There’s a well-liked proverb associated to schooling which says that if an incompetent individual is appointed as instructor, the educational lives of generations of scholars are doomed. And when there are a lot of such lecturers whose solely qualification is having been skilled in Hindutva knowledge at Nationwide Council of Academic Analysis and Coaching (NCERT), what shall be the way forward for faculty social science schooling isn’t tough to know. Not too long ago, NCERT launched a ‘Particular Module’ titled as ‘Partition Horrors’. This module is described as a supplementary useful resource for Lessons 6 to eight (center stage) – not a part of common textbooks – and is supposed for use for tasks, posters, discussions and debates. In reality, it’s not supplementary useful resource materials for looking out the responsible males/organizations for Partition of India as claimed however presents altogether a sectarian narrative as per the desires of RSS masters.

It was launched on August 14 as a part of “Partition Horrors Remembrance Day” following PM Modi’s 2021 directive which acknowledged that “Partition’s pains can by no means be forgotten. Hundreds of thousands of our sisters and brothers had been displaced, and lots of misplaced their lives resulting from senseless hate and violence. In reminiscence of the struggles and sacrifices of our individuals, 14th August can be noticed as Partition Horrors Remembrance Day.”

The entire doc is stuffed with manipulation, contradictions, and untruths aiming to cover greater than it tries to convey in regards to the Partition. We are able to divide the NCERT truths into following sections.

Lie 1: Muslim League chief Jinnah and political Islam based two-nation concept

The doc states that “Partition was primarily the results of flawed concepts, misconceptions, and misguided selections.” The get together of Indian Muslims, the Muslim League [ML], held a convention in Lahore in 1940. Its chief, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, stated that Hindus and Muslims belong to 2 completely different non secular philosophies, social customs, and literatures”. [page 5]

The module additionally traces Partition to Muslim leaders’ perception in a separate identification rooted in “political Islam”. It goes on to emphasize that “on the idea of faith, tradition, customs, historical past, sources of inspiration, and worldviews, Muslim leaders referred to as themselves as basically separate from Hindus. The basis of this lay within the ideology of political Islam, which denies the opportunity of any everlasting or equal relationship with non-Muslims.” [page 6].

It’s true that ML underneath the management of MA Jinnah declared his agency religion in India being not one nation. His argument was that,

“The Hindus and Muslims belong to 2 completely different non secular philosophies, social customs, and literature. They neither intermarry nor interdine collectively, and certainly they belong to 2 completely different civilisations that are primarily based primarily on conflicting concepts and conceptions. Their views on life, and of life, are completely different. It’s fairly clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from completely different sources of historical past. They’ve completely different epics, their heroes are completely different, and completely different episodes. Fairly often the hero of 1 is a foe of the opposite, and likewise their victories and defeats overlap.”

Info hid

This assertion of Jinnah in defence of two-nation concept is reproduced twice within the quick doc (pages 4 & 6) however the authors shamelessly conceal what Hindu nationalists aligned with Hindu Mahasabha and RSS had been arrogantly arguing for many years previous Jinnah’s assertion.

Excessive Caste Hindu nationalists of Bengal propounded the two-nation concept

Lengthy-long earlier than the looks of Muslim advocates of the two-nation concept, the ball was set rolling by Excessive Caste Hindu nationalists on the finish of the nineteenth century in Bengal. Raj Narain Basu (1826–1899), the maternal grandfather of Aurobindo Ghosh, and his shut affiliate Nabha Gopal Mitra (1840-94) had been the co-fathers of two-nation concept and Hindu nationalism in India. Basu established a society for the promotion of nationwide emotions among the many educated natives which in truth stood for preaching the prevalence of Hinduism. He organized conferences proclaiming that Hinduism regardless of its Casteism offered a a lot greater social idealism than ever reached by the Christian or Islamic civilization.

Basu was the primary individual to conceive the concept of a Maha Hindu Samiti (All India Hindu Affiliation) and helped within the formation of Bharat Dharma Mahamandal, a precursor of Hindu Mahasabha. He believed that by this group Hindus would have the ability to set up an Aryan nation in India. He visualized a strong Hindu nation not solely overtaking India however the entire world. He additionally noticed,

“[The] noble and puissant Hindu nation rousing herself after sleep and dashing headlong in the direction of progress with divine prowess. I see this rejuvenated nation once more illumining the world by her data, spirituality and tradition, and the glory of Hindu nation once more spreading over the entire world.” [Cited in Majumdar, R. C., History of the Freedom Movement in India, Vol. I (Calcutta: Firma K.L. Mukhpadhyay, 1971), 295–296.]

