In the first decades of independent India, there was no significant change in colonial textbooks. The change in textbooks took place after NCERT was established in 1964. The nature of textbooks as only a source of information continued. However, according to the nature of the new regime, elements such as secularism, democracy, and social justice were incorporated, and accordingly, the content of sociological subjects, including history was recreated. Developments in science and technology and the scientific temper brought about changes not only in science education but in the process of education itself.

This newfound understanding prompted changes in the textbooks and at the same time, drew criticism from the RSS. The textbooks written by historians at JNU were in line with the concept of secular democracy and included the latest learnings from the historical research of the time. The textbook on ancient India also provided preliminary indications of the method of studying history. This is what was interpreted as a Marxist historiography and came under intense criticism from the RSS.

Current textbook reforms

State policies have influenced the approach to textbook reforms in the past decades as well. The progress made in the technological fields brought about significant changes in education, especially science and technology education. However, the nature of education remained the same as that of information dissemination. More and more technological details were included in the syllabus and some of these were included at the school level itself. Along with this, a parallel stream of online education came up, which made it inevitable to make changes.

The policies of the state brought about changes in social consciousness. Following the ideologies of ‘inclusive education’ and “mainstreaming” pursued as part of the neo-liberal policies, lessons on the downtrodden and marginalized were included in the social sciences textbooks. Such lessons were included in history as well. There was also a suggestion in the curriculum framework that there could be local lessons on specific topics. The emphasis was placed on cultural studies. However, there was no change in the sociological outlook in the early stages. It followed the notion that sociology was a means of civic duty and the teaching of values.

The ideology of the Modi government is not based on secular democracy. They did not even use the word ‘secularism’ in the NEP2020 document. They use the word ‘nationalism’. It is not economic nationalism. It is cultural nationalism. Hindu culture is part of nationalism and politics. Cultural nationalism developed through the struggle against foreign domination. Foreigners include not only British but also Muslim rulers. Among those who fought against foreign domination were not only secularists but also religious leaders. The fight against foreign domination is portrayed as a struggle for the land of “Arsha-Bharata” and as a fight for Indian culture. Hence, it was projected that there is no need for children in India to learn the work of those who are not in tune with it. If we look at this argument even superficially, we can see that there is no basis for such an argument. The ancient Indian state structure had little influence on the modern Indian Constitution. Even Kautilya’s Arthashastra, India’s most important political treatise, does not influence the Indian state.

At the same time, the tax structure, judiciary, and regional structure of the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal rulers still influence our forms of governance. Mughal art and culture have a great influence on any discussion of Indian culture. Without them, we cannot think of Indian culture. Similarly, a very rich national Muslim tradition will also have to be discussed. We cannot think of a cultural and political tradition without Ghalib, Akbar, Ilahabadi, Firak Gorakhpuri, MF Husain, Maulana Azad, and Abdurahiman Sahib in Kerala. Therefore, it is necessary for Hindutva politics to avoid this tradition. The most effective approach is to exclude them from textbooks and thereby try to systematically erase this past from our consciousness.

Similarly, the freedom struggle was not a struggle for secular democracy for the ideologues of the RSS. It was a struggle for the liberation of Hindus. That is, the RSS violence against Muslims during the partition of India and Pakistan was also part of this liberation. When India attained independence, Mahatma Gandhi’s satyagraha in Noakhali was a gross betrayal so Godse’s feelings against the Mahatma should be understood, and hence, they see no need for a text that portrays Godse as Gandhi’s murderer. Children should not know that the RSS was a banned organisation. It is by the same logic that Hindutva activists like Savarkar are included and Muslim nationalists, including Maulana Azad, are excluded.

To explain Indian culture, there is an attempt to distort even the basic Indian tradition. For example, deciding not to teach evolution, which is one of the important concepts in modern science. Interestingly, the Indian tradition is not against evolution. The earliest forms of the concept of evolution can be found in the Upanishads and numerology. Indian philosophies do not talk about creationism or intellectual constructivism, which are presented as opposed to evolution elsewhere. Therefore, it has now been suggested that Dasavatara Siddhanta, which is part of the Vaishnava tradition, should be taught. This is not only unscientific but sheer nonsense. Creationists question natural selection, which is a core aspect of evolutionism. Dasavataram does not advance any philosophical principles. It is only a series of miracles by Vishnu.