– Mohd. Naushad Khan
In recent years, the NCERT, India’s apex body for designing school curricula, has found itself at the centre of a storm. At the heart of the controversy is a growing accusation: that NCERT is quietly rewriting India’s history to fit a particular ideological narrative.
Critics, including eminent historians, educators, and political commentators, argue that this is not mere editing but a systematic distortion; it’s in fact an attempt to reshape national memory. But the council and its supporters see these changes as necessary, even overdue, to reflect a “more Indian” version of history.
In 2023, NCERT undertook what it called a “rationalisation” exercise. The stated aim was to reduce academic stress on students, especially in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. But when entire chapters were dropped from history, political science, and sociology textbooks, eyebrows were raised.
Gone were sections on the Mughal courts, the 2002 Gujarat riots, the Emergency of 1975, the Naxalite movement, and writings by Dalit thinkers. Even Gandhi’s assassination and its political implications were quietly removed. While NCERT said the edits were temporary, critics questioned the timing and intent.
In July 2025, new Class 8 history textbooks described Babur as “brutal and ruthless,” Akbar as “brutal yet tolerant,” and Aurangzeb as an “intolerant destroyer.” A special note at the bottom urged students not to assign blame, but to learn from the past critically. Many historians called the framing selective and ideologically tinted, accusing the authors of painting a lopsided view of Mughal rulers.
Ahead of the Independence Day in 2025, a new module commemorating “Partition Horrors Remembrance Day” sparked another wave of backlash. The module squarely blamed Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the Indian National Congress, and Lord Mountbatten for the tragedy, stating that Partition was entirely avoidable.
While the NCERT claimed the aim was to make students aware of the human cost of Partition, the Congress party and student groups like NSUI called it a “political hit job.”
Another point of contention came from a historical map in a Class 8 textbook, which depicted princely states like Jaisalmer as being under Maratha control. This led to protests from Rajasthan’s royal families, who called the depiction “malicious and incorrect.” In response, NCERT set up a review committee to look into the matter, while Maratha historians defended the map using historical records.
More than 250 historians and academics, including respected figures like Romila Thapar, Irfan Habib, Mridula Mukherjee, Upinder Singh, and Apoorvanand, signed an open letter demanding a rollback of the deletions. They argued that students were being denied access to key aspects of Indian history such as religious pluralism, social reform, and the role of dissent.
The Indian History Congress (IHC) also slammed the revisions, calling them “plainly prejudiced.” According to IHC, the changes distorted facts and erased vital elements of India’s political past, such as Mughal cultural influence and the history of communal violence.
Prominent political scientists like Suhas Palshikar and Yogendra Yadav, who had contributed to the original NCERT textbooks, publicly asked for their names to be removed from the books. They revealed they had no knowledge of the deletions, calling the process non-transparent and academically unethical.
Historian Irfan Habib warned that politicising school textbooks would lead to “dangerous polarisation.” He said, “This is a conscious effort to brainwash young minds and deepen religious divisions.”
Apoorvanand, professor at Delhi University, echoed similar concerns, claiming that the effort is to present India as “a historically Hindu-only land” erasing Muslim and Mughal contributions in the process.
Romila Thapar, one of India’s most respected historians, put it bluntly: “This is not a clash of opinions. It is a battle between professional historians and politically motivated ideologues.”
Not everyone agrees with the criticism. NCERT Director Dinesh Prasad Saklani has consistently defended the changes, calling them part of a broader transition to the National Curriculum Framework (NCF) under the New Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
“These are temporary reductions,” Saklani said, “meant to reduce burden and align with the upcoming curriculum. We are not erasing history we are rewriting textbooks to suit evolving academic standards.”
Michel Danino, a scholar and member of NCERT’s textbook development committee, acknowledged that certain empires are presented in more favourable terms than others. However, he dismissed claims of ideological tampering, suggesting the aim was to avoid causing emotional distress to students.
Interestingly, not all academics oppose the changes. In a counter-move, 73 professors including vice-chancellors and educationists issued a statement backing NCERT. They argued that the process was consultative, needed modernisation, and was in line with India’s new educational goals.
At its core, this controversy touches a fundamental question: What is the role of history in education?
Should it be a tool for building national pride, as some claim? Or should it be an honest, sometimes uncomfortable reflection of the past full of nuance, contradiction, and complexity?
Textbooks do more than inform; they shape young minds, define collective memory, and influence the values of generations. When the process of writing them becomes opaque, rushed, or ideologically driven, it endangers the very foundation of education.
India is a nation of layered histories, contested truths, and diverse narratives. Erasing or editing parts of that story may rob students of the chance to think critically, ask difficult questions, and appreciate the full richness of their heritage.
In the long run, the fight over NCERT textbooks isn’t just about pages in a history book it’s about the kind of citizens we want to create.
