“Cattle wealth slowly decimated because cows and bullocks were killed in numerous Vedic sacrifices … the brahmanical reaction began as a result of the policy of Ashoka. He... derided superfluous rituals performed by women. This naturally affected the income of the Brahmanas.” (Class XI, R S Sharma)

“Archaeological evidence should be considered far more important than long family trees given in the Puranas. The Puranic tradition could be used to date Rama of Ayodhya around 2000 BC, but extensive excavations in Ayodhya do not show any settlements around that date.” (R.S Sharma)

“Jats founded their state at Bharatpur from where they conducted plundering raids in the regions around.” (Class VIII, Arjun Dev and Indira Arjun Dev)

“In 1675, Guru Tegh Bahadur was arrested and executed. The official explanation for this... is that after his return from Assam, the Guru, in association with one Hafiz Adam, resorted to plundering and raping, laying waste the whole province of Punjab.” (Class XI, Satish Chandra)

The problem with these passages is that they attack a sanctified image of Hinduism. Hindus are known to worship the cow. Reference to beef-eating and cow slaughter for Vedic rituals leaves a feeling of discomfort. A pro-Hindu government lead by the BJP and guided by aggressive Hindu organisations like the Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sangha cannot tolerate such remarks. The last two passages referring to Jaats being marauders and the Sikh guru plundering and raping too is highly objectionable to the two communities respectively. In all,

the total number of pages to be deleted from these textbooks is just sixteen. The key questions to ask in this context are two. Firstly, if these references have stayed in textbooks for four decades, then how did they become suddenly objectionable? So objectionable that they demand immediate deletion? Secondly, if these references truly offend the sentiments of communities, then why should anyone come in the way of their removal? We might ask a third question. Are these references as well as their removal based on historical evidence? Or is the government erasing them merely on account of sentimental problems?

As government’s intention became public, the opposition immediately launched an attack. The congress, Samajvadi party and the Communists alleged that the government was attempting to rewrite history with a Hindu leaning. The opposition alleged that education was being saffronised. Saffronisation is the Hindu equivalent of talibanisation. Congress leader Arjun singh went as far as stating that BJP was Talibanising education, which would not be tolerated. Ultimately, Congress spokesman Jaipal Reddy put the whole issue in perspective. The opposition is not against a review of history textbooks. However, textbooks must be reviewed systematically and transparently by acknowledged historians. The opposition is not against change. It is the manner of such change that has sparked the controversy. Motivated rewriting of history textbooks is dangerous.

The ruling party on the other hand feels that history as it is being taught today is prejudiced against Hinduism. It ridicules Hindu culture. Such partial history needs corrections. As the Prime minister himself stated that if history is one sided, it must be changed.

The academic community too got submerged in the controversy. NCERT is under a contractual obligation to obtain prior permission from the author before deleting portions from his textbook. None of the historians were consulted on this occasion. NCERT chief Prof. JS Rajpoot (a physicist) clearly states that he did not find it necessary to consult these four historians as they are not the only historians in India. He refused to disclose the names of those who are reviewing the books thereby making room for speculation that RSS activists are doing the job. Moreover, how can you ensure that a particular topic shall not be discussed in the classroom. Are we getting ready for a Taliban style thought police in the future? In fact, the government has ensured widespread publicity to a topic of little interest by its action. These passages are all over the media thanks to this controversy. Academics feel that BJP is promoting a communal interpretation of history. Everything positive in India occurred during Hindu rule. Muslims and British only destroyed India. Achievements during this era are to be erased and seen only in a negative light. The effort is similar to that of Pakistani historians who delinked themselves from India and somehow attached themselves directly to the Middle East. According to Bipan Chandra, it’s a sinister effort to communalise young minds. Romila thapar objected to NCERT’s claim that it had received 50000 complaints against these textbooks. If such complaints were received, then where are they? To sum up, academics on one hand feel that it is a political move to bend history in favour of party ideology. RSS workers on the other hand justify this move on the ground that they are correcting earlier leanings of history duly promoted by congress people.

To conclude, wisdom lies in taking history out of a myth and fantasy syndrome. Young school children must be taught professionally. Give them both views and let them debate on the basis of context. Politicians and political organisations must never treat history as their handmaid. Humanity has seen such good historians. Why can’t we have a nice history?