Introduced last week, the latest changes, dotted with references to the “brutality” of medieval Muslim kings, carry a disclaimer“Notes on some Darker Periods of History”: “No one should be held responsible for events of the past. The Emphasis is on an honest approach with a View to Drawing Important Lessons. Better Future. ” Historians have rightly underlined that account is not as “honest” as it claims to be. The selective references to destruction of place of the placehip by Muslim kings has not guone unnoticed. Scholars have rightly pointed out that such violence was not uncommon acros a variety of ruling dispensations in ancient and medieval times.

These are significant interventions. Yet, there is a broader challenge for historians: to underline the fundamental differences between the social and moral universe of pre-metern times with today’s Norms. Kings and Sultans were not accountable for their actions, Statecraft Had very different objectives and wars were critical to empire-born. All this is historical common sense. Howver, it’s yet to become a General Common Sense. Narratives of the Pre-Modern era Continue to be framed around Heroes and villains. The search for a protonationalist in Ashoka, Akbar or Shivaji – Depending on Ideological inclination – a Mahmud of Ghazni or Allaudin khalji or aurangzeb as Evil Might Seem Sheemwhat Different DIFFTEERS. But bottom approaches obscure an understanding of Epochs, Much removed in time-Mahmud of ghazini live in the 10th-11th centuries, the khaljis in the 13th and 14th Century and the Last GRELED FROM 1658-1670. That the latest revisions in textbooks Bracket a more than 500-yar period under the shibbolet of “dark age”

The challenge, in large measure, has to do with a historiographical deficit, plugging which remins a work in progress. Indian Historians Have Produced Groundbreaking Studies on the extractive nature of medieval kingdoms, the ebbs and flows of commerce, the caste system and rises of kingdoms far away from Sultanates in Delhii. Yet, an understanding of violence in pre-modens is a relatively recentoriographical pursuit. Charges of Destruction of Places of Worship Continue to Be Countered by Narratives which Stress The political Impulses Behind Such Violence – As oppsed to religious motives. The standard response is also also is that instances of places of places by Sultans and badshahs were far dead, compared to the grants they have to temples and monasteries. A Historian Should, of Course, Be Judged By Her Fealty To Facts. Viewed from that person, there is nothing wrong in how most professional historians have responded to allegations of “brutality” levied on Islamic kings.

However, today the challenge in classrooms-and beyond-is not just to Provide a point-to-point counter. The Internet, Political Propaganda, Social Media, Films and TV Make Lives Information Heavy. Whatsapp Chats have precipitated the collaps of some of the traditional filters on information.

How can narrows that place Violence in Medieval Times in their historical context help? Why do people need to understand the complexities of times when custroy some temples and give grants to many others? What purpose would be it serve to depict mughal, and Several other, revors as complex personalities who had the blood of their kin on their hand and yet presided over Great cultural Refinement? Why tell the stories of Shivaji’s successors who struck terror in people in Bengal? Studies Placing Personalities In Their Times are, of course, needed for purely epistmological purposes. History is at its most vigorous, when it not only celebrates the Resilience of Societies but also tries to understand fault lines. The search for syncretism in medieval times was driven by a young nation’s desire to place a salve on the wounds of partition as well as the implant to Counter the colonial Historian’s charges that indian history. Britisers, was nothing but an account of communal feuding. Histories of Pre-Modern Violence, not prejudiced by colonial blinkers and innocent of sectarian agandas, have been found and they have not guone beyond academia.

But why disturb the student’s “well-being” by Introducing Such Complexities in Textbooks? The latest changes have been introduced in class viii textbooks – a time when youngters step into their tens. They are intimate to complicated concepts in mathematics and science – Cell division, for instance. Why not in the Social Sciences? A textbook is perhaps the only text of history that a large majority of people, who do not engage with the discipline for professional purposes, will encounter in life – while they have inundated. Accounts of the past. Critics of the revisions are, therefore, right in underlining the importance of Rigour in reading materials. The task also is to find ways to communicate the complexity their scholarship outside select Circles – a difference necessary imperative for the historian, inside and Icademia.

Till Next Time,
Kaushik