from Syed Hasan Zia Rizvi of Class VIIís touching poem that we reproduce next month on the Khoj pullñout pages in full, Aahana Nivedhitaís prompt and short letter is telling (see quote). After outlining her address, her hobbies etc, she pours her heart out.

We share your concern and sense of disquiet, Syed Hasan and Aahana. And if the little that we are attempting helps stem your distress and emboldens you to share your feelings that appear to swim against the tide, our efforts would have been meaningful. Thatís when we may together realise that it is we who speak for the majority, not they.



Teesta Setalvad

Omar,

Good thing you wrote all these questions down from this government math book. I am quite saddened to read them. Its very disappointing to see that Pakistani kids are taught a subject like math in this manner. The government really needs to do something about the education policy. But looking at some of Pakistan`s education officials, its going to be a really tough job.

They can start by burning all copies of ``Afaq Mathematics-2``.

jang,

True enough, LOL.

---

gujju,

``Most Indian muslims dont really consider themselves to be `Indian`. ``

Correction....those like yourself don`t consider Muslims to be ``Indian``, and equate Indianness to your narrow world view. Hence, anyone who fails to adopt this world view is branded anti-India.

Indian Muslims are Indian by birthright and geographical fact...what a nasty dilemma that must be for you. How to strip these people of their own claims to the country? By disowning them...but how? Can`t do it, because you`re not in a position to disown. Ownership of `Indianness` by this group belongs to them alone. They feel what they feel.

Well, wouldn`t it be nice if they would simply forfeit that claim....ahhh...that`s a dream come true. But who`s to let reality stand in the way of a good dream? What better way to mobilize support for `helping` these people in forfeiting their birthright than to propagate the myth that it`s by their own wish - even when they say it`s not, we should take note and understand that this is their true desire.

What better way to deal with these people with foreign names, and a foreign God who dare call themselves Indian. What a pleasant way to purge the impurities from mother-India`s blood, no?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#68 by vertex

``then Indians can do the same in Bollywood, whose patriotic propaganda is most likely far worse due to it`s reach and influence. ``

bollywood is very opportunistic and commercial..if they start getting royaltees from pakistan, i am sure the propaganda will go down. The current bollywood anyways is far from spewing anti-pakistan hatred..have you seen Khakhee or Mein Hoo Na? They will bring tears to your eyes (heh heh..all bollywood movies bring tears to my eyes but that is a different thing).

Ralph,

That`s a load of CRAP. When the likes of Bernard Lewis and all use the term, it is in the academic sense. There is no particular ideological baggage with the term. Like it or not, it`s a natural grouping.

---

Yarr, Muslims are not neccessarily for peace...no doubt many would take great pleasure in exterminating bigoted vermin like yourself. No doubt you would make a great villan in these non-exisant bollywood movies you talk about.

jang #63

So the issues that warranted excision of passages from the NCERT-approved textbooks seem to be:

Beef-eating and killing of cows in the Vedic period (a well-known parivari obsession)
Presence of the horse in the chalcolithic age
Historicity of the Hindu epics and accuracy of dynastic chronology in the Puranas
Socio-economic factors behind the rise of the Sramanic traditions
Purported origins of caste
Some passages which might arguably be offensive to Jats; Sikhs; Jains (?)

Were changes actually made in the printed books?

Do the state boards have their own textbooks? (I guess so). How do they read, in Gujarat, in West Bengal?

I would also be extremely interested to know how the migrations/incursions/invasions of Kushans, Scythians, Sakas, Hepthalites into India have been treated in textbooks at various levels – specifically, what became of these people in subsequent centuries.