A storm is brewing over the recent revisions to India’s NCERT textbooks. The question at the heart of the debate: is this a long-overdue correction of historical bias or an ideological overhaul by the current regime? With chapters rewritten or removed, historical figures recast, and ideological tones shifting, the debate has become both academic and political. This article unpacks the controversy by analyzing what changed, why it matters, and who is saying what.
Political Influence on NCERT
Since its inception in 1961, NCERT has never been completely free from political oversight. Over successive governments, history textbooks have seen edits—whether to suppress certain narratives or emphasize others. The late 1970s saw Janata Party-led removals of Marxist texts, and the early 2000s BJP government introduced what many termed “saffronised” content. UPA later reversed some of those changes. The latest revisions appear to be a continuation of that cyclical pattern, but the scale and nature are far more controversial.
It’s also important to acknowledge that earlier NCERT books were heavily influenced by Marxist and Communist historiography. Critics argue that these texts emphasized class struggle, colonial resistance, and Nehruvian secularism while deliberately downplaying aspects of India’s civilizational roots, Hindu contributions, and uncomfortable historical episodes. Many believe that this academic monopoly over decades led to selective omission and a sanitization of certain truths. The present government’s move is seen by supporters as an attempt to restore historical balance and present the past as it truly was—without ideological filters. They point to archival evidence and newer scholarship as justification for these curricular changes.
Moreover, one glaring omission from earlier textbooks was the systematic brutality and religious persecution committed during various phases of the Mughal rule. Temples destroyed, forced conversions, jizya taxes levied on non-Muslims, and numerous acts of violent suppression were often diluted or excluded. Supporters of the current revisions argue that these episodes are not fabrications but documented in Mughal court chronicles themselves, such as Ain-i-Akbari, Maasir-i-Alamgiri, and Baburnama. Accounts by travelers like Francois Bernier, Niccolao Manucci, and Indian historians like Sita Ram Goel and Koenraad Elst further corroborate these claims.
What’s Changed?
The Key Edits Recent changes to NCERT books, especially in social sciences and history, include:
- Removal of references to the Mughal Empire in certain classes.
- Rewording of Babur, Akbar, and Aurangzeb as brutal rulers.
- Downplaying or removing chapters on Gandhi’s assassination, caste conflicts, Gujarat riots, and communal violence.
- Reduction or elimination of content on the Cold War, democratic values, food insecurity, and even scientific concepts like the Periodic Table and Evolution (though later reinstated).
- A new emphasis on India’s indigenous heritage while minimizing Islamic or colonial contributions.
These edits, framed by NCERT as part of “curriculum rationalization” during COVID-19, have drawn both praise and criticism.
Arguments from Both Sides
| Perspective | Supporters Say | Critics Argue |
|---|---|---|
| Curriculum Revision | Aims to correct colonial/leftist biases and celebrate India’s civilizational ethos | Promotes a narrow, communal, and ideologically skewed narrative |
| Workload Rationalization | Reduces academic pressure post-pandemic | Convenient excuse to remove uncomfortable truths |
| Historical Balance | Provides a more realistic view of historical figures like Akbar or Aurangzeb | Selective vilification of Muslim rulers, ignoring nuance |
| Scientific Cuts | Temporary, later reinstated after public protest | Diminishes critical thinking and scientific literacy |
Academic Voices & Legal Pushback
Dr. Ruchika Sharma, a JNU historian, has filed an RTI challenging the historical accuracy of NCERT’s revised portrayal of Akbar’s abolition of jizya. According to her:
“Akbar abolished jizya in 1562, very early in his reign, contrary to the narrative now presented.”
Student groups like AIDSA and AISA have accused NCERT of “communalizing history” and erasing Muslim contributions to Indian civilization. On the other side, 73 academicians issued a joint statement defending the changes, claiming they restore balance to a previously one-sided narrative.
State-Level Responses
- Kerala: Declared it will not implement NCERT’s controversial updates, calling them “ideological propaganda.”
- Maharashtra & Rajasthan: Flagged CBSE books for underrepresenting Shivaji and overrepresenting the Gandhi family.
- RBSE (Rajasthan Board): Asked the state government to delay implementation and conduct a thorough syllabus review.
Ideological Context: Saffronisation or Course Correction?
Critics argue the current revisions fall under “saffronisation”—a term denoting the infusion of Hindu nationalist ideology into educational content. Terms like “dark ages” and “brutal Islamic invaders” replace academic neutrality with emotionally charged language. The removal of Gandhi’s complex relationship with the RSS, the deletion of caste-based oppression discussions, and trimming of Mughal-era chapters reflect a clear ideological leaning.
However, supporters claim that the older texts were written through a Marxist or Nehruvian lens and suppressed Hindu cultural identity. They believe the new curriculum offers a long-awaited rebalancing. Government supporters also cite historical documents, traveler accounts, and inscriptions as proof to support the new narratives. For example, Aurangzeb’s temple destructions and religious policies are well-documented in Persian sources, and these events have been significantly underrepresented in previous syllabi.
Students and Teachers Speak
Educators and students are worried about:
- Loss of critical thinking opportunities
- Sanitization or omission of complex issues
- Lack of consultation with teachers and historians
One Delhi-based history teacher noted:
“We’re no longer teaching history; we’re teaching a narrative.”
Final Verdict: Politics Over Pedagogy?
The debate over the NCERT revisions reflects more than a curricular disagreement—it is about who gets to tell the story of India. While critics label it as ideological saffronisation, it is equally important to recognize that the erasure of atrocities, destruction of temples, mass murders of Hindus, forced conversions, and jizya taxation under Mughal rule were underreported or misrepresented for decades.
Historical sources such as Maasir-i-Alamgiri, Baburnama, Ain-i-Akbari, and records from Francois Bernier and Niccolao Manucci explicitly recount violent episodes under rulers like Babur, Aurangzeb, and others. Scholars like Sita Ram Goel, Koenraad Elst, and Meenakshi Jain have long documented this side of history, which mainstream narratives ignored.
Even the Congress-led governments in the past have acknowledged that certain aspects of history were altered or withheld to maintain communal harmony. While the intent may have been noble, the distortion or deletion of historical truths in the name of peace is not acceptable in a democracy. Education must be based on unvarnished facts, not ideological convenience—be it left or right.
Conclusion
History should be written with integrity, not as a tool of political influence. Whether one supports or opposes the recent NCERT changes, the central issue remains: students deserve to learn the full truth. A nation cannot move forward if it conceals uncomfortable chapters of its past. The goal should be neither glorification nor vilification—but honest, balanced history.