Nabha Gopal Mitra began organising an annual Hindu Mela (fête). It was a gathering on the final day of each Bengali 12 months and highlighted the Hindu nature of all facets of Hindu Bengali life and continued uninterrupted between 1867 and 1880. Mitra additionally began a Nationwide Society and a Nationwide Paper for selling unity and emotions of nationalism amongst Hindus. Mitra argued in his paper that the Hindus positively fashioned a nation by themselves. In line with him,

“[The] foundation of nationwide unity in India is the Hindu faith. Hindu nationality embraces all of the Hindus of India regardless of their locality or language.” [Cited in Majumdar, R. C., Three Phases of India’s Struggle for Freedom (Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1961), p. 8.]

R. C. Majumdar, a favorite of Hindutva intellectuals and a distinguished researcher of the rise of Hindu nationalism in Bengal, had no problem in arriving on the reality that

“Nabha Gopal forestalled Jinnah’s concept of two nations by greater than half a century…[And since then] consciously or unconsciously, the Hindu character was deeply imprinted on nationalism throughout India.” [Ibid.]

Function of Arya Samaj

The Arya Samaj in northern India aggressively preached that Hindu and Muslim communities in India had been, in truth, two completely different nations. Bhai Parmanand (1876–1947), a number one gentle of the Arya Samaj in northern India who was additionally a frontrunner of Hindu Mahasabha, declared Hindus and Muslims as two nations. The next phrases of his appears to have been borrowed by Jinnah in his March 1940 speech at Lahore quoted within the NCERT module.

“In historical past the Hindus revere the reminiscence of Prithvi Raj, Partap, Shivaji and, Beragi Bir, who fought for the honour and freedom of this land (towards the Muslims), whereas the Mahomedans look upon the invaders of India, like Muhammad Bin Qasim and rulers like Aurangzeb as their nationwide heroes…[whereas] within the non secular discipline, the Hindus draw their inspiration from the Ramayan, the Mahabharat, and the Geeta. The Musalmans, however, derive their inspiration from the Quran and the Hadis. Thus, the issues that divide are much more important than the issues which unite.” [Parmanand, Bhai in pamphlet titled, ‘The Hindu National Movement’, cited in B.R. Ambedkar, Pakistan or the Partition of India (Bombay: Government of Maharashtra, 1990), 35–36, first published in December 1940, Thackers Publishers, Bombay.]

Parmanand as early as 1908–9, referred to as for the entire alternate of Hindu and Muslim populations in two particular areas. In line with his plan, elaborated in his autobiography,

“The territory past Sind ought to be united with Afghanistan and the North-West Frontier Province into a terrific Musalman kingdom. The Hindus of the area ought to come away, whereas on the similar time Mussalman in the remainder of India ought to go and settle on this territory.” [Parmanand, Bhai, The Story of My Life, S. Chand, Delhi, 1982, p. 36.]

One other Arya Samaj luminary Lajpat Rai (1865-1928) in 1924 proposed partition of India into Muslim India and non-Muslim India. He articulated his two-nation concept within the following phrases:

“Below my scheme the Muslims could have 4 Muslim States: (1) The Pathan Province of the North Western Frontier (2) Western Punjab (3) Sindh and (4) Japanese Bengal. If there are compact Muslim communities in some other a part of India, sufficiently massive to type a Province, they need to be equally constituted. But it surely ought to be distinctly understood that this isn’t a united India. It means a transparent partition of India right into a Muslim India and a non-Muslim India.” [Rai, Lala Lajpat, ‘Hindu-Muslim Problem XI’, The Tribune, Lahore, December 14, 1924, p. 8.]

Hindu nationalist Moonje, Lala Har Dayal, Savarkar and Golwalkar as pioneers of two-nation concept

Dr. B. S. Moonje was one other Hindu Mahasabha and RSS chief who carried ahead the flag of Hindu Separatism lengthy earlier than Muslim League’s Pakistan decision of March 1940. Whereas addressing the third session of the Oudh Hindu Mahasabha in 1923, he declared:

“Simply as England belongs to the English, France to the French, and Germany to the Germans, India belongs to the Hindus. If Hindus get organized, they will humble the English and their stooges, the Muslims…The Hindus henceforth create their very own world which is able to prosper by shuddhi [literally meaning purification, the term was used for conversion of Muslims and Christians to Hinduism]and sangathan [organization].” [Cited in Dhanki, J. S., Lala Lajpat Rai and Indian Nationalism, S Publications, Jullundur, 1990, p. 378.]

