NEW DELHI: Heated discussion in Lok Sabha on the mandate of Indian Council of Historical Research (CIDU) and whether the premier institution is “rewriting” Indian history descended into a political jargon meeting between Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan and Congress Member Manish Tewari on Monday.
In a reference to Question Time, Tewari pointed to public statements by the ICHR that it was rewriting history and the government’s contradictory remarks in its response to a parliamentary question.
“I want to ask the minister for two concepts; one is the updating of history, which is a respectable concept of closure recognized all over the world, the other is the rewriting of history with a very pernicious and pretentious concept because this is a process of rediscovery of the current narrative by anchoring it in certain historical moorings… If the ICHR is not rewriting history, then what exactly is it doing?… Because there is a contradiction between what you are saying to this House and what is the ICHR saying publicly?” Tewari asked. In response, Pradhan reacted by saying that the government was simply “filling the gaps” that the previous regime had left open due to its failure to recognize India’s great men and women. Pradhan cited the cases of Rajasthan’s Mangarh Dham, the sacrifice of Guru Govind Singh Zorawar and Fateh Singh’s sons, which the government has started celebrating as “Veer Bal Diwas”, and the recognition of Alluri Krishna Raju, to underline “shortcomings in history” that the previous government had left out.
“There is no plan in the government to rewrite history… For about 1,100-1,200 years, India went through various periods of foreign rule. If we examine the contribution of various parts of the country from those periods, then from the North , South, East and West many regions have contributed to Indian culture and pride. These deserve to be mentioned in history. Therefore, ICHR does the work of filling the gaps. We are not rewriting history, but expanding the canvas and expanding the expanse of history,” Pradhan said.
In a reference to Question Time, Tewari pointed to public statements by the ICHR that it was rewriting history and the government’s contradictory remarks in its response to a parliamentary question.
“I want to ask the minister for two concepts; one is the updating of history, which is a respectable concept of closure recognized all over the world, the other is the rewriting of history with a very pernicious and pretentious concept because this is a process of rediscovery of the current narrative by anchoring it in certain historical moorings… If the ICHR is not rewriting history, then what exactly is it doing?… Because there is a contradiction between what you are saying to this House and what is the ICHR saying publicly?” Tewari asked. In response, Pradhan reacted by saying that the government was simply “filling the gaps” that the previous regime had left open due to its failure to recognize India’s great men and women. Pradhan cited the cases of Rajasthan’s Mangarh Dham, the sacrifice of Guru Govind Singh Zorawar and Fateh Singh’s sons, which the government has started celebrating as “Veer Bal Diwas”, and the recognition of Alluri Krishna Raju, to underline “shortcomings in history” that the previous government had left out.
“There is no plan in the government to rewrite history… For about 1,100-1,200 years, India went through various periods of foreign rule. If we examine the contribution of various parts of the country from those periods, then from the North , South, East and West many regions have contributed to Indian culture and pride. These deserve to be mentioned in history. Therefore, ICHR does the work of filling the gaps. We are not rewriting history, but expanding the canvas and expanding the expanse of history,” Pradhan said.
