The New Education Policy (2020) is being implemented gradually. Among other things, it has focused on Indian knowledge systems and Indian traditions. The changes related to history have deleted the Delhi Sultanate and Mughal rule from textbooks. A significant seven centuries of history have been relegated to obscurity — a considerable period by any standard.
While the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) had previously trimmed sections on the Mughals and the Delhi Sultanate — including detailed accounts of dynasties like the Tughlaqs, Khaljis, Mamluks, and Lodis, and a two-page table on Mughal emperors' achievements — as part of syllabus rationalization during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2022–23, the new textbook has now removed all references to them.
All references to the Delhi Sultanate and Mughal rulers have been deleted from the 7th standard textbook. In addition, references to Muslim rule in other books have also been removed. What has also been deleted are references to the post-Mumbai riots (1992–93), the post-Gujarat violence (2002), Nathuram Godse being a trained pracharak of the RSS, the ban on the RSS after Gandhi's assassination, among others. While the Kumbh Mela finds a place in the curriculum, references to stampedes that caused many deaths, such as the one at Delhi station, have been omitted.
All of this began during the COVID period, when the stated reason was to reduce the burden on students. This was followed by ‘rationalization,’ which effectively meant the deletion of content that did not align with Hindu nationalist ideology.
In order to demonize Muslims and spread hatred against them, Mughals have been portrayed as major villains in our history. Earlier kings like Alauddin Khilji have also been targeted by the Hindutva narrative. Previously, the demonization of Muslims revolved around temple destruction by Muslim kings — a claim contested by rational historians. Another pillar of this narrative was the idea that Muslim kings spread Islam by the sword. This notion is fundamentally flawed, as conversions to Islam began through social interaction with Arab Muslim traders. Later, many from lower castes embraced Islam to escape the oppression of the caste system.
The ideology of Hindutva has gone so far as to portray this historical period as a dark age in which a ‘Holocaust’ against Hindus took place. It is true that the era of kingdoms was marked by wars, but these were fought for political reasons, not religious ones. Kings sought to expand their territory, and in the process, many lives were lost. To label this as a Holocaust is entirely misplaced.
The Hindutva narrative builds on the communal historiography introduced by the British to implement their divide-and-rule policy. In this view, all the motives of kings are framed through the lens of religion, and rulers are portrayed as representatives of entire religious communities.
Hindu communal historiography further claimed that Muslims and Christians were ‘foreigners’ who oppressed Hindus. Meanwhile, Muslim communal historiography promoted the idea that Muslims were the rightful rulers and Hindus their subjugated subjects. According to this view, Muslims were seen as the natural rulers of the land.
This logic contributed to the eventual division of the Indian subcontinent into India and Pakistan. Savarkar articulated the concept of two nations within India, and Jinnah ultimately demanded a separate nation for Muslims — Pakistan. From its inception, Pakistan fell into the trap of Muslim communalism. Its textbooks begin the story of Pakistan with Mohammad bin Qasim in the 8th century. Today, Pakistani history books have completely erased references to Hindu rulers. The hatred promoted by Muslim communalism against Hindus culminated in textbooks removing all references to Hindu kings and culture.
In many ways, India over the last three decades has begun to mirror Pakistan’s trajectory. This replication — perhaps down to the last comma — was noted by Pakistani poet Fahmida Riaz. In the aftermath of the Babri Masjid demolition, she wrote: “Arre tum bhi ham jaise nikle, ab tak kahan chhupe the bhai?” (Oh! You too turned out to be like us. Where had you been hiding all this time?)
Before the Hindutva ideology gained complete control over Indian education, the RSS shakhas were already spreading a communal version of society through various channels, such as shakha bauddhiks, Ekal Vidyalayas, and Shishu Mandirs. In due course, mainstream media and social media also began to support this narrative.
Culture, however, is a continuously evolving process. During the historical period now under attack by Hindutva, a great deal of social transformation occurred. This included developments in architecture, cuisine, clothing, and literature. Religious syncretism also thrived, as seen in the noble traditions of Bhakti and Sufism. It was during this era that Sikhism emerged and flourished.
Now that Muslim rulers have been removed from history books, this political ideology may need to find new ways to demonize Muslims. Newer techniques may soon emerge to replace figures like Aurangzeb or Babur, who are now rendered irrelevant.
History is central to the idea of nationalism. Erich Fromm once remarked, “History is to nationalism what poppy is to the opium addict.” Since the BJP came to power as part of the NDA in 1998, one of its primary objectives has been the “saffronization of education.” History has been recast as a tale of glorious, brave Hindu kings versus evil, aggressive Muslim kings. The accusation has been that history was previously written by Leftist historians who focused excessively on Delhi rulers and were pro-Muslim.
However, textbooks did reflect the details of particular dynasties based on the historical duration of their rule. The history books of the 1980s presented both Hindu and Muslim rulers. These narratives did not revolve solely around religion but offered a holistic view of communities — their trade, culture, and literature, among other aspects.
Still, it is true that ruler-centric, king-centric history is not what we need to build our future. Instead, we must focus on the diverse sections of society — Dalits, women, Adivasis, and artisans — who are often absent from traditional historical narratives.
---
Comments