NCERT’s Class 8 Textbook and the Battle Over India’s Past .
The new NCERT Class 8 Social Science textbook faces scrutiny for its portrayal of medieval India. But is it a necessary pedagogical shift or an ideological distortion? A comprehensive analysis examines both the facts and fears.
A Textbook Under Siege
The release of the NCERT’s new Class 8 Social Science textbook Exploring Society: India and Beyond for the 2025–26 academic session has reignited a familiar controversy: the place of Islamic dynasties—especially the Mughals—in India’s historical imagination. A recent Indian Express report claimed the textbook demonizes Mughal emperors by emphasizing their “brutality” and “intolerance.” Others see this as part of a broader ideological effort to rewrite Indian history along majoritarian lines.
Yet beneath the rhetorical volleys lies a more complex pedagogical debate. Is the textbook’s content a distortion of medieval history, or a necessary corrective in light of evolving academic frameworks like the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020? This article examines both the structure and substance of the revised textbook and contends with competing claims—academic, political, and pedagogical.
Structural Reforms or Strategic Shifts?
One of the first criticisms raised is that Mughal and Sultanate history has been relocated from Class 7 to Class 8, a shift alleged to reflect a hidden agenda. However, this reordering stems from the National Curriculum Framework for School Education (NCF-SE) 2023, which aims to reduce overlap and cognitive load. The new Class 8 volume, integrating history, geography, civics, and economics, presents a more cohesive historical narrative.
Instead of fragmenting content over multiple years, the new model seeks to deepen understanding at an age-appropriate level. Medieval history, once skimmed in Class 7’s Our Pasts – II, is now revisited with more primary sources and complexity. Whether this restructuring is pedagogical or political depends, in part, on the lens through which one reads the textbook.
Babur, Akbar, Aurangzeb: Brutality or Balance?
A flashpoint in the debate is the portrayal of key Mughal figures. The textbook reportedly describes Babur as a “brutal and ruthless conqueror,” Akbar’s reign as a “blend of brutality and tolerance,” and Aurangzeb as a destroyer of temples and gurdwaras.
Critics argue this language reduces centuries of complex rule to a morality tale of violence. Babur’s military campaigns were indeed bloody, but so were those of his Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain predecessors. The Baburnama, cited in the textbook, offers a full spectrum: tales of battle and blood, yes, but also of poetry, gardens, architecture, and admiration for India’s diversity.
Akbar’s description as both brutal and tolerant raises eyebrows. Historians note that while the siege of Chittorgarh in 1568 involved mass killings, Akbar’s legacy is defined more by his inclusive governance—abolishing the jizya tax, engaging in interfaith dialogue at the Ibadat Khana, and marrying Rajput princesses as part of a pluralistic statecraft.
Labelling his reign as a mere “blend” of brutality and tolerance amounts to false equivalence, critics argue. Every medieval ruler, by virtue of conquest, presided over violence. But few institutionalized religious pluralism the way Akbar did.
Aurangzeb, often invoked as a symbol of Islamic orthodoxy, is similarly flattened into a caricature. Yes, he reimposed jizya and ordered some temple destructions, particularly during rebellions. But historical records also reveal that over 80% of his nobles were Hindus, and that he patronized temples in Ujjain, Benaras, and Chitrakoot. His rule was complex—marked by political repression, military ambition, and occasional religious accommodation.
Contextualizing Temple Destruction
A major flashpoint is the textbook’s reference to temple destruction under Islamic rulers. While such incidents are real and documented, presenting them without historical context risks miseducation.
Temples in pre-modern India were not just religious structures; they were repositories of wealth and symbols of political authority. Plundering temples was a strategic—not uniquely Islamic—act. Even Hindu kings from the Chalukya, Rashtrakuta, and Parmara dynasties attacked rival temples in power struggles.
The problem is not in mentioning temple desecration, but in the absence of comparable accounts from non-Muslim rulers. If the goal is critical analysis, then it must be applied evenly across the board.
Ironically, the same textbook includes a disclaimer urging students not to hold contemporary individuals accountable for historical actions, and provides a “Note on Some Darker Periods in History” to underline the complexities of the past. The Indian Express report fails to acknowledge these pedagogical safeguards.
Omission by Emphasis: The Missing Glories
Equally troubling is what the textbook does not emphasize. Critics from the academic community, including this writer, argue that the cumulative effect of repeated references to “intolerance” and “brutality” amounts to a narrative of vilification—not one of historical nuance.
There is insufficient focus on the artistic, architectural, and cultural innovations of the Delhi Sultanate and Mughal period:
•The Taj Mahal, Red Fort, Humayun’s Tomb, and Fatehpur Sikri.
•Indo-Persian literature, Persian translations of Sanskrit texts under Akbar.
•Hindustani classical music and Kathak, which flourished under royal patronage.
•City-building projects, such as Shahjahanabad.
•Scientific and administrative reforms, including the Zabt revenue system.
The textbook touches upon some of these aspects but fails to offer them equal narrative weight. This imbalance reinforces a one-dimensional story, risking a loss of cultural pride among students exposed to India’s rich, syncretic heritage.
A Textbook Torn Between Pedagogy and Politics
Much of this controversy reflects the polarized discourse surrounding NEP 2020. Earlier concerns revolved around the erasure of Mughal history—most notably, the deletion of entire chapters in Class 12. The Class 8 textbook reintroduces some of this content, but with altered framing. Critics argue that we’ve moved from erasure to demonization.
NCERT has defended the changes as part of COVID-era rationalization. However, the consistency with which Islamic dynasties are framed in negative terms—while rulers like Shivaji are valorized as devout yet plural—suggests more than mere pedagogical tweaking.
This subtle shift from educational balance to ideological emphasis raises alarms. When textbooks become battlegrounds, they risk sowing division instead of understanding.
Teaching the Past Without Prejudice
India’s students deserve history books that go beyond binaries of good versus evil. They need tools for critical thinking, not templates for ideological loyalty. This means:
•Presenting multiple viewpoints.
•Teaching that all empires—regardless of religion—used violence and diplomacy.
•Celebrating pluralistic traditions that survived in spite of political conflict.
Exploring Society: India and Beyond contains important ideas. It introduces primary sources like the Baburnama and encourages students to question historical interpretations. But these strengths are undermined by selective emphasis, ambiguous phrasing, and an underlying political subtext.
Let History Illuminate, Not Inflame
The new NCERT textbook may serve short-term political narratives, but it risks long-term damage to India’s educational ethos. History is not merely a chronicle of conquest and cruelty. It is a tapestry of accommodation, exchange, and transformation. Let us teach our children to understand that complexity—not fear it.
The real tragedy would be to let textbooks become monuments to ideology instead of gateways to inquiry.
Hasnain Naqvi is a former member of the history faculty at St. Xavier’s College, Mumbai
