Education is meant to help students understand the world, question assumptions, and think critically about history and society. In India, however, education has always carried a broader responsibility. Since independence in 1947, schools have played a central role in nation-building, introducing generations of students to constitutional values, religious diversity, citizenship, and the country’s shared history. That is why debates over education are rarely confined to curriculum alone. There are often debates about identity, memory, and the kind of nation future generations are encouraged to imagine.
This tension has become particularly visible following the introduction of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and subsequent curriculum reforms. Textbooks are no longer viewed merely as educational resources; they have become sites of political and ideological contestation where competing visions of history, culture, religion, and national identity are negotiated.
A Debate That Is Not New
Disagreements over what should be taught in Indian classrooms are far from new. Similar controversies have emerged under successive governments for decades. During the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government between 1998 and 2004, revisions to NCERT history textbooks drew criticism from historians and education scholars who argued that they promoted Hindu nationalist interpretations of India’s past. Curriculum debates continued under the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government between 2004 and 2014, particularly around issues of secularism, caste, and historical representation.
In other words, textbook controversies have long reflected broader political and ideological debates taking place beyond the classroom. What distinguishes the current moment is not the existence of curriculum reform itself, but the scale, visibility, and intensity of the public debate surrounding it.
Why the Debate Has Intensified
The latest phase of textbook revisions gained greater public attention following the introduction of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and the rollout of new NCERT textbooks between 2022 and 2026. According to an Economic Times report, chapters relating to the Mughal Empire and the Delhi Sultanate were removed or relocated in some classes, while newer textbooks introduced material highlighting religious pilgrimage traditions and sacred sites, including the Char Dham, the 12 Jyotirlingas, and the Maha Kumbh. The revised books also included references to government initiatives such as Make in India, Beti Bachao Beti Padhao, and Skill India.
The changes were not limited to history textbooks. A review published by Education For All in India identified revisions across Political Science, Civics, and Social Science textbooks, including updates concerning the abrogation of Article 370, references to the Ayodhya verdict, the inclusion of the INDIA opposition alliance, and terminology changes such as referring to Pakistan-administered Kashmir as “Pakistan-Occupied Jammu & Kashmir.”
Taken together, these revisions suggest that the debate is no longer solely about how history is taught. It is also about how students grasp contemporary politics, national identity, and their place within the nation.
More Than a Curriculum Debate
The concern is not that textbooks change; curriculum revisions are a normal feature of education systems around the world. The concern arises when those changes appear to reflect the priorities of those in power more than the complexity of the subjects being taught.
A TIME report described India’s textbooks as the latest “battleground” for nationalism and historical memory following revisions involving Mughal history and references to the 2002 Gujarat riots. Historians and educators cited in the report argued that such changes risk narrowing students’ understanding of the past by removing important historical context and privileging particular narratives over others.
Underlying these debates is a broader question about who ultimately shapes public understanding through education. In this context, nationalism refers not simply to patriotism but to competing efforts to define how the nation, its history, and its cultural identity should be understood and taught.
Who Gets to Shape Historical Memory?
A study published in South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies described school textbooks as instruments of “political communication,” arguing that governments frequently use education to shape ideas of citizenship, identity, and nationhood. This influence is not inherently problematic. Curriculum reforms have often helped bring greater attention to marginalised communities, social reform movements, and overlooked histories.
At the same time, critics argue that concerns emerge when curriculum changes begin privileging particular political or ideological narratives while reducing space for competing interpretations and historical complexity.
At the heart of these debates lies a fundamental question: who gets to shape historical memory?
Unlike academic history, which is constantly debated, revised, and reinterpreted, school textbooks often become the version of history that most people carry with them into adulthood. Decisions about what is included, omitted, or emphasised therefore have lasting consequences. They influence not only how students understand the past, but also how they understand the nation, its institutions, and their place within it.
This helps explain why textbook debates provoke such strong reactions. The issue is rarely confined to what appears on a page. It is also about the values, perspectives, and understandings of the nation that are passed on to future generations.
Beyond History: The Judiciary Debate
The debate is no longer limited to history. In February 2026, a Class 8 NCERT chapter discussing judicial backlogs, allegations of corruption within the judiciary, and questions of institutional accountability prompted direct intervention from the Supreme Court of India. The textbook was subsequently withdrawn after the Court objected to sections it believed presented a one-sided portrayal of the judiciary. According to a Times of India report, NCERT later acknowledged “errors in judgement” and halted distribution of the book.
The withdrawal sparked further debate among academics and education commentators, some of whom argued that shielding institutions from criticism risks undermining the purpose of civic education itself. For these critics, the issue was not whether students should respect public institutions, but whether education should encourage critical engagement alongside respect.
The controversy expanded the discussion beyond historical memory and raised a broader question about the purpose of civic education: should students simply learn how institutions function, or should they also be encouraged to examine and evaluate them critically?
What Education Should Be For
Ultimately, the issue extends beyond any single government, religion, or political ideology. Education has always played a role in shaping national identity and collective memory. Yet there is an important distinction between teaching history and controlling how it is remembered.
When history becomes selective, collective memory can become selective as well. For many educators and historians, that poses a challenge to the very purpose of education.
Students should not grow up believing that history is a fixed narrative with only one acceptable interpretation. History is complex. Empires produced both achievements and violence. Political leaders experienced both successes and failures. Institutions deserve both respect and scrutiny. A healthy education system should equip students to engage with that complexity rather than shield them from it.
The purpose of education should not be to cultivate loyalty to a single approved narrative. It should be to develop informed citizens capable of questioning, analysing, and thinking independently.
Once classrooms become spaces where political conformity matters more than intellectual inquiry, education risks losing its fundamental purpose.
For a country as diverse and historically rich as India, the ability to ask difficult questions should not be viewed as a threat. It is one of the foundations of education itself.
This article is republished from The Secularist under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Karuna Kumari Kandregula is an independent writer and researcher from Andhra Pradesh, India, whose work focuses on social issues, politics, education, rural systems, gender, child protection, and climate.
