Narrative is present in every society in a number of outcomes such as fables, short stories, stained glass, statues, movies, drama, comedy, conversation, epics, films, etc. The very story of mankind is a narrative. Over recent years the study of narrative has generated great interest. History is another form of a narrative, who tells and writes history is often questioned thus bringing the objectivity that historical ‘facts’ hold into question.
Why history? It is not a foreign concept that the subject of history is often overlooked because it may not be relevant due to the advances that mankind has made in terms of policy making, economics, inclusivity, borders between countries, etc. People say history is taught so we can learn from our past mistakes and not repeat them.
However, one needs to understand that people today are living examples of history, the languages we speak, the traditions, religions, belief systems did not stem overnight. A large part of our national identity stems from our history and culture that are deeply rooted in the legacy of the region's ancient civilizations. It is not easy to understand how society functions without knowledge of where it came from.
Ideas such as nationalism, feminism, democracy, etc. shape our country today. For example, Thomas Picketty showed that the relation between booming capitalism and declining inequality rested in studying the data gathered for a decade after the second world war, this study had a profound impact on tax policies and social welfare. The study of Marxism gives insight into economic affairs today, treatment of women in history explains the feminist wave that is gaining quick popularity and so on. We vote for the people we think will fit our political ideologies best and sometime history is one of the influencing factors when it comes to forming these ideologies.
Our sense of belonging too is a product of history. Nationalism is not a passive idea that becomes a driving force of almost borderline fanaticism, or a feeling for an already existing nation, but stems from the struggles that a nation undergoes to come into being. The idea of a homogenous nation is usually build through erasing particular perspectives. When this happens, we are left with a very convoluted sense of being. This manipulation of identity is easy when the audience is the influential youth that aren’t able to identify the biases they are exposed to in things such as history textbooks.
These half-truths are not uncommon in historical education. In 1961 when the NCERT (National Council of Educational Training & Research) was set up, a cry for more responsible writing of history was common; however, history is essentially just a collection of subjective narratives chosen as ‘facts’, thus it is interesting to see how certain things that are meant to be products of objectivity are still very much made by people. This can also be categorized as a form of narrative discourse.
The NCERT as a political body exists so there is uniformity in the history that is written in various textbooks, renowned historians came together to form a concise version of history that could be taught across the country however one cannot separate political ideologies from political bodies even if they are education based. In a diverse country like India representation began to question the objectivity of a single story and therefore NCERT allowed states to make
local history a component. This leads to glorification of local heroes and different perspectives in every state.
Every time there has been a change in the government there was a shift in educational policies and history textbooks underwent changes. The heads of these educational boards weren’t elected based on their skill and proficiency in their area of expertise but in fact picked based on their proximity to the ideology of the ruling party. This change seems to be guided by the Bhartiya Janata Party’s parent organization, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh in India and started with the Zia government in Pakistan. Schools across the country have had a shift in textbooks and bans put on certain chapters and books that seem to almost deliberately promote an ideology.
This is a large claim to make but can clearly be seen if one is to take examples directly from the discrepancies that exist in Pakistani and India textbooks in regards to their shared history.
What this does is, the India text shows Hindus as people that did not want a separate Muslim state because it was their most educated and politically active province. However, what is failed to mention in the Indian text is that it was the province with the most educated Hindus and not educated population in general, because the Muslims were largely denied western education by the British who held them responsible for the uprising of the revolt of 1857. Whereas the Pakistan text fails to mention that this was one of the major causes for the congress split in Surat since certain assertive nationalists wanted this movement to spread and were therefore banished from the congress. This selective display of information, intentionally or unintentionally leaves a biased impact.
This highlights how both textbooks may hold accurate information, gathered by historians that are reliable but the simple act of making the narrative more concise can propagate an idea based on what is omitted.
In 2005 at a ‘Seeds for peace’ conflict resolution camp, Indian and Pakistani children were flown to USA and made to live together to promote peace and erase differences. During these exercises one recurring topic that caused conflict was noted to be the shared history between the two countries. It was evident from this that there were discrepancies in the textbooks.
Beyond that work, renowned historians have given statements from both sides of the border pertaining to this topic. In his preface to the Muqaddimah, one of the first history books to be written by Ibn Khaldun, he warned people of a mistake he though historians often committed. This particular mistake, or lie rather, has plagued history textbooks in Pakistan since the 1950s and has been used as a political tool by the government to project rulers and monetize their term in the government. Tara Chand’s ‘History of the Freedom Movement in India’ was accepted as a reliable source until the BJP decided, in 1977, to rewrite the secular textbook. With the establishment of the BJP-led government in October 1999, the BJP-RSS combination began its subversion of academia through ‘fine tuning’ and thus rewriting history textbooks in accordance with the values they believe should be cultivated in the citizens of the country.
