The recent omissions by the National Council for Educational Research & Training (NCERT) from their textbooks, particularly those in the History and Political Science books, have drawn a lot of sharp criticism and concern from academicians, activists, educationists, and prominent Civil Society members for their alleged political nature.
New changes include the removal of content about Mahatma Gandhi being disliked by Hindu Nationalist groups, particularly the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and its subsequent (yet temporary) ban following his assassination. In addition, references about his assassin Nathuram Godse’s affiliations with Hindu Nationalist groups have also been dropped.
The NCERT has denied any political influence behind the choice of topics omitted. Rather, they stated that the purpose of these omissions was to reduce the content load post-COVID, and to encourage creative learning under the New Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
Other key reasons given by the NCERT behind removing the content include overlapping of content in other subjects, similar content included in lower or higher classes, and some topics being accessible enough to be learnt without the teacher’s intervention.
The NCERT has been cutting down their syllabus since last year, as part of their “rationalising” process, in line with the NEP 2020. Last year, the removal of content on the chronicles of the Mughal Courts, The Emergency, Social and Dalit Movements, and references to the 2002 Gujarat Riots from History textbooks received a lot of backlash.
This is what educationists had to say about the changes.
Politics at play here
Dr. Niranjanaradhya, developmental educationist & Programme Head - Universalisation of Education at National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bangalore, argues that being naive about the nature of the changes is useless.
“This is part of the ruling party’s attempt to rewrite history to suit their politics,” he says.
Talking of local politics’ influence on history textbooks, D Shashi Kumar, General Secretary of KAMS Karnataka, says, “State governments tend to overemphasise local historical and political developments to inculcate regional pride.” He suggests there must be a balance in the contents of local history, Indian history and world history, as prescribed by the Ministry of Education, Government of India.
Is the new syllabus really in line with NEP?
Other educationists believe that the rationalisation exercise has no academic basis and seems to be done at random.
For instance, Ashish Naredi, Chairman of INDIC International Schools, Hyderabad, says, ”When the rationalisation process began last year, it was said that the exercise was NEP-compliant. But there is no finalised National Curriculum Framework under the NEP yet, so what is the basis for this exercise?”
He further argues that the actual outcome of the exercise is not in line with the rationale behind it, especially considering the changes in the Mathematics syllabus.
“Mathematics is a subject with the least amount of overlaps or repetitions in topics,” he explains, and argues that it makes no sense to remove important topics, like the applications of trigonometric formulae.
“This severely takes away from the learning outcomes of several other concepts in mathematics, and the overall learning outcomes of the students,” the educationist says.
Emphasising on the need for a fixed curriculum framework, he talks about how textbook publishers try to one-up each other by adding more content to their textbooks. “We need a finalised National Curriculum Framework to avoid this,” he says.
Diminishing quality of history education
There is a common consensus among educationists that removing topics from history textbooks can lead to confusion in a child's mind.
Reflecting on the controversy of last year’s changes in Karnataka history textbooks, Shashi Kumar says, “All these years, Tipu Sultan was portrayed as a hero and a freedom fighter. Now, there are attempts to show him in a negative light. What would the students end up learning? Won’t they be confused?”
The syllabus, he says, must include everything about Tipu Sultan. That way, the students can objectively decide for themselves whether Tipu Sultan is a hero, a villain, or something else.
On a similar note, Ashish Naredi also agrees that our past must not be taught as matter-of-fact statements, but with historical contexts.
“What good would removing Mughals from our textbooks do,” he asks. He goes on to say that instead, the textbooks must present to the children everything the Mughals did in an unbiased manner, and encourage them to form their own opinions around them.
“Teach both the good and bad aspects of the Mughal kings, and give them the sources of these claims. Present all the facts, and then ask them to form their own perspectives, rather than presenting perspectives as facts,” he says. This is how students can learn to think critically, he further says.
Elaborating on what the aim of history education must be, Dr. Niranjanaradhya says, “History must be taught in a way that imbibes the idea of India as enshrined in our Constitution - that of a Socialist, Sovereign, Secular Republic — into the students.”
He says that the objective of the study of history must be learning about our past to build a good future. “Students must be taught to avoid making the same mistakes that our ancestors made to improve our country. This is what historians like DD Kosambi proposed to do,” he explains.
He further cites DD Kosambi’s rejection of the categorisation of history of Indian History as Hindu, Muslim, and British, and instead understanding history from the people’s perspective as the standard for understanding history.
“Today, the omissions undo this, and turn the study of history ahistorical and devoid of real education,” he laments.
Rationalised syllabus may further push students to coaching centres
Despite being touted as NEP-compliant, the rationalised syllabus may push more students into coaching centres, educationists say - contradicting NEP 2020’s discouragement of coaching culture.
According to Ashish Naredi, students would have to rely on coaching centres even more now, as a lot of topics are being cut from the syllabus, especially sciences and it won’t be enough to prepare for competitive exams like JEE.
“This goes against the NEP’s motive of decreasing the syllabus to reduce the academic burden from students,” Ashish Naredi explains.
D Shashi Kumar believes that coaching centres are here to stay and the "beautiful vision of the NEP" would remain unfulfilled, as long as the syllabus and teaching methodology for maths and sciences is not standardised across boards. “Even if the syllabus covers enough ground, there will always be students who want to study extra and learn more,” he says.
Moving forward
There seem to be mixed opinions among educationists on whether this move is ultimately beneficial to the students or not.
While Ashish Naredi believes it to be an “entirely cosmetic move” that “does not have a positive impact on the pedagogy” and “does not help students ease their burden in any way,” D Shashi Kumar is far more hopeful.
“The syllabus had to be cut, as the load for the students is far too much to take, and now the students have extra time to pursue their interests,” D Shashi Kumar says, and calls the omissions in the maths and science syllabi “a welcome change.”
“One of the biggest reasons why students don’t perform well in these subjects is that they are overwhelmed by their vastness. This move ensures that students grasp the topics well without pressure,” he explains.
D Shashi Kumar says that the next move must be to standardise the syllabus for maths and physics across boards and schools. “It must be ensured that experiential learning is prioritised over rote learning, and a spiral approach to teaching is adopted,” he says.
However, Dr. Niranjanacharya is extremely worried about the implications the new textbooks would have on the democratic instincts of the students, and suggests that these syllabus changes must be challenged.
“The only way to challenge this is through open, public debate. Academicians must raise their voice and speak out against this. The onus is also on the parents to question the government about the kind of education that their children are receiving,” he says.