Lala Har Dayal (1884–1938), a well known title within the Ghadar Social gathering circles, too, lengthy earlier than the Muslim League’s demand for a separate homeland for Muslims, not solely demanded the formation of a Hindu nation in India but in addition urged the conquest and Hinduisation of Afghanistan. In a big political assertion in 1925, printed within the Pratap of Kanpur, he acknowledged:

“I declare that the way forward for the Hindu race, of Hindustan and of the Punjab, rests on these 4 pillars: (1) Hindu Sangathan, (2) Hindu Raj, (3) Shuddhi of Muslims, and (4) Conquest and Shuddhi of Afghanistan and the Frontiers. As long as the Hindu Nation doesn’t accomplish these 4 issues, the security of our youngsters and nice grandchildren can be ever at risk, and the security of Hindu race can be unimaginable. The Hindu race has however one historical past, and its establishments are homogenous. However the Mussalman and Christians are far faraway from the confines of Hindustan, for his or her religions are alien they usually love Persian, Arab, and European establishments. Thus, simply as one removes overseas matter from the attention, Shuddhi have to be made of those two religions. Afghanistan and the hilly areas of the frontier had been previously a part of India, however are at current underneath the domination of Islam […] Simply as there may be Hindu faith in Nepal, so there have to be Hindu establishments in Afghanistan and the frontier territory; in any other case it’s ineffective to win Swaraj.” [Cited in Ambedkar, B. R., Pakistan or the Partition of India, Maharashtra Government, Bombay, 1990, p. 129.]

It was RSS’ ‘Veer’ V. D. Savarkar (1883-1966), the originator of the politics of Hindutva, who developed essentially the most elaborate two-nation concept. The very fact shouldn’t be missed that Muslim League handed its Pakistan decision in 1940, however Savarkar propagated the two-nation concept lengthy earlier than it. Whereas delivering the presidential deal with to the nineteenth session Hindu Mahasabha at Ahmedabad in 1937, Savarkar declared unequivocally,

“As it’s, there are two antagonistic nations dwelling facet by facet in India. A number of childish politicians commit the intense mistake in supposing that India is already welded right into a harmonious nation, or that it might be welded thus for the mere want to take action…Allow us to bravely face disagreeable details as they’re. India can’t be assumed as we speak to be a Unitarian and homogenous nation, however quite the opposite, there are two nations in the primary: the Hindus and the Moslems, in India.” [Samagra Savarkar Wangmaya (Collected Works of Savarkar), Hindu Mahasabha, Poona, 1963, p.296.]

It was no abrupt perception of Muslims (and Christians) being separate nations. Savarkar in his controversial guide Hindutva as early as 1923 decreed:

“Christians and Mohamedan [sic] communities…can’t be acknowledged as Hindus as since their adoption of the brand new cult that they had ceased to personal Hindu Sanskriti [culture] as a complete. They belong, or really feel that they belong, to a cultural unit altogether completely different from the Hindu one. Their heroes and their hero worshiptheir gala’s and their festivals, their beliefs and their outlook on-life, have now ceased to be frequent with ours.” [Maratha [V. D. Savarkar], Hindutva, VV Kelkar, Nagpur, 1923, p. 88.]

How religiously RSS believed in two-nation concept even after the beginning of a democratic-secular India was made clear when the English organ of the RSS, Organiser, on the very eve of Independence (August 14, 1947) editorially reaffirmed its religion in two-nation concept within the following phrases:

“Allow us to now not enable ourselves to be influenced by false notions of nationhood. A lot of the psychological confusion and the current and future troubles could be eliminated by the prepared recognition of the easy undeniable fact that in Hindusthan solely the Hindus type the nation and the nationwide construction have to be constructed on that secure and sound basis…the nation itself have to be constructed up of Hindus, on Hindu traditions, tradition, concepts and aspirations.”

The ‘Hindu’ narratives make it clear that two-nation concept was the product of Hindu nationalists and Partition was a major holy activity which Hindu nationalists took upon themselves. The module doesn’t trouble to inform us that it was borrowed by Jinnah solely in late Thirties. A number one English each day of India editorially acknowledged:

“It was a concept which lengthy preceded Jinnah, having been expounded by such names as Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyaya within the late nineteenth-century Bengal and Vinayak Damodar Savarkar within the early a part of the 20th, amongst numerous others.” [Editorial: ‘Two-nation Gujarat’, The Times of India, 18 April 2002.]

