New Delhi: Bharat, not India, should be the country’s name in school textbooks, from primary to high-school level, a high-level committee set up by the NCERT to revise school curriculum has recommended, according to its chairman Prof C.I. Issac (Retd), a historian and RSS ideologue.
The committee has also suggested toning down the focus on “Hindu defeats” in the curriculum, Issac told ThePrint.
Issac said the “unanimous” recommendation of the seven-member committee has found mention in its final position paper on social sciences, which is a key prescriptive document that is supposed to lay down the foundation for the development of new NCERT textbooks on the subject.
The recommendation adds a new dimension to the debate that began after the Union government, on 5 September, sent invites for a G20 dinner hosted by the President in the name of “President of Bharat”, instead of “President of India”, as has been the convention.
Four days prior to that, speaking in Guwahati, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat had said that people should use the name Bharat, not India.
Article 1(1) of the Constitution states “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States”.
Issac, who was conferred the Padma Shri in January this year, said the committee has specifically recommended that school students be taught the name Bharat, instead of India, in textbooks.
“The name Bharat finds mention in the Vishnu Purana. Kalidasa used the name Bharat. It is an age-old name. The name India came much later with the invasion of Turks, Afghans and Greeks,” he said.
“They identified Bharat on the basis of the Sindhu river. The invaders found it convenient. I insisted that only the name Bharat be used in textbooks till 12th standard. The other members accepted and it became the committee’s unanimous view,” Issac added.
Another aspect that the committee highlighted, said Issac, is that the prevailing curriculum and textbooks put too much emphasis on “Hindu defeats in battles”.
“In contrast, Hindu victories are not mentioned. Why do our textbooks not teach our students that Muhammed Ghori was killed by Indian tribal people while he was returning after plundering India? Why is the Battle of Colachel (Kingdom of Travancore vs Dutch East India Company) missing from our textbooks? Why is the period of Emergency not taught in detail?” Issac said.
An ex-member of the Union Education Ministry’s Indian Council of Historical Research, Issac is a former member of the faculty at the Department of History in the Kottayam-based CMS College.
He joined the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), the RSS’ student wing, in 1975, and is the current state working president of the Kerala unit of the RSS-linked think tank Bharatheeya Vichara Kendram.
The other members of the committee include ICHR chairperson Prof Raguvendra Tanwar (Retd), Prof Vandana Mishra of the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), Vasant Shinde, former Vice-Chancellor of Deccan College Deemed University, and Mamta Yadav, who teaches sociology at a Haryana government school.
While Mishra is a former national secretary of ABVP, Yadav is a former national vice-president of the organisation.
Tanwar and Yadav refused to comment on the suggestion that Issac claimed was a unanimous one.
Issac said the committee has also recommended that the classification of periods in Indian history — as ancient, medieval and modern — should be phased out.
“We should replace the term ancient with classical. That is something our paper recommends,” Issac added.
NCERT Wednesday issued a statement saying: “On the news in media being flashed about changing the name of India into Bharat in all NCERT textbooks, NCERT states that since the development of new syllabus and textbooks is in the process and for that purpose various Curricular Area Groups of domain experts are being notified by the NCERT. So, it is too premature to comment on the news being flashed in the media on the concerned issue.”
‘Indian push’
The panel chaired by Issac was among the 25 committees formed by the NCERT in December 2021 to prepare position papers on various subjects and themes. Likewise, the states had also constituted 25 groups each on the same subjects and themes to send inputs to the NCERT as part of the new curriculum and textbook development exercise.
ThePrint has previously reported that committees formed by the states have suggested that the new NCERT textbooks should be packed with “various achievements of ancient India”. Another report earlier this month highlighted the differences among the states on the three-language formula and the introduction of Sanskrit in schools.
A look at the papers submitted by the state-level groups on social sciences shows that the suggestions include BJP-ruled Goa’s pitch to launch a ‘India Studies’ curriculum along the lines of ‘Pakistan Studies’ taught in schools across the border.
It has suggested that “Indian Knowledge System could be in our social science curriculum under India Studies similar to Pakistan Studies in Pakistan”.
“All needed topics on Indian traditions, culture and traditional knowledge system could be provided,” it has said.
Deeper focus on Indian Knowledge System is a key priority area for the National Education Policy 2020, under which the government seeks to bring several reforms in the Indian education system.
Haryana, also led by the BJP, has proposed that India take a leaf out of the method adopted by Pakistan in terms of bringing madrasas closer to mainstream education.
“Pakistan has agreed on a plan to overhaul instruction at madrasas or religious schools to bring the institutions closer into line with conventional schools and curb extremist teaching,” Haryana has suggested in its position paper on ‘Inclusive Education’.
“Same way Indian govt. should plan religious schools would be registered and helped to strengthen conventional teaching in subjects like English, science and mathematics,” it adds.
“They would remain responsible for religious teaching and in exchange would have to commit to ensuring that extremist teaching was not part of the curriculum.”
This report has been updated to reflect the NCERT’s statement.
(Edited by Sunanda Ranjan)