Saffronisation and textbooks

By Amrik Singh

TO UNDERSTAND the issue of saffronisation in the right perspective, we have to look at the decline of the Congress as a ruling party and the rise of the BJP as a rival. While the Congress did have an ideology, it was never worked out in any precise manner. Nor were any systematic efforts made at any stage to project or concretise it. Over the years, the Congress developed a kind of relaxed ethos where one person could believe in secularism and another person could be a determined anti- secularist and, yet, both could coexist in the same party. In the case of the BJP, the element of ideology was much more prominent and was central to its outlook. With the emergence of the BJP as the ruling party at the Centre therefore, things underwent a change.

In a sense, this divergence of views came to a head on the question of Saraswati Vandana during a meeting of State Education Ministers some three years ago. There was a marked difference of opinion as well as acrimony on this issue. Several Ministers staged a walkout. After some parleys between the two groups, those who walked out came back but the issue remained unsettled.

The one lesson the BJP Government learnt from that incident was that, without a clear majority of the Ministers supporting its point of view, it had better not convene such meetings. When, less than a year ago, elections were held in half a dozen States, the Congress performed well and now, a dozen States are governed by the party. To that extent, the agenda to saffronise education cannot be pushed through.

When these various developments were taking place, the HRD Ministry sought to restructure a number of bodies under its control (such as the ICSSR, the ICHR and one or two others). In most cases, the experience has not been exactly satisfactory from the BJP point of view. In certain cases, the choice of people nominated by the HRD Ministry turned out to be disappointing for the BJP and the intention to saffronise could not be implemented with the degree of effectiveness visualised. In the case of the NCERT, which too was an object of special attention, the developments did not turn out to be particularly indefensible.

Tell tale evidence of this fact is what happened early this year. In late 2000, a body called the All India Save Education Committee was constituted with Mr. V. R. Krishna Iyer as president. This body convened an all-India conference and, at its conclusion, Mr. Krishna Iyer wrote a four-page letter to the Prime Minister. That letter was referred by the PMO to the NCERT. Thereupon, the Director of the NCERT sent detailed comments on what had been alleged. Thereupon, Mr. Krishna Iyer wrote to the HRD Minister saying he had no reason to question the NCERT explanation and, therefore, he dropped his criticism of its stand. At the same time, he expressed the hope that ``the position as put forward by the NCERT will be kept up in actual practice''.

How did the NCERT acquit itself so honourably? Two things helped it. One was the fact that its draft of the National Curriculum Framework for School Education was fairly level headed and did not deviate much from what had been laid down in the 1968, 1986, and 1992 policies on education. Second, the draft took the position that ``What is required today is not religious education but education about religion, thir basics, the values inherent therein and also a comparative study of the philosophy of all religions''. This carefully-worded statement could not be objected to.

That the BJP would like to saffronise education is no secret; the party itself makes no secret of it. The problem lies in its inability to implement what it wants to. This inability stems to quite an extent from the unavailability of the right kind of persons who could successfully steer or project its point of view. In any case, the stance of a large number of States which do not subscribe to the BJP ideology has virtually clinched the issue for the present. But, wherever the BJP was or is in power Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan for instance extensive changes have been carried out in school textbooks and, in quite some cases, they were open to serious criticism.

At the same time, it is not possible for the HRD Ministry to push forward its agenda any further for reasons already stated. So much so that the revision of the syllabus initiated by the NCERT is not likely to be formalised soon even though it is overdue.

Two other important things require to be said. The first one is that new textbooks about history at the NCERT level are currently under preparation. These will become public early next year. Apprehensions are being expressed as to their thrust and their mode of presentation. It is difficult to say how things will shape out. It is best, therefore, to reserve judgment till then. The second point, however, is more important and has long range implications. Are we sure that our historians have already worked out an understanding of Indian history which is not influenced by any dogmatic approach and is sane enough to be incorporated in school textbooks? The truth of the matter is that most leading historians have been so preoccupied with what is called social and economic history that they have yet to work out a balanced and incisive analysis of what happened in the medieval period of Indian history. Battle lines invariably get drawn when it comes to dealing with that period. There is nothing like a consensus about what deserves to be incorporated in school textbooks. Therefore anyone who sits down to write puts forward his point of view; and so much depends on his own sympathies and his outlook. In other words, the choice of the textbook writer is more decisive than anything else.

A related factor is the continuing confrontation with Pakistan and the contention about Jammu and Kashmir. No wonder, there is a strong divergence of views between the two countries. This divergence is both ideological and political. The writing of history is, therefore, strongly influenced by partisan considerations and the outcome is what we see. While one part of the job is to be done by our historians, they alone cannot do it. Other factors also play a role. Nevertheless, the responsibility of the historians is central, not peripheral. Is it a coincidence, for example, that there is not a single book on how Islam spread in India? That the pattern of spread differs from State to State is obvious. Despite that fact, someone has to go deeply into the issues that are germane to it and discuss them in detail. The issue is being evaded because questions such as the use - or non use - of force by different rulers would have to be faced. The role of the sufis and the performance of certain rulers and various other factors will also have to be analysed.

No less important is what may be referred to as the folk version of history. In the north and the west of India, the folk version is strongly critical of what happened in the Muslim period. In the east, the situation is somewhat different. Bangladesh might have gone with Pakistan to start with but it is independent now and cultural bonds between the two parts of Bengal are strong, the situation is not exactly comparable with what is happening elsewhere. The situation in the south is different. All this is bound to get reflected in our study of Indian history and our schools cannot but partly reflect what happens at the folk level.

History, as they say, gets thicker as it approaches recent times. Evidently evolving a consensus on issues which have been controversial for a long time would be difficult. In such a difficult situation, the only attainable parameters of approach which can be identified at the moment are that (a) nothing for which there is no evidence will be given the dignity of a historical statement (b) appropriate restraint will be exercised in the projection of facts which, by common consent, are regarded as disputable, and (c) anything which inflames feelings will be systematically eschewed.

Even this much of consensus will help deal with the problems as they arise from time to time. If anyone imagines these parameters will be honestly and properly implemented, he is assuming too much. We are passing through a phase of Indian history where issues of what is to be included or excluded and how certain things will come to be underplayed or overplayed will continue to be a source of controversy as well as exasperation.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Farmers' rights: from laws to action
Next     : Misconceived ideas