Regardless of all of the above-mentioned details out there within the RSS/Hindu Mahasabha archives the authors of the module proceed the tirade that “Muslim leaders referred to as themselves as basically separate from Hindus. The basis of this lay within the ideology of political Islam, which denies the opportunity of any everlasting [sic] or equal relationship with non-Muslims.”

Lie 2: Muslim League as get together of all Indian Muslims

The module makes an attempt to create a story that Muslim League represented all Muslims of India because it “gained 73 out of 78 seats reserved for Muslims” in March 1946 elections to the Constituent Meeting. The authors don’t disclose that Muslim League gained resulting from extremely restricted system of franchise by which a tiny minority of Muslims voted. The Muslim League was in a position to safe many of the Muslim seats because of the benefit it loved underneath the prevalent restricted franchise at the moment. The elections had been held underneath the Sixth Schedule of the 1935 Act, which excluded the mass of peasants, most small shopkeepers and merchants, and numerous others from the rolls by tax, property and academic {qualifications}. In line with Granville Austin, a famend authority on making of Indian structure,

“Solely 28.5 p.c, of the grownup inhabitants of the provinces may vote within the provincial meeting elections of early 1946…Economically and socially depressed parts of the inhabitants had been nearly disenfranchised by the phrases of the 1935 Act.” [Austin, Granville, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation, OUP, Delhi, 2014. pp. 12-13.]

Amongst Muslims it was far much less resulting from prevalent poverty and need of schooling. For instance, in Bihar the place Muslim League secured 34 out of 40 Muslim seats in Provincial Meeting elections, the eligible Muslim voters consisted solely of seven.8 p.c of the entire inhabitants. It may win as Muslim elite/Excessive Caste backed it whereas 92.2% Muslims of Bihar remained disenfranchised. It was the case in nearly all different provinces. [Ghosh, Papiya, Muhajirs and the Nation: Bihar in the 40s, Routledge, Delhi, 2010, p. 79.]

Savarkar led Hindu Mahasabha ran coalition governments with Jinnah led Muslim League

The Module describes Jinnah led ML as get together of Indian Muslims however fails to pay attention to the truth that it was this get together of Muslims with which Hindu Mahasabha led by Savarkar entered into alliances to be able to break the united freedom battle, specifically, the 1942 Stop India Motion towards the British rulers. Whereas delivering Presidential deal with to the twenty fourth session of Hindu Mahasabha at Cawnpore (Kanpur) in 1942, he defended hobnobbing with the Muslim League within the following phrases,

“In sensible politics additionally the Mahasabha is aware of that we should advance by cheap compromises. Witness the truth that solely just lately in Sind, the Sind-Hindu-Sabha on invitation had taken the duty of becoming a member of fingers with the League itself in operating coalition Authorities. The case of Bengal is well-known. Wild Leaguers whom even the Congress with all its submissiveness couldn’t placate grew fairly moderately compromising and socialable as quickly as they got here involved with the Hindu Mahasabha and the Coalition Authorities, underneath the premiership of Mr. Fazlul Huq and the in a position lead of our esteemed Mahasabha chief Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerji, functioned efficiently for a 12 months or so to the good thing about each the communities. Furthermore additional occasions additionally proved demonstratively that the Hindu Mahasabhaits endeavoured to seize the centres of political energy solely within the public pursuits and never for the leaves and fishes of the workplace.” [Samagra Savarkar Wangmaya, op. cit., pp. 479-480.]

Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim League fashioned a coalition authorities in NWFP additionally.

The module, not surprisingly, makes an attempt to defend Jinnah, a co-traveler two-nation theorist. Jinnah is quoted to have stated “I by no means thought it might occur. I by no means anticipated to see Pakistan in my lifetime” [page 9]. The message module needs to convey is Jinnah didn’t count on it, however Congress obtained Pakistan delivered to Jinnah!

