Writing History ‘Right’

              Taking off on the recent controversy over history textbooks, R
                S KRISHNA argues that the immediate need is not so much
                to rewrite history but rewrite the way it is written for children
     NCERT’s decision to expunge certain ‘objectionable’ portions of Indian history from
     the school textbooks of classes VI to XII has rightly invited condemnation from all
     concerned members. However in the process of their engagement with state and the
     powers that be over the nature of content that should shape children’s understanding of
     history, deterrents are forgetting something of equal if not greater importance. Few are
     giving much thought as to how the so called progressive history can be effectively taught,
     disseminated and inculcated in the minds of children. There is an immediate need not so
     much to rewrite history but the way it is written for children.
     A child takes cognisance of themes and learns better if the texts take care of two
     important aspects:
     1) appropriate activities that makes learning more hands on and
     2) brain based model that would help the child to make right connections between the
     world they are socialised into and the world that the texts seek to recreate. On both
     these counts all the NCERT history textbooks fail miserably. Though no doubt written
     by historians of eminence such as Romila Thapar, R S Sharma, Satish Chandra and
     Bipan Chandra, it is to be noted that these are scholars noted more for their
     contributions in highly academic journals and publishing monograph’s both of which
     cater to post graduate students and research scholars of history and sociology. They are
     not educationists or teachers dealing with school children and hence not too aware of
     the processes by which children learn.
     The first thing that would strike an observant reader would be the poor production
     quality of these books. The quality of the newsprint itself is poor and hence what little
     photographs that appear in these books are smudged. Such newsprint also does not
     lend itself for any colour reproductions. This of course is no fault of the authors but the
     publishing body.
     Secondly these texts carry little in terms of activities, games etc. which would help
     children in enhancing their reasoning and analysis skill. Such activities would go a long
     way in making learning experience fun, joyful and enriching for children.
     Thirdly there are no questions/activities based on sources that have been used for the
     study of a particular period. For example, as part of the study of the freedom movement
     we have no instance in these texts where any contemporary news paper clippings or
     reports say on Gandhi’s dandi march and British Government’s responses to this
     eventful epoch have been included as an exercise. By referring to such primary sources
     it is possible to impress upon children how sources are used, sifted, studied and
     incorporated in the writing of history. It also enables the teacher to show how different
     scholars have used these sources. Passages from important historical works on a
     particular event or issue written by scholars of diverse ideological positions can also be
     presented in the texts and children themselves then can be asked to decide which of the
     views they relate to better and why. (This is pertinent in view of the perception that any
     event can be differently perceived and also the history text itself is not hermeneutically
     sealed.) History texts written for the IGSCE students of Britain in this regard are a good
     example. Innumerable primary sources plus views expressed by different scholars are
     included and the students are asked to draw their own inferences.
     Fourthly perhaps the chronological approach used by these texts where students in class
     VI are to expected to read Ancient India, goes against Piagetian theory of cognition. As
     noted educationist Krishna Kumar also points out (See his ‘Learning From Conflict’,
     Orient Longman, 1996) in class VI children are in the concrete operational stage of
     cognition. At this stage and age they would find it extremely difficult to read and relate to
     periods such as the Mauryas or Satvahanas that are so remote into the past. Empirically
     little of the social, political and economic life of the ancient past is visible today. Children
     in that age group are socialised into a world so different and thus will find little
     connection and relevance between ancient world and the contemporary world. (The
     national emblem, and Asoka’s integrative role in the nation building process
     notwithstanding) Hence as Krishna Kumar also suggests, is it not possible to teach
     history other way round i.e.starting from the modern period in class VI and go on to
     ancient period in classes IX and X. This way cognitively speaking children in higher
     classes will have the knowledge frame to draw linkages between ancient past and the
     ‘modern’ present.
     Fifthly in this regard I feel history teaching needs to break out of the chronological and
     teleological straitjacket. Is it not possible to teach based on themes or issues such as
     conflicts and social changes rather than periods, time frame and epochs? We
     acknowledge E H Carr’s famous phrase as history being a dialogue between past and
     present as the basis for understanding history. Then why can we not use contemporary
     issues and problems as an entry point to first sensitise students to contemporary
     problems itself, and second help them to understand how history explains these
     problems better. This becomes one important way by which the subject can be made
     brain based and enable the student in making connections between his/ her personal
     world and the world that exists apparently beyond his/ her intellectual horizons. This
     way the relevance of the subject is also brought to relief for the students and all. It will
     certainly depend on the ingenuity of the texts (and teachers of course) in developing
     appropriate activities and worksheets that enable students to find meaning from their
     own life experiences and the world outside, past or present.
     There is another important reason why history textbooks need to be written in the way
     I’m suggesting. One of the important problems that the subject matter of history has
     suffered is the absence of teachers with right aptitude for teaching the subject. Most
     schools consider history as a mere narration of events from past to present that requires
     little mastery of the subject. Hence teachers with no sound understanding of history and
     with specialisation in subjects other than history, are found handling this subject and in
     the process history teaching suffers. In such a background, the need for very
     comprehensive textbooks with appropriate activities, worksheets and projects becomes
     that much more crucial.
     Hence one would note that there are other equally important aspects to NCERT history
     textbooks that need to be problematised, debated and suitable changes made. The
     current controversy over deletion of certain portions and the fear what the new edition
     of the NCERT textbooks may include or may not include is certainly not unfounded. As
     it is, the contents of these books are discursively constituted. Local and regional
     histories are subsumed in the discourse of the nation in singular). Cultural pluralism is
     seen as a given feature of Indian history, all moving teleologically towards and subsumed
     under the overarching umbrella of the Indian nation. Hence the nation is imagined a prior
     to its logical?) culmination and this enervates any attempts to rigorously understand
     aspects of our past outside the framework of the nation. Local histories, its culture, its
     people’s specific position vis a vis the freedom struggle and other struggles and
     movements in post independent India, that might make more sense to students studying
     in CBSE schools in moffusal centres of India are ignored and indeed even frowned
     upon. By concretising nation and centring nation as the fulcrum of debate, where the
     nation is also seen to be part of its people’s ‘common sense,’ we permit easy co-option
     and appropriation by its more chauvinistic proponents (read Hindutva). We all know
     that the nation building process is far from over and the problems posed by caste,
     religious and regional feuds themselves are to be seen as problems where a nation is
     attempting to come to grips with itself. Such a dialectical and tension ridden approach
     between the region and (the category of) the Indian nation should inform the writing of
     our new history textbooks and not presented as resolved issues or as undermining the
     Indian State.
     Therefore both at the level of content and form there is a case for revision. However the
     question of who makes the revision is equally important. NCERT’s recent step, under
     the dispensation and blessings of the BJP-led government, has to be seen in the overall
     context of their ideology and policies of ‘Hindutva’. Hindutva is dangerous not simply
     because of the cultural exclusivism it preaches but also because it attempts to seal the
     debate on the so-called Indian nation. Secondly as Ambedkar also said, fundamental
     Hinduism (as opposed to the more pervasive popular Hinduism) has little room for
     democratic concepts of social justice and equality. Though no history is definitive and
     each interpretation is as good as another, it’s this lack of the latter attributes in the
     ideology of ‘high Hinduism’, which drives the policies of BJP government, that is
     problematic.
     All in all, a viable and concrete alternative plan needs to be presented and debated while
     we respond to such brazen attempts to manipulate history. This should addresses, to
     repeat not merely the ideology that presides over history writing but how such
     ‘politically correct’ history writing is to be undertaken.
     (The writer can be contacted at rskrishna@yahoo.com)