There has been a running debate and discussion for a last few months of how our history books are biased, towards the Mughals and the invaders who came from the north west, and does not give enough information about our glorious past and our Hindu heritage. There is also a growing clamor for revision of our history books as taught in Schools and even collages.

Well there are two issues which are raised here

1. Is there a requirement for revision of our school books and university curriculam?
2. Is there a deliberate conspiracy by Congress to subvert our glorious Vedic/Hindu heritage to that of the so called outsiders.

History unfortunately is more open to interpretation and versions than most subjects, because it relies on written text of more than one person of the same event. It is also said that it is the victorious who write history, but that does not stop the defeated to pen down their version. These versions are read later and interpreted by later generations and become thesis and discourse which are further debated for eternity. I will give two examples to illustrate this.

Lets consider the case of Ashoka the Great. It is almost universally accepted that he was one of the greatest emperor of India, not just in terms of the size of his empire but also the humanitarian values he symbolizes. Emperor Ashoka is much revered for having turned into a pacifist after witnessing the human cost of his invasion of Kalinga. However, texts such as Ashokavadana clearly mention major massacres of Jains and Ajivikas that he ordered long after his supposed conversion. Far from being Ashoka the Great, the evidence suggests an unpopular king whose empire began to crumble while he was still alive. Even the regret over the Kalinga war looks suspiciously like propaganda given that none of the inscriptions in Odisha mention it.

Another good example is how history books in India and Pakistan differ on the versions of history for shared and common events. In Pakistan, for instance, a 10th grader’s history book delineates the partition of Bengal as, “Curzon [the Governor-General of India] felt that the Muslims in East Bengal would be better off in a separate province governed by Dhaka. However, Hindus saw it as a deliberate plot… they were not ready to accept any step that would benefit Muslims.” The same event described in an Indian textbook reads, “The Indian nationalists condemned the partitioning of the province and saw it as a deliberate attempt to divide Bengalis on religious lines. The nationalists were also upset… because it showed no regard for public opinion within Bengal.” **Source “The History Project”

So having established that History is more prone to inherent biases maybe people are right in their accusation that since Independence one community achievements are highlighted as a deliberate conspiracy.

But I feel the answer is to look at the geography. There is an inherent North India bias not a Muslim one. Now with a developed infrastructure we fail to appreciate the difficulty the terrain gives to empire building a few centuries ago. The gangetic and indus river plains were the seat for most pan indian empires. From this core area, they expanded outwards to build vast empires. Some spanned the subcontinent (Mughals) and beyond (Mauryas), others were mostly based in north India with more territories being gained or lost periodically (Guptas/ Delhi Sultanate).

There were military and economic implications of a vast, flat, alluvial plain which was the base of these empires. A single battle fought in the plains can make it possible for the victor to gain control over huge swathes of territory, a few more could make him the ruler of a significant part of the north Indian plain.(remember the Battles of Panipat). In contrast it is not a coincidence that the Marathas took more than 3 generations to create their empire( When Shivaji died he had only 4.1% of Indian continent landmass Over time, the kingdom would increase in size and heterogeneity; by the time of his grandson’s rule, and later under the Peshwas in the early 18th century, it was a full-fledged empire, But we will talk about Shivaji and his significance later). Just look at the Marathas origin. Each battle they won gave them control over a small area or a hill. Sometimes adjoining hill will have another fort which would require another battle. The southern kingdoms faced the same problem. Cholas had to go to Sri Lanka and even South east Asia for conquest.

Economic considerations are easy to understand. Alluvial plains are inhabited by settled peasantry from whom regular and high revenues can be collected. Ease of movement across the plains meant that large areas could be controlled from a distant base (the imperial capital plus a few provincial capitals). Even historians “Follow the money” and ease of tax collection and higher yields made the northern kingdoms richer in shorter time.

Another reason was the lack of written sources. We have to remember that Indian History was first written by the Britishers and they were well versed in Persian(the official language used by the East India Company till 1835), which was the primary language of Mughals and Delhi Sultanate. By contrast, the literary sources required to write the history of the Ahom Empire were not translated till the 20^th century. Written sources that would qualify as ‘history’, as defined by the colonial historians, are scant for the Cholas too.

I hope that this answers the conspiracy theory to rest. Now for the first question. Do we need to revise the history books as being taught? I would say a resounding yes. There is an unhealthy trend where the story of the empire around Delhi and the northern plains is accorded primacy as the ‘main’ narrative while contemporary polities in the south and east are categorized as ‘regional’ kingdoms. These included kingdoms ruled by Hindus (Vijayanagar) as well as by Muslims (Ilyas Shahi and Hussain Shahi Sultanates in Bengal). The 14^th century is primarily seen as the period when the Delhi Sultanate was in decline, but that is also the period when the Vijayanagar kingdom in south India was at the height of its glory. The achievements of the Chola dynasty are rarely given the attention reserved for north Indian empires. Colonial historians had failed to sufficiently appreciate the triumph of Chola power over significant parts of Southeast Asia, which had far-reaching economic and cultural consequences. The Ahom kingdom in the Northeast hardly finds mention in history textbooks.

Moreover, history is not just about the rise and fall of empires but also about other streams of history. For instance, Indian textbooks say almost nothing about the country’s rich maritime history beyond a passing reference to Chola naval raids on Southeast Asia. Students learn very little about thriving Indo-Roman trade or the exploits of ancient Odiya merchants who pioneered sea routes across the eastern Indian Ocean. The great influence of Indian civilization on Southeast Asia is barely mentioned, if at all.

Another great disservice is that our history only talks about those who came as conquerors, but what about those who came in peace like the Jews , Persis and various tribes from South east Asia who integrated with other communities and lived peacefully, and have contributed to our heritage.

But the biggest disservice has been done to our achievements in the field of science. There is more than enough evidence of us having made significant progress in metallurgy, astronomy, medicine and mathematics. This has created a vacuum which is filled by ridiculous claims of flying chariot and nuclear weapons shot by arrows.

This is not to suggest that everything good about Indic civilization is of indigenous origin. Over the centuries, we gained from absorbing foreign ideas and influences, especially in food, architecture, and language. Try to imagine India without the chillies and tomatoes brought by the Portuguese, cricket and railways brought by the British or the Taj Mahal built by a Turko-Mongol emperor or our music without Urdu. However, it is also true that the same foreign invaders caused the deaths of millions of people through warfare and famine. Indian students need to be told about both the good and the bad.

Indian history textbooks need to be rewritten. A fresh look at the structure and contents of the school history syllabi is necessary, one which gives due importance to the complex and diverse political narratives of India. Opponents will argue that the current government will use this opportunity to insert “right-wing biases” but this is no excuse for perpetuating outdated scholarship and the biases of colonial historians.Historians tend to mix up the evidence with their opinions. This happens everywhere to some extent as all history is written from some perspective Perhaps one way forward is for the next generation of textbook authors to separate the hard evidence from their interpretations. This will have two good outcomes. First, it will make the author’s opinions more transparent. Second, it will encourage students to think more critically and draw their own conclusions. It won’t be an easy task, but including new perspectives thrown up by rigorous academic research, particularly on non-literary sources, will be a step in the right direction.