When you are publishing a book, if there is something that is controversial, it’s better to take it out (What Johnny Shouldn’t Read, Yale University 1992).

There is controversy in India on the attempt by the present government to rewrite history textbooks. As a result of it, there is heated discussion and debate on this issue. The media is very active to bring it to the public notice. The discussion and debate show that there is ample space in a democratic system to challenge, resist and to accept or reject government’s decisions. The debate on the question of rewriting history textbooks raises some very important and pertaining questions, which, as a matter of fact, also invite us to think about our history textbooks.

 On the question of writing history textbooks, generally official perception is that textbooks should be used in order to inculcate state ideologies, ideas and thoughts that suit to state policies. Especially two elements are evident in nearly all history textbooks. One, to create deep sense of nationalism and patriotism among the young generation, and secondly, to glorify the role of national heroes in different periods of history with the emphasis to emulate them. Not realizing that national sentiments and glorification of heroes both create a false sense of nationalism and patriotism and a belief of their own righteousness that subsequently, throttles the spirit of investigation and an urge to challenge everything before accepting it?

Sometime the government in power argues that it is in the national interest to distort, ignore, hide, or delete facts because they are sensitive to some communities or sections of society. This approach raises some more questions. For example, should controversial issues be avoided in the textbooks? Or should there be only one point of view and students are not allowed to know different interpretations of history?

 History textbooks become a victim especially in an ideological state framework. When an ideology feels insecure from the internal and external challenges, it adopts methods of omission and deletion those facts and events from history writings, which it thinks detrimental to its existence. The present Indian government is heavily loaded with the ‘Hinduva’ ideology. That is why it is trying hard to monopolize all those institutions that could be used to propagate and popularize its ideology. This has divided the Indian historians broadly into two groups: conservatives and liberals. As the BJP is the government in power, its affiliated historians have official support to put forward their version of history. In this process of rewriting history textbooks, some issues which have become controversial are: the practice of beef eating in the ancient period, the execution of Sikh Gru Tegh Bahadur, and the portrayal of the Jat community in history.

 The BJP government insists that the historical fact of beef eating should not be mentioned because it contradicts with the present practice of its prohibition. This approach is challenged by the liberal historians who argue that history should not be studied in present context but should be analyzed by its evolutionary process of religious and cultural practices. There was a time when the Aryans as a pastoral community used to eat beef. The practice was abandoned when it was it transformed into an agriculture society in which cow became a useful animal. Their argument is that not only beef eating but also other social, cultural, and religious customs and rituals should be understood after having analyzed the changes in the process of history.

 The other point of debate is that those facts of history that are sensitive to the followers of different religions or different ethnic communities should be deleted or not. For example, there is the case Tegh Bahadur, the Sikh gru, who was executed by Aurangzeb.The explanation, based on the Mughal sources, is that he, in association with one Hafiz Adam, a follower of Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi, involvd in plundering and looting which caused devastation and destruction to the Punjab. In the Sikh tradition his execution was due to the conspiracy of his family who disputed his succession. The argument of the liberals is that history should be studies based on facts rather than on feelings and emotions. Therefore, the execution of Tegh Bahadur should be judged purely on solid historical evidence.

The third important issue is of Jats who have objection that they are portrayed as bandits and robbers. As this reference is unacceptable to the Jats, therefore, the concerned ministry proposed that such references should be deleted. Murli Manohar Joshi, the union minister made it clear that any historical account that hurts “ the feelings of people of any caste, religion, region, or language” will be removed from school textbooks. It means that history textbooks first should be approved by various religious and community leaders and then be prescribed. If this happens, the students would get a picture of the ancient and medieval past which is pure and clean with no black spot on it and where there were not conflicts, clashes, and controversries. It is hoped by the BJP ideologues that such a past would be useful to make young generation nationalist and patriotic Indians. However, to the liberal and enlightened historians, it is horrifying because” the omission of crucial facts and viewpoints limits profoundly the ways in which students come to view history events. Further, through one-dimensionality textbooks shield students from intellectual encountered with their world that would sharpen their critical ability.”

 The BJP government accuses that since 1947,the leftists and communist historians monopolized the history writings and projected their point of view. Now, it is their turn to present their version of history. As far as the presentation of different interpretations is concerned there is no dispute. Every school of historians has a right to interpret facts. But the concern is that that facts should not be distorted or deleted. Once facts remain a part of history, historians and students could interpret them according their own thinking. However, any attempt to make history a clean slate and then inscribe their own facts on it, is a crime. History is above from all feelings and sensivities. It coolly deals facts whether they are liked by someone or not. The task of history is to provide tools to understand present in the light of past and not to understand past in the light of present.

 In case of Pakistan, there is nothing to be leaned from India. We have already rewritten our history textbooks in a framework of our state ideology. The practice of omission and deletion is common practice of our historians. Our textbooks’ writers also took care of our religious and cultural sensitivities and completely avoided all such references. We, in Pakistan have perfect model of rewriting not only history textbooks but also history in general. Therefore, it is time for India to learn from us.