Textbook Questions

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

#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

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.

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.

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 --

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.

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.

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.

Sadna,

``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.``

Two wrongs don`t make a right. This will be a huge mistake. Just because the Pakistani education system is messed up doesn`t mean that India takes the plunge too. Do you forget the 130-140 million Indian Muslims? What will be the effect on them if Indian textbooks start counting Muslim corpses?

I haven`t seen any Indian textbooks, but i doubt the Indians would be that stupid. Keeping in mind India`s diversity, this would be an act of lunacy.

This is the link to a Brookings Institute discussion on the Pakistani (and Afghan) education system. Forget the Afghan part, just read the Pakistan-specific discussion. Shahid Burki has some good things to say along with the others.

A lot of Madrassahs have to be closed down, but it seems that General Musharraf does not have the will to do that. It is also time Pakistanis stop crying about the Ummah and concentrate on themselves.

http://www.brook.edu/comm/transcripts/20011217.htm

NHK:

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

When India was divided, Jinnah did not want either part to be called India; instead he wanted them to be called Hindustan and Pakistan. The Indian leaders successfully insisted on retaining the name ``India/Bharat`` for their part. I presume that Nehru wanted to avoid the name Hindustan in order to avoid the notion that the new country belonged to the Hindus only.

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

This is the position of the BJP/RSS. They would want Muslims to think of themselves as Hindus who believe in Prophet Mohammad, Christians who believe in Jesus as son of God, and so on.

``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.``

This is again the BJP/RSS position. I think this is only partly true for two reasons: One, Mahabharta and Ramayana, in addition to being cultural heritage, also are full of religious significance for the Hindus; secondly, one cannot thrust cultural heritage on someone who rejects it, this is the case of the Indian religious minorities in general and Muslims in particular.

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

I am not aware of Brahminism as religion, although the term is frequently used by leftists and western scholars to emphasise the position of supremacy accorded to the brahmins in the Hindu caste system. Hindus can be more properly categorised as shaivites, vaishnavites, Kali worshippers, arya samajists, sanatanists, sai followers, etc.

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

Once again, a page from the BJP/RSS philosophy!

If you want to open a Pakistani branch of the BJP, contact party chairman Venkiah Naidu at Ashoka Road, New Delhi. :-)

Mr. Qureshi

Do you actually expect Indians on Chowk or otherwise to pay attention to communist rantings? This person talks about populist radicalism and revolutionary class outlook. Do you subscribe to communists beliefs? Have you worked for the establishment of communism in Pakistan and the banishment of all traces of Islam from public life? Assuming your position in a mainstream Pakistani paper, I would assumer not. Then where do you get off telling us to follow the thoughts of communists. At least Indians preach the examples of secularism and democracy to Pakistan, principles that are at least attempted in our polity and our guiding objectives. I would rather have a Urstruly talk to me about the benefits of a truly Islamic country/system then have a non-communist pass on leftist articles for my benefit. The latter is rank hypocricy.

stuka

please do not cite my example. Very recently on another board I have been told by a Hindu and a Pakistani at the same time that I am a hypocrite as well. Both of them disagree with my point of view but cannot refute it. So the easy way out is to call me a hypocrite and go about their business.

Urstruly:

I disagree with you as well but you espouse a certain cause openly. What hypocrisy were you accused off?

stuka

espousing that certain cause

omar Q

Thanks for the long postings. i was hoping for some specific excerpts along with your editorial remarks showing how the books spout hatred. I am still unable to understand how NCERT books (i.e. the govt books) teach any hatred, even after ``saffronization``. In Rajput`s letter (which I am sure you found on the link I provided), all I see is spirit of open discussion. Are you perhaps upset that one of the authors Rajput challenges is a muslim (Habib?). In that case, you are off mark.

Thanks again, but I was hoping for something original, considering you are a journalist, and perhaps have access to some material not accessible or already known to us.

Sangh Parivar gaurav-gatha etc is not a govt book, and any group in India is allowed to glorify anything they wish at their expense (freedom of association). They can glorify greatness of Church of England, the Vatican, Lenin (or Stalin), Michael Jackson, Moses or Imam Ali. In fact, there are some extremely popular comic books called ``Amar Chitra Katha`` (nothing govt), which write obout everythign from battles of Md. Ghauri and P. Chauvan, to exploits of the very-happening Hanuman. Nothing to get all upset about. And I must say, the comic book does not say anything nice about Ghauri.


http://www.indiaplaza.com/catalog/books+software/books_catalog.asp?catid=1539&subcatid=107&majorcat=books&subcat=books&place=US