By B. Shantanu

"Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it," is a familiar saying. Several weeks ago, I chanced upon India's National Council for Educational Research and Training (NCERT) website with links to "History" text-books for middle school students in India. Curiosity led me to download some of the chapters from the text book for students of Class VII. I was angry and sad at what I discovered.

The tales of Rajput velour and their determined resistance against the Mughals find no mention in this History text for students of Class VII (Age 12-14). There is no mention of the three Jauhars of Chittor (or of the more than 30,000 that were massacred following the fall of Chittor). The story of the one who refused to bow down appears to have been erased from the "official" version of history. The exploits of Maharana Pratap will remain alien to these students...

What they will learn about, instead, are the kind and gentle-hearted Mughals and their buildings and architecture - written in a style that induces awe and suggests admiration. As an example, read this bit about the Qutub Minar:

"Notice that the surface of the Minar is curved and angular. Placing an inscription on such a surface required great precision. Only the most skilled craftsperson could perform this task. Remember that very few buildings were made of stone or brick 800 years ago. What would have been the impact of a building like the Qutub Minar on observers in the thirteenth century?" (Pg60, Chapter 5).

What the text book delicately avoids mentioning is the Quwwat-ul-Islam mosque that was built from parts taken by destroying 27 Hindu and Jain temples that stood in the complex.

But the negationism does not end there. Under a section titled, "Why were Temples Destroyed?" the text-book has several paragraphs devoted to why temples were attacked by kings and rulers:

"Because kings built temples to demonstrate their devotion to God and their power and wealth, it is not surprising that when they attacked one another's kingdoms, they often targeted these buildings.

"In the early ninth century when the Pandyan king Shrimara Shrivallabha invaded Sri Lanka... the Buddhist monk and chronicler Dhammakitti noted: "he removed all the valuables ... The statue of the Buddha made entirely of gold in the Jewel Palace ... and the golden images in the various monasteries - all these he seized.

"The blow to the pride of the Sinhalese ruler had to be avenged and the next Sinhalese ruler, Sena II, ordered his general to invade Madurai, the capital of the Pandyas. The Buddhist chronicler noted that the expedition made a special effort to find and restore the gold statue of the Buddha.

"Similarly in the early eleventh century, when the Chola king Rajendra I built a Shiva temple in his capital he filled it with prized statues seized from defeated rulers."

And then slyly,

"Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni was a contemporary of Rajendra I. During his campaigns in the subcontinent he also attacked the temples of defeated kings and looted their wealth and idols. Sultan Mahmud was not a very important ruler at that time. But by destroying temples - especially the one at Somnath - he tried to win credit as a great hero of Islam. In the political culture of the Middle Ages most rulers displayed their political might and military success by attacking and looting the places of worship of defeated rulers."

As expected no evidence is cited, nor is any record mentioned of a single temple razed and destroyed by Hindu kings of that age (or of any previous age). But there appears to be almost complete amnesia about the thousands of temples that were systematically razed to ground and/or converted into mosques by invading armies and the then Islamic rulers of India (as an aside, a good reference for this is "Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them?").

Is it because of the demons from the past? Or is there something else?

In Part II: Of great Mughals and a Maratha chieftain.

In Part I, we read how the history taught to young minds has been deliberately twisted and distorted - presumably in the interest of maintaining communal peace and harmony. Continuing in the same vein, today a look at the Mughals - "descendants of two great lineages of rulers" and a "chieftain" who established an empire that effectively de-throned the Mughals and rivaled the Mughals at its peak.

The "chieftain" is a reference to Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. My simple dictionary tells me that a "chieftain" is usually a leader of a group, clan or tribe. Anyone who has studied the history of that age will readily agree that Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj was more - a lot more - than merely a leader of a clan or a tribe. Having dismissed Chhatrapati Shivaji as a "Maratha Chieftain," the text devotes an entire chapter to the Mughal empire. No mention of Chhatrapati Shivaji's exploits - or any description of the Maratha Empire. No mention of war that lasted 27 years - and was probably the longest war ever fought in the history of India. No mention of the fact that at its height, the Maratha empire covered much of South Asia, encompassing a territory of over 2.8 m km² (compared to 3.2m km² under the Mughal Empire at its peak).

And while we are at it, no mention of the forgotten empire that lasted almost as long as the Mughals - the Vijayanagar Empire in south India. No mention of the state that defeated seventeen successive attempts by the Delhi Sultans and Mughals to bring it under their rule...No mention of the Battle of Saraighat and the heroic story of Lachit Barphukan. No mention of the Battle of Bahraich.

You see - such stories interrupt the smooth narrative of "harmony and peace" and could disrupt the "secular fabric of the nation." Why create unnecessary trouble? Why bother with demons from the past?

No wonder entire generations of Indians grow up having little sense of history - or self-worth and self-esteem. The way the text book is written you would be forgiven for thinking that "India" did not exist before the Mughals came - and it only became "India" after the British. The rest of "Indian History" would merely appear as stories about the Vijayanagar kings, about the Rajputs, about the Marathas, about the Sikhs - but nothing about the "Indians." And a child would be forgiven for wondering who were these "Indians"? No wonder that most Indians are clueless about why this land is called by a foreign name - instead of being called "Bharat."

But beware...as George Santayana wrote:

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to fulfill it.