These above examples are proof that so much of historical education depends on power which makes it extremely subjective in nature.
A lot of schools in India are run by the government so the degree to which political parties keep control of data is a good indication towards their commitment to control belief systems. Even when the government is less involved, biases can come into play based on the teaching methods, what is omitted and given more importance and just how that data is presented, this prevents healthy debates that could encourage children.
Thus, as one can see, it is crucial to scrutinize textbooks. Especially in third world countries like India and Pakistan because for millions of children, that aren’t privileged enough, their education stops by standard 12 or before so these textbooks are their primary and most prominent source of information, even though numerous others exist. In a little child’s world, often this textbook holds utmost importance because they are graded and judged upon the information they are capable of regurgitating during tests, this competitive nature of education gives rise to generally negative feelings and their primary focus ends up becoming more competitive than educational. In reputed schools, an atmosphere of fear of failure is often sustained, therefore even if the teacher does try to make the child sensitive and reflective towards the data that is being presented, it often gets drowned in the
hum of everyday life. Moreover, beyond textbooks, children learn about their past through adults, therefore if the earlier generation is also not taught well enough it passes on to the current generation, making history a very tricky school subject. Poorly taught history leaves more of an impact than well taught history and when this happens it does not arouse curiosity in a child but instead creates an emotional barrier for further analysis.
The manner in which children imbibe culture in an active way is an important element to understand the dynamics of various social situations and the conducts. The exposure to information in schools that is taken in by their peers, taught by a person they respect such as the educator and made by historians that are meant to be experts in the field is something the child understand doesn’t question the integrity of, this allows for the qualitative shaping of the consciousness and with it, their personality. Children are not passive when it comes to influences from their educators, learning is an active process that requires the participation of children to promote their development. Schools are a place of systematic learning and organized education. Its function is to promote contents of culture and history in a pedagogical process and therefore promote the development of capacities of children.
The above statements clearly highlights the supremacy of textbooks and makes an argument as to how it affects children’s psychology. Therefore, subjectivity of what is being taught would clearly leave a child with an idea of nationalism that isn’t necessarily holistic in nature. However, the counterpoint could be that textbooks aren’t the only source of information. In the digital world that we live in today, people have free access to an array of information on the internet.
Although this holds true, there are a few points to take into consideration; what people forget is in a country like India a vast majority of the population lives below the poverty line and doesn’t have easy access to technology and internet, they go to government schools where the
textbooks are heavily biased. As highlighted earlier, children need to have an active interest and make an effort to find information on the school syllabus beyond their textbooks but because of the school environment, teaching methods and importance given to textbook this is extremely rare. The internet is also not the most reliable source because it maps out search results and understands what the user supports, their belief systems and ideologies and fills it into an algorithm that selects articles they would agree with, displays those and hides ones they do not agree with. What this does is just re-inforce people’s beliefs in what they already feel strongly about, so how is one supposed to understand another perspective if they are completely unaware of its existence in the first place?
Alternative teaching methods are another major influence on shaping a child’s mind. 9.3% of the educated children in Pakistan study in religious seminaries where extremism in religion plays an important has led to a stark increase in the number of madrasas that have popped up post-independence. In India, RSS runs multiple shakhas in every district where children from the age of 5 years old come and are made to salute the saffron flag and repeat Hindutva chants in a dogmatic fashion during their playtime like it is a part of their culture. Since it is mixed with fun and games children attending these meetings very frequently which proves to be such an efficient manner of imparting these ‘values’.
The factors that affect a child’s personality are extremely vast and numerous. However, one way to introduce a sufficiently large population of children to critical thinking could be through textbooks. The reason being, this is something they are forced to learn, compulsorily exposed to even if they don’t go out of their way to seek this information. While the politics of writing textbooks silently unfolds in invisible ways, the wars fought over them are public. When textbooks are looked at as official, authoritative and reliable they become objects of public scrutiny, the historians are often charged with the responsibility of pleasing the public but the wars fought over textbooks aren’t based off of knowledge of history by the public but are ideological wars.
Subjects like history are always going to be subjective, separating historical education from politics is naïve and far to idealistic an idea. However what needs to be celebrated isn’t particular critiques of history but critical thinking as a whole. Criticality of textbooks would instill a child with empathy and curiosity and knowledge of multiple perspectives and overlaying narratives. Change in ideas cannot be instilled by simply bringing about a change in textbooks, because it is only one factor amongst so many however it is important for children to understand that these biases exist and for them to be able to make decisions on their own, this ‘taken for granted’ nature in regards to history needs to be unpacked and discussed.
In conclusion, historical education can be categorized as one of the factors that shape young minds, even though it is subjective subject because of the heavy influence of politics, human error, etc. a more critical version of it is not something unfathomable. Currently the solution seems far off but opening this to discussion could be used to study the factors that influence the emergence of nationalism in children and its implications on society.