Michel Danino To those who see education as little more than a provider of skills and a gateway to the job market, history as a discipline counts among the least important ones. A few years ago, an education minister in the Tamil Nadu government even suggested that it should be scrapped altogether, since it serves no purpose. Ironically, history is at the same time the darling of our sensation-hungry media, which unfailingly brings us daily reports of claims and counterclaims about historical distortions, ‘controversial’ topics and scholars, writing, and rewriting of history textbooks and so forth. In the last year, for instance, we have heard countless accounts of the ‘saffronization’ of Indian history, repeating almost verbatim the dire charges that were heard from 1999 onward, when the first NDA government assumed power. From this perspective, it rather looks as if history is the most important of all disciplines! The solution to this apparent paradox is plain enough: unlike mathematics, science, or geography, history deals with ticklish issues of nationality, culture, and ultimately, identity. It is history that, to a large extent, defines who we are or are not, where we come from and where we might be headed. As a result, the discipline has tended to look like a messy battlefield rather than a placid academic discipline with dreary exchanges among venerable scholars. And this is in no way peculiar to India: ‘History is the lie commonly agreed upon,’ proclaimed Voltaire two-and-a-half centuries ago. The 20th century U.S. historian Will Durant was hardly more optimistic: ‘Most history is guessing, and the rest is prejudice.’1 But let us return to India, whose first histories, in the modern sense of the term, were written by British scholars early in the colonial era, and expectedly, reflected the prejudices of the times. James Mill’s History of British India, first published in 1817, poured contempt on the very notion of Indian civilization and depicted the Indians’ condition as ‘one of the rudest and weakest states of the human mind’.2 For much of the 19th century, Mill’s book remained the prescribed reference in the preparation for the Indian Civil Service, although condemned by many (including Max Müller) as hopelessly biased. Indians often complained against such bias. Tagore, for instance, wrote, ‘Our real ties are with Bharatavarsha that lies outside our textbooks. … After all, we are no weeds or parasitical plants in India. … Unfortunately, we are obliged to learn a brand of history that makes our children forget this very

Hriday Ranjan Education, since time immemorial, has always followed a top-down approach. A higher authority decides what needs to be taught, what tools are to be used, and to what extent education is to be imparted. Unsurprisingly, this has always been the case, because the imparting of knowledge has been traditionally conceived as unidirectional. One with the knowledge teaches those who do not possess it. From the days of Socrates, to the ancient system of Gurukul, education has been set within parameters and boundaries, guided by a person, or a council. In the interest of the pupils, as well as the purpose of education, it is only right to say that the loyalty of such a council should be sacrosanct, keeping nothing but the interests of the students in mind.gemmy inflatable christmas decorations Unfortunately, in the era of government-controlled education, this principle is very difficult to adhere to. Governments have a long history of micro-managing education, as it is considered an important aspect of culture. Historically, governments have always taken control of matters related to education and curriculum. But how exactly does a government bring about this change? Initially, by altering the pedagogy involved in education. Syllabi are changed, books are rewritten and history and language are tampered with, in order to push the agenda of those in power. The most common explanation for this phenomenon could be the use of education for the spread of political, religious, or social propaganda. India is no exception to this phenomenon. In the last two terms when a new government came to power at the Centre (2004 and 2014), the two different Central governments took a keen interest in monitoring and altering the way education was created, structured, and imparted. And the impact of such high-handedness in educational institutions can be clearly witnessed. In the domain of higher education, a number of key institutions remain without directors and chancellors. According to a report in The Times of India (March 2015), there is a faculty shortage of 32 per cent in IITs, and 22 per cent in IIMs. The quick increase in the number of IITs has led to an acute shortage of staff in some IITs. IIT (BHU) last year had a faculty shortage of 57 per cent, and IIT Delhi 50 per cent. The suggested 1-10 pupil-teacher ratio has also been a challenge to adhere to. This was mostly due to the announcement of new IITs every time a government comes to power, without ensuring proper faculty