History or Propaganda?

With the release of a new set of NCERT social science textbooks aimed at eighth-grade students, the latest revision has taken a sharp turn towards presenting an image of India’s Mughal and Sultanate period that focuses heavily on the destruction of temples, the imposition of religious taxes, and the supposed intolerance of rulers like Aurangzeb. This new narrative risks erasing the nuanced, multifaceted nature of the past and replacing it with a version of history that promotes division.

The revision of history textbooks is not a new phenomenon. History itself is a constantly evolving narrative—one that is shaped by the present as much as the past. The past few decades have seen frequent revisions to how history is taught in India, particularly with regard to the period of Muslim rule.

The latest revisions seem to represent a new chapter altogether. For those familiar with the academic debates surrounding Indian history, this new revision feels like a significant departure from the past. For years, the portrayal of the Mughal Empire, and particularly the reign of rulers like Babar and Aurangzeb, has been the subject of fierce debate.

Was Babar a conqueror motivated by a religious agenda, as the more recent narrative suggests? Or was his rule more complex, characterised by political and territorial ambitions, as earlier scholarship argued? The revisionist narrative appears to favour the first interpretation.

In its pages, Babar and his successors are depicted as leaders primarily interested in imposing their religious beliefs on a land already rich in diverse traditions. Temples, the textbooks claim, were destroyed as a deliberate act of iconoclasm—a calculated effort to erase Hindu culture.

To reduce the actions of these rulers to religious zealotry is to overlook the strategic, political, and economic motivations that were just as significant in shaping their decisions. It is also to ignore the complexities of the Mughal Empire—a multi-religious, multi-ethnic state that relied heavily on alliances with Rajputs, Sikhs, and even Marathas, all of whom played pivotal roles in its military and administrative apparatus.

Akbar, often considered one of the greatest of the Mughal emperors, was known for his attempts to integrate Hindu elites into the imperial administration. He sought to forge alliances with Rajputs, many of whom were initially wary of Mughal rule.

Akbar not only abolished the jizya tax on non-Muslims but also sought to engage with religious leaders from various traditions, including Hindus, Christians, and even Jesuit priests. His reign is often seen as a high point in the Mughal era, characterised by religious tolerance and cultural synthesis.

Yet, in the NCERT’s revised narrative, this aspect of his rule is overshadowed by his military campaigns and the actions of his successors, such as Aurangzeb. The new textbooks, for instance, highlight the destruction of temples by Aurangzeb, but fail to mention his significant contributions to Hindu temples, including the grants he made for their upkeep.

It is true that Aurangzeb, unlike Akbar, reinstated the jizya tax and destroyed certain temples. However, it is equally true that his reign was marked by a period of significant territorial consolidation, and his decisions, much like those of any ruler, were driven by a complex interplay of factors, not merely religious dogma.

Temple destruction was hardly unique to Muslim rulers. Hindu kings, too, were involved in the demolition of temples, often for reasons ranging from political dominance to wealth acquisition.

[Contributed by U Govind Rao]

Back to Home Page

Frontier
Vol 58, No. 9, Aug 24 - 30, 2025