Lie 3: Congress Responsible of Partition

In a piece titled “Who was accountable for Partition” [page 6], the NCERT module reads: “In the end, on August 15, 1947, India was divided. However this was not the doing of anybody individual. There have been three components accountable for the Partition of India: Jinnah, who demanded it; second, the Congress, which accepted it; and third, Mountbatten, who applied it. However Mountbatten proved to be responsible of a significant blunder.” [page 8]

Nevertheless, based on the module Congress was primarily accountable for Partition as a result of in 1947 “for the primary time Indian leaders themselves willingly handed over huge a part of the nation completely exterior the nationwide fold-along with tens of crores of its citizens-without even their consent. This was a singular occasion in human historical past, when a nation’s personal leaders , with no conflict, peacefully and in closed conferences, all of a sudden severed crores of their individuals from the nation”. [page 10]

When bosses of NCERT skilled in RSS ‘boudhik shivirs’ (ideological orientation camps) blame Congress for Partition it’s the pot calling the kettle black. It’s a extremely questionable declare which even details talked about within the module don’t corroborate. We’re instructed, Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel referred to as it “bitter drugs,” whereas Jawaharlal Nehru described it as “dangerous” however “unavoidable” [page 5]. Elsewhere, the module reads: “Nehru and Patel accepted Partition to avert civil conflict and anarchy. As soon as they did, Gandhi too gave up his opposition”. [page 8] It’s fascinating to notice that for concurring to Partition each wavering Nehru and Iron Man Patel are depicted on the identical web page!

If authors of NCERT module had cared to learn truthfully, Rammanohar Lohia, a famend freedom fighter and Socialist chief, the reality wouldn’t have been crucified. He was unambiguous in holding that the Hindu communalist who shouted loudest for Akand or united Bharat, “helped Britain and the Muslim League partition the nation…They did nothing no matter, to convey the Muslim near the Hindu inside a single nation. They did nearly all the things to estrange them from one another. Such estrangement is the basis explanation for partition.” [Lohia, Rammanohar, Guilty Men of India’s Partition, BR Publishing, Delhi, 2012, p. 2.]

Lie 4: British Rulers Did Not Need Partition

The module displays the mixed Hindu Mahasabha and RSS dilemma of find out how to navigate the problem of their loyalty to the colonial masters in impartial India. Although it declares “Mountbatten proved to be responsible of a significant blunder”, the defence of this monster isn’t far-off. Giving him a personality certificates, the doc goes to declare that “he was not the reason for it” [page 8] As an alternative of presenting testimonies of the victims (of all religions) of Partition which can be found in abundance, the module presents indefensible defence of Mountbatten. It prominently shows the next assertion of his: “I didn’t Partition India. The plan for partition had been accepted by the Indian leaders themselves. My position was to execute it in essentially the most peaceable approach doable…I settle for the blame for haste…However I don’t settle for the blame for the violence which adopted. That was the duty of Indians themselves” [page 6].

The doc shamelessly makes an attempt to belittle the position of British colonial rulers in partitioning India as a part of its imperialist undertaking. It’s bone chilling to learn that it “had lengthy been the recognized place of the British authorities that it was towards Partition, Congress leaders underestimated Jinnah. Additionally, Viceroy Lord Wavell repeatedly made it clear, ever since 1940 as much as March 1947, that Partition wouldn’t resolve the Hindu-Muslim downside. It will solely result in mass violence, administrative collapse, and long-term hostility. His phrases proved prophetic”. [page 10] There couldn’t have been extra shameless defence of colonial masters’ undertaking of ‘Divide and Rule’.

Shockingly, NCERT, working additional time to de-colonize Indian schooling resorts to a hardened Anglophile, Nirad C. Chaudhuri in help of the lie that British didn’t need Partition. Nirad’s quote reads: “I assert with confidence that not even on the finish of 1946 did anyone in India imagine in the opportunity of a partition within the nation…The Hindus and the British alike foreswore the precept of unity of India which that they had at all times professed.”

The authors of this doc, in truth, borrowed defence of the British rulers from Golwalkar. Essentially the most distinguished ideologue of RSS didn’t imagine that colonial rule was an injustice or unnatural. In a speech on 8 June 1942, at a time when freedom battle was rearing to rise to the decision of the Stop India motion, Golwalkar declared:

“[the] Sangh doesn’t need to blame anyone else for the current degraded state of the society. When the individuals begin blaming others, then there may be weak spot in them. It’s futile guilty the robust for the injustice achieved to the weak … [The] Sangh doesn’t need to waste its invaluable time in abusing or criticizing others. If we all know that giant fish eat the smaller ones, it’s outright insanity guilty the large fish. Legislation of nature, whether or not good or dangerous, is true on a regular basis. This rule doesn’t change by terming it unjust.” [Golwalkar, M. S., Shri Guruji Samagr Darshan [Collected Works of Golwalkar in Hindi] vol. 1 (Nagpur: Bhartiya Vichar Sadhna, 1974), pp. 11-12.]

Mushy on culpability of Sir Cyril Radcliff

Authors of the module seem as apologists for the crimes of Sir Cyril Radcliff who supervised the land division between India and Pakistan. Radcliff was the one who brought about further blood bathtub as maps of each the international locations weren’t out there even after two days of Partition. The module rightly acknowledged that

“The demarcation of borders was rapidly achieved. Sir Cyril Radcliff was given solely 5 weeks to attract the boundaries. In Punjab, even two days after 15 August 1947, thousands and thousands of individuals didn’t know whether or not they had been in India or in Pakistan…This recklessness and disrespect for the destiny of crores of individuals, and all vital issues was a grave act of negligence”. [pages 8-9]

NCERT shied away from censuring him and determined to print his {photograph} with the next apology of his: “I had no various, the time at my disposal was so quick that I couldn’t do a greater job. I used to be given a job to do and I did my greatest, although it might not have been excellent.” [page 10]

Lie 5: Silence on Partition violence by RSS

The module offers particulars of horrendous communal violence throughout Partition. “Nearly1.5 crores had been pressured to cross the brand new borders…Communal hostility unfold between India’s main non secular communities…One other horrifying side was the large-scale sexual violence towards girls and ladies. In lots of locations, girls jumped into wells to guard themselves”. [page 2]

We all know that Muslim Nationwide Guards (MNG) created by Muslim League as storm-troopers to maim and kill the opponents performed a nefarious position within the partition violence, however they weren’t the one one. Sardar Patel, the primary house minister of impartial India in a letter to Golwalkar who was then Supremo of RSS, dated 11 September 1948 corroborated the truth that RSS additionally had killer gangs. He acknowledged:

“Organizing the Hindus and serving to them is one factor however moving into for revenge for its sufferings on harmless and helpless males, girls and youngsters is sort of one other factor…It was not essential to unfold poison to be able to enthuse the Hindus and arrange for his or her safety. As a ultimate results of the poison, the nation needed to undergo the sacrifice of the invaluable lifetime of Gandhiji.” [Cited in Justice on Trial, RSS, Bangalore, 1962, pp.26-28.]

Reality: It was an Axis of Hindu Mahasabha-RSS-Jinnah which obtained India Partitioned

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, a peerless researcher of the communal politics in pre-independence India, underlying the shut affinity and camaraderie between Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim League on the problem of the Two-nation concept wrote:

“Unusual it might seem, Mr. Savarkar and Mr. Jinnah as a substitute of being opposed to one another on the one nation versus two nations difficulty are in full settlement about it. Each agree, not solely agree however insist that there are two nations in India—one the Muslim nation and the opposite Hindu nation.” [Ambedkar, B. R., Pakistan or the Partition of India, Govt. of Maharashtra, Bombay, 1990 [Reprint of 1940 edition], p. 142.]

Ambedkar agonized by the evil designs of Savarkar concerning the Two-nation concept and Hindutva rhetoric over it, wrote, as early as 1940, that,

“Hindu nation can be enabled to occupy a predominant place that is because of it and the Muslim nation made to dwell within the place of subordinate co-operation with the Hindu nation”. [Ibid., 143.]

The Hindutva lies about Partition of India offered as details in Partition Horrors wouldn’t have been in any other case as the entire undertaking is supervised by a specialist who focuses on historic negationism (denying the truths of the previous which concurrently means presenting false historical past), Michel Danino, an Indian author of French origin. He secured Indian citizenship solely in 2003. Modi authorities conferred on him Padma Shri award, India’s fourth-highest civilian award, in 2017. He’s a vocal supporter of Hindutva who enjoys, “[historical] controversies in a sort of perverse approach”. [https://indianexpress.com/article/education/academia-margins-to-ncert-row-french-born-scholars-tryst-with-indias-past-10197438/] He’s there to undo historical past and within the course of undoing the wonderful historical past of constructing of democratic-secular-egalitarian India. The irony is that it’s taking place in PM Modi declared Immortality Interval (Amrit Kal) of the nation!

[Shamsul Islam is a retired professor of Delhi University. Courtesy: SabrangIndia, an online portal dedicated to fighting the cancer of divisive politics. It is edited by Teesta Setalvad and Javed Anand.]