Photo by Swastik Arora on Unsplash
The National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) has recently unveiled its new history textbook for Class VIII students, focusing on the medieval period of Indian history, particularly the Delhi Sultanate and Mughal empires. However, this educational resource has become a subject of intense academic debate and criticism. Scholars and historians are raising serious concerns about the textbook's approach to presenting historical facts by arguing that it prioritises ideological narratives over rigorous academic scholarship. The controversy centres around what critics describe as fundamental misrepresentations of historical evidence and the continuation of communal biases that could significantly impact how young students understand India's rich and complex medieval past.
The Jizya Controversy: Historical Facts Versus Textbook Narratives
One of the most contentious issues in the new NCERT textbook relates to its characterization of the jizya, a tax system implemented during medieval Islamic rule. The textbook presents this taxation mechanism as primarily a tool designed for the "public humiliation" of non-Muslim populations and suggests it served as a financial incentive to encourage religious conversion to Islam. This interpretation represents a significant departure from established historical scholarship and raises serious questions about the accuracy of the educational material being provided to students.
The Historical Reality of Jizya
Historical evidence tells a markedly different story about the nature and purpose of the jizya tax system. This taxation mechanism was first implemented by Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab as early as 634 AD in newly conquered territories across the Levant, Iraq, and Iran. The primary purpose of this tax was not persecution or forced conversion, but rather served as a substitute for military service that non-Muslim citizens were not required to perform. In exchange for paying the jizya, non-Muslim populations received the status of zimmis or dhimmis, which essentially made them protected subjects of the Islamic state. This protection carried with it the responsibility (zimma) of the ruling authority to safeguard the rights and welfare of non-Muslim communities.
Absence of Conversion Pressure in Primary Sources
Contrary to the textbook's assertions, extensive examination of primary historical sources from medieval India and the broader Islamic world reveals no evidence supporting the claim that jizya was used as a conversion tool. Islamic literature produced during this period, both within India and in other regions under Islamic rule, does not associate this tax with any systematic effort to encourage religious conversion. This absence of supporting evidence in contemporary sources raises serious questions about the academic foundation upon which the textbook's claims are built. But, in a way even if we say that Jizya wasn’t a source for conversion, it still somewhat had indirect pressure on the non-muslim population.
Mischaracterisation of Historical Timeline
The textbook contains several glaring factual errors that further undermine its credibility as an educational resource. A particularly notable example involves the characterization of Mughal Emperor Akbar's decision to abolish the jizya tax. The textbook incorrectly suggests that Akbar implemented this policy reform only in his later years, after successfully consolidating his empire and establishing his authority.
The Actual Historical Record
Historical records provide a very different timeline of events. Following the death of his father, Emperor Humayun, in 1556 AD, young Akbar initially ruled under the regency of his guardian and mentor, Bairam Khan. Akbar assumed full imperial authority only in 1560 AD, when he was still quite young. Significantly, he made the decision to abolish the jizya tax just a few years later, between 1563-64 AD, viewing it as an inherently discriminatory practice that was incompatible with his vision of inclusive governance. This timeline clearly demonstrates that the abolition of jizya was not a policy decision made by an established, mature ruler, but rather an early reform implemented by a young emperor who was still in the process of defining his approach to governance.
Revival of Discredited Academic Labels
The new NCERT textbook has reintroduced historically problematic terminology by characterizing the Sultanate-Mughal period as representing "dark periods of history." This choice of language is particularly concerning given that mainstream academic scholarship has long abandoned such simplistic and culturally biased characterizations of historical periods.
The concept of a "Dark Age" originally emerged in European historiography to describe the Early Middle Ages, a period that was inaccurately and unfairly characterized as marked primarily by ignorance, cultural stagnation, and barbarism. Modern historians have thoroughly debunked this characterization, recognising it as reflecting the cultural prejudices and limited understanding of earlier scholars rather than objective historical analysis. When applied to medieval Indian history, such terminology becomes even more problematic as it imposes inappropriate European historical frameworks onto entirely different cultural and historical contexts.
Contemporary Academic Standards
From a contemporary academic perspective, terms like "dark period" represent an oversimplification of complex historical realities and fail to account for the nuanced nature of historical development. Modern historical scholarship emphasises the importance of understanding past periods within their own contexts rather than imposing present-day value judgments or culturally specific interpretations.
Michel Danino, who heads NCERT's Curricular Area Group for Social Science, has attempted to defend the textbook's approach by arguing that Indian history cannot be "sanitised" or presented as a uniformly positive narrative. He contends that acknowledging both positive and negative aspects of historical periods is essential for providing students with a complete understanding of the past. Danino emphasises that the textbook includes a disclaimer stating that contemporary individuals should not be held responsible for historical events. Danino further argues that understanding historical figures like the Mughal emperors requires acknowledging the complexities and contradictions in their personalities and actions. He points out that even Emperor Akbar acknowledged his own brutal behaviour during his younger years, suggesting that presenting a nuanced view of historical figures is more honest than either demonizing or idealizing them.
Moving forward, it is essential that educational authorities ensure that history textbooks meet the highest standards of academic scholarship while remaining accessible to students. This requires careful attention to primary source evidence, consultation with leading historians and scholars, and a commitment to presenting complex historical realities in ways that promote critical thinking rather than ideological conformity. The education of future generations depends on getting this balance right.
. . .
References: