The National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), the apex body responsible for determining the content of school textbooks in India, has in recent decades become a medium for promoting a communal perspective of history. Rather than presenting a balanced, objective, and rational understanding of the past, the portrayal of historical events—particularly in relation to the medieval period—is increasingly tilted towards communal narratives. This ideological slant significantly impacts how young minds perceive history, especially regarding the Muslim community, which has been systematically ‘othered’ through various sociopolitical channels.
The colonial historiography introduced by the British framed Indian history primarily through a religious lens. Kings who pursued power and wealth were depicted as motivated by religious zeal, ignoring the historical reality that many battles were fought between rulers of the same faith. Armies, too, were often multi-religious, and royal decisions were driven more by politics and pragmatism than by religious dogma. Brutalities during wars—a hallmark of that era—were not exclusive to any one religion but were a common feature of medieval warfare.
For instance, Shivaji’s first major confrontation was with Chandra Rao More, a fellow Hindu. Babur, the founder of the Mughal dynasty, defeated Ibrahim Lodi, another Muslim. Likewise, the Chola and Chalukya kings engaged in fierce battles against each other. Today, however, Mughal-era atrocities are selectively highlighted in isolation to demonize Muslim rulers, ignoring the complexity of their rule and the context of the times. This historical revisionism becomes especially problematic when past Muslim rulers are equated with contemporary Indian Muslims, further marginalizing the latter and fueling communal prejudice.
The latest example of this trend is the release of an NCERT social science textbook for Class 8, part of the Exploring Society: India and Beyond series. Covering Indian history from the 13th to 17th centuries, the textbook purports to introduce students to the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal period. However, it appears to have gone to great lengths to demonize Muslim rulers, presenting temple destruction as motivated purely by religious iconoclasm, without exploring alternative or more nuanced explanations.
Historical sources such as Kalhana’s Rajatarangini mention Hindu kings like Harshdev, who appointed officials like the Deottpatan Nayak—specifically tasked with uprooting idols and looting temples for wealth. Yet such instances rarely make it into mainstream narratives. Similarly, the claim that Aurangzeb destroyed thousands of temples is exaggerated and not substantiated by solid historical evidence. In contrast, his donations and land grants to temples, documented in works like Farmans of Aurangzeb by Dr. Vishambharnath Pandey, are conveniently ignored.
The Babri Masjid dispute is another example of distorted representation. While claims were made about Babur demolishing a Ram temple, the Allahabad High Court’s judgment in the Ayodhya case acknowledged the Hindu claim based on faith, not historical fact. The Supreme Court verdict similarly did not confirm the existence of a temple beneath the mosque. Significantly, Babur’s own will, preserved in the National Museum in Delhi, instructs Humayun to respect Hindu sentiments by avoiding temple destruction and cow slaughter—reflecting a pragmatic approach to governance, not religious hostility.
The new NCERT textbook also refers to Akbar’s siege of Chittorgarh and an alleged massacre of 30,000 people, while omitting that Rajput King Bhagwant Das—himself a Hindu—was part of Akbar’s alliance. Such selective narrativization ignores similar events involving Hindu kings. For example, during the Chola-Chalukya conflict, the Cholas destroyed entire cities and Jain temples. Pushyamitra Shunga is said to have persecuted Buddhist monks and demolished viharas and stupas. Even Shivaji’s army engaged in plunder and violence in Surat, as recorded in Shivkalyan Raja by Bal Samant.
The central issue is that cruelty was not unique to any one religion—it was an unfortunate norm of pre-modern warfare. But today’s selective retelling hides the reality that Mughal armies had Hindu-Rajput generals like Man Singh, Jaisingh, and Jaswant Singh, while Hindu rulers had Muslim commanders like Hakim Khan Sur (with Rana Pratap) and Daulat Khan and Ibrahim Gardi (under Shivaji Maharaj).
The NCERT textbook also misrepresents the jizya tax, portraying it as religious persecution. In truth, Akbar abolished the tax just a few years into his reign. The jizya was not meant to coerce conversions but was a non-Muslim tax (distinct from zakat for Muslims), and certain groups like Brahmins and women were exempt.
Labeling this era as a “dark period” erases the intellectual and spiritual richness it birthed. It was during this time that the Bhakti and Sufi movements thrived, emphasizing unity, love, and compassion. It was also the period during which Sikhism emerged and evolved. Far from being one-dimensional, this era witnessed a vibrant cultural synthesis—known as the Ganga-Jamuni Tehzeeb—where Hindu and Muslim practices and philosophies blended to create shared traditions and societal harmony.
History must be studied and taught in its full complexity. Reducing it to a binary of Hindu vs. Muslim not only distorts the truth but also endangers the social fabric of a diverse nation. NCERT, as a crucial institution shaping young minds, must ensure that textbooks are free of ideological biases and reflect historical realities with fairness and depth. Only then can we foster a generation capable of critical thinking, empathy, and inclusive nationalism.
