HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
---------------------------


Textbooks and communalism 
By Rajeev Dhavan , The Hindu 30 Nov. 2001
Manipulating textbooks for children is unacceptable. India has suffered enough 
communalism. Leave textbooks alone. 
HISTORY HAS always been written and re-written. But by whom? A Dutch historian, Peter 
Gieyl, reflecting on various versions of the Napoleonic legend rightly called history 
``an argument without end''. It is in that sense that Croce declared that ``all 
history is contemporary history''. But, history is a discourse. Official history by 
Government fiat is not history but propaganda. History by Government propaganda is the 
death of learning - destructive of the discourse of history and education itself. 
The present controversy of the `Talibanisation' of textbook history stems from the 
Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) edict of October 25, 2001, to delete 
certain passages from wellknown prescribed textbooks. Students were warned that 
examiners ``will not evaluate the students' understanding of the (excised) portions''. 
The National Council for Educational Research and Training (NCERT) obliged by deleting 
those passages not to the liking of the Sangh Parivar. The Government's support - 
indeed, directive - for these gross acts of censorship and propaganda is self-evident. 
On November 24, the Prime Minister, Mr. A. B. Vajpayee, said he was prepared for a 
debate on this. History has been re-written at the bidding of the Government. Students 
who deviate from knowledge of such history have been threatened with failure. 
Banning and censorship are increasingly becoming a pernicious part of civil and 
political governance. The attacks on Husain's paintings, and Deepa Mehta's films, the 
civil injunction on Professor Jha's book on ``beef eating in Ancient India'', the 
illegal banning of Sahmat's posters, the Shiv Sena's threatened censorship of ideas 
and many other incidents reinforce an aggressive climate of banning thoughts and ideas 
not to the liking of fundamentalists. It is true that shades of Muslim fundamentalism 
led to India's ban on Salman Rushdie's ``Satanic Verses'' - to be followed by 
disastrous global consequences. But, the dominant fundamentalism that menacingly 
threatens India today is an aggressive Hindu fundamentalism which is pugnacious in its 
tone and posture; and wholly uncompromising in according second class status to all 
other faiths and beliefs. Politically aligned to the concept of a newly-invented 
`Hindu' India, Hindu fundamentalism physically and ideologically threaten!
s those that oppose it or fail to accept its dominance. 
The CBSE and the NCERT concentrated on the work of certain secular historians and 
commanded certain specific deletions on the eating of beef in ancient India, 
archaeological evidence rather than Puranic and other texts to historicise the Lord 
Ram and Lord Krishna legends, the role of brahmanical indoctrination to sustain the 
caste system, facts relating to plunder by Jat rulers, new facts or assertions 
relating to the martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadur and so on. It has never been anyone's 
case that the textbooks are threats to public order requiring immediate action by the 
Government under the banning provisions of the criminal codes. In any case, 
fundamentalists invariably create an atmosphere of threats and violence to sustain 
their banning and censorship demands even where no controversy exists. Thus, it is 
clear that the actions of the Government, the CBSE and the NCERT constitute a 
politically-sponsored censorship of books and ideas. 
The state's entry into the domain of textbooks can be traced to the landmark judgment 
of the Supreme Court in the Punjab Textbook case (1995) to the effect that the 
`executive' power of the state extended to selecting and prescribing textbooks for 
schools recognised by it even without the authority of an enacted law in preference to 
the books of private publishers. In the MP Textbook case (1974), Justice Bhagwati's 
insightful judgment warns against arbitrary and capricious actions by the Government. 
In our present case, there is a bigger failure. Two other seemingly autonomous bodies 
have decided to succumb to fundamentalist pressures. The CBSE is an examining body 
which cannot play to political tunes. Its textbooks have stood the test of time. For 
the CBSE to abjure its own books under Sangh Parivar pressure is wrong. It is even 
despicable for a Board which should be promoting the culture of critically examining 
ideas to send a menacing message to young students on pain of !
failure that they should not dare question the fundamentalist message of the 
textbooks. The NCERT has been equally pliant. 
In the NCERT case (1992), the Supreme Court respected the autonomy of the NCERT by 
refusing to identify it with the state on the assumption that the Government's role 
was simply confined to overseeing the proper utilisation of funding grants. Today, the 
NCERT is unashamedly propagating the Government's and the Sangh Parivar's 
fundamentalism. The object of this entire exercise is not just electoral gains but a 
deeper quest to establish a Hindu hegemony to subordinate all other faiths, beliefs 
and ideas. This sets up an awesome nexus between education politics and religion which 
is contrary to the intrinsic secularism which holds a fragile India together. It is 
not for the NCERT to play politics. Concerned with academic excellence, it cannot act 
as censor or edit texts because the Sangh Parivar and its kindred spirits are upset. 
If the NCERT can be held to political and communal ransom, it does not deserve to 
exist or occupy the pivotal positionby the Indian education system. 
This is not a matter of parliamentary banter. Valuable parliamentary time was wasted 
in considering whether the term `Talibanisation' was unparliamentary. Even though used 
as a political catch phrase, the term `Talibanisation' cannot be said to be 
inappropriate. The Government supported censorship by the CBSE and, the NCERT is a 
form of `Talibanisation' - both in terms of encouraging closed minds and the ferocity 
with which the new `learning' is threatened to be inflicted on young examinees. It is 
to the credit of the Congress(I) Government (1991-96) that it refused to implement 
even the recommendations of a committee of historians to review, ban or censor history 
books though it was under pressure to do so. There is a discipline about textbooks. 
Stray passages cannot be extracted for political scrutiny and censorship. No 
self-respecting academic will ever write textbooks if his or her work is excised 
peremptorily for political reasons and without any consultation. 
In Unnikrishnan's case (1993), the Supreme Court declared education to the age of 14 
to be compulsorily provided. For the vast majority of students, the provider of such 
education will be the state through Government schools. The NCERT's job is to assist 
in this task with examinations to be conducted by objective agencies such as the CBSE. 
The pending 93rd Constitution Amendment Bill seeks to provide `education for all'. 
This programme cannot be hijacked by the Government and political parties for 
disbursing communally-slanted education. 
So far, India's textbook system through the CBSE and the NCERT has worked well 
precisely because it has striven for excellence to get the best known authors (and not 
any politically-selected rabble) to independently write good books. The 
`Talibanisation' of textbooks put this system under threat. Till now, no one thought 
NCERT books were not good books or argued that texts cannot be updated or changed. But 
this cannot happen for political or fundamentalist reasons. India's Ministries of 
Education and related institutions were not created to be instruments of propaganda. 
If this continues, a new system insulated from political interference would have to be 
devised immune from communalisation and politicisation. But any new system must be 
carefully crafted so that the solution does not spread the disease. No doubt in the 
market place of ideas, each issue must be openly and strongly discussed - fairly and 
fiercely. But with the advent of fundamentalism, India is losing its capa!
city for such discussions. Manipulating textbooks for children is unacceptable. India 
has suffered enough communalism. Leave textbooks alone. 
Send 

==^================================================================
This email was sent to: [email protected]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9WB2D
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================

Reply via email to