By: Jagjit Singh
History belongs to no political party, no government, no religious organisation and no individual claiming exclusive ownership of a nation’s cultural inheritance. It belongs to the people whose collective experiences, struggles, achievements, failures and sacrifices constitute the story of a civilisation.
Yet, across generations, history has repeatedly become a battleground for political influence. Those who exercise power often seek not merely to govern the present but also to shape how future generations remember the past. The temptation is understandable: control the narrative of yesterday, and you acquire an instrument to influence the political consciousness of tomorrow.
But there is a fundamental difference between studying history and manufacturing historical memory.
India’s extraordinary civilisational diversity cannot be reduced to the achievements of one dynasty, one religious tradition, one political movement or one ideological interpretation. Its history encompasses multiple cultures, competing philosophies, social hierarchies, intellectual exchanges, conflicts, reform movements and struggles for freedom. To understand India is to acknowledge all these dimensions, not merely those that fit a preferred political narrative.
History is a discipline, not an instrument of government
The historian’s responsibility is to investigate evidence, compare sources, challenge established assumptions and revise interpretations when new information becomes available. Historical conclusions remain open to debate, provided that debate is grounded in credible research.
Governments have a responsibility to support education, preserve historical records and fund research. However, the authority to administer educational institutions should not become an authority to dictate historical conclusions.
A government may change. Political ideologies may change. Electoral majorities may change. But historical evidence cannot legitimately be altered simply because it becomes inconvenient to the political establishment of the day.
The danger emerges when political preferences determine which historical personalities deserve recognition, which events receive prominence, which uncomfortable chapters are reduced or omitted, and which interpretations are presented as unquestionable truths.
India’s textbook controversies have occurred under successive governments with different ideological orientations. The 2023 revisions of NCERT textbooks, for example, generated debate over the reduction or removal of several historical references. Earlier governments too, made changes that attracted criticism. This demonstrates that the issue is institutional, not merely partisan.
The question is not whether governments have the right to introduce changes, but whether those changes are supported by academic reasoning, transparent procedures and credible historical evidence.
The politics of selective memory
Every society has historical figures it celebrates and chapters it finds uncomfortable. The problem begins when celebration becomes compulsory and uncomfortable history becomes undesirable.
India’s past contains remarkable achievements in philosophy, mathematics, literature, science, architecture and political thought. It also contains caste oppression, social exclusion, religious conflict, political violence, colonial exploitation and institutional injustice. A mature understanding of history must accommodate both.
It would be intellectually dishonest to glorify every ruler simply because he belonged to a particular religious or cultural tradition. Equally, it would be unjust to condemn entire communities for the actions of historical rulers.
The history of medieval India, for instance, cannot be understood through a simplistic contest between Hindu and Muslim identities. It involved political alliances, warfare, cultural exchanges, administrative developments and religious interactions. Reducing this complexity to a narrative of permanent religious confrontation risks transferring historical grievances into contemporary social relationships.
History should help society understand how conflicts emerged and how people lived through them. It should not become a mechanism for reproducing those conflicts.
Who decides what children should remember?
A school textbook is not simply a collection of printed information. For millions of children, it is an introduction to their country, its institutions, cultural inheritance and their place within society.
The National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), established in 1961, plays an important role in developing educational resources and advising governments on school education. Its textbook-development processes therefore require academic independence, professional credibility and transparency.
The CBSE History curriculum for Classes XI and XII itself emphasises historical enquiry, examining sources and understanding historical debates rather than merely memorising facts.
Children should be encouraged to ask why an event happened, whose interests were involved, what evidence supports a particular interpretation and why historians sometimes disagree.
A student who questions a textbook should not automatically be considered disrespectful towards the nation.
If students are taught to memorise conclusions without examining the evidence behind them, education risks becoming an exercise in intellectual conformity rather than an instrument of enlightenment.
The freedom struggle belonged to many Indians
India’s national movement provides an illuminating example of the dangers of selective historical memory. The freedom struggle was neither the achievement of one organisation nor the contribution of a single political philosophy. It involved constitutionalists, revolutionaries, social reformers, peasants, workers, tribal communities, women, students and countless ordinary citizens.
Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Subhas Chandra Bose, Lala Lajpat Rai, Bhagat Singh, Ghadar Party revolutionaries, Kuka movement’s warriors, B. R. Ambedkar, Maulana Azad, Sardar Patel and many others occupied different ideological and political positions. Their contributions form part of the wider historical experience of modern India.
Bhagat Singh, for example, deserves to be studied beyond the familiar imagery of courage and sacrifice. His writings reveal a commitment to rationalism, social equality and freedom from exploitation. His intellectual development is as important to understanding him as his revolutionary activities.
Similarly, Ambedkar’s contribution cannot be confined to constitution-making without examining his struggle against caste discrimination and his insistence on social democracy.
A nation should not have to choose between its historical personalities. Nor should the recognition of one diminish the contribution of another.
The danger of turning historical grievances into present-day politics
Historical injustices deserve acknowledgement. Victims should not be erased from memory, and established facts should not be concealed to preserve convenient narratives.
But responsibility for historical actions must be examined with accuracy and context. Present-day citizens cannot reasonably be held collectively guilty for events that occurred centuries before their birth.
A democratic society must distinguish between remembering historical injustice and using historical grievance to justify contemporary hostility. The former promotes understanding and reconciliation; the latter risks perpetuating divisions across generations.
India’s constitutional framework offers an important point of reference. Article 51A(e) calls upon citizens to promote harmony and common brotherhood across religious, linguistic and regional diversities. Article 51A(f) emphasises preserving the country’s composite cultural heritage, while Article 51A(h) calls for the development of scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform.
Patriotism does not require historical uniformity
There is a tendency in public discourse to confuse criticism of historical narratives with criticism of the nation itself. This confusion needs to be challenged.
Loving India does not require accepting every historical interpretation presented by those in authority. Respecting national heritage does not require overlooking historical wrongdoing. Defending national identity does not require suppressing cultural and intellectual diversity.
A confident nation should be capable of examining its past without insecurity.
Germany’s engagement with the history of Nazism and South Africa’s attempts to confront apartheid demonstrate how historical introspection can become an important part of civic education. Acknowledging difficult truths need not weaken national identity. It can strengthen the moral foundations on which that identity rests.
Who, then, owns India’s history?
The historian has the professional responsibility to investigate it. Educational institutions have the responsibility to teach it. Governments have the responsibility to preserve records and facilitate research. Citizens have the right to question, discuss and understand it.
But no government should claim an exclusive right to determine what constitutes historical truth.
The past cannot be rewritten through electoral mandates, administrative orders or ideological declarations. Historical interpretations must stand or fall on the strength of evidence, the credibility of sources and the quality of scholarly argument.
India does not need a history that makes every generation comfortable. It needs a history that makes every generation wiser.
A country that teaches its children only what to remember, but not how to question, may produce obedient students. It will struggle to produce independent thinkers.
And perhaps that is the most important question we should ask ourselves:
Are we educating the next generation to understand India’s history, or are we preparing them to inherit somebody else’s interpretation of it?
(CREDIT: COUNTERCURRENTS)