In 2011, Delhi University’s academic council succumbed to pressure and dropped the scholarly essay, “Three Hundred Ramayanas: Five examples and three thoughts on translations”, by linguist A.K. Ramanujan, from the curriculum. The essay had been the subject of controversy since 2008, when right-wing organisations objected to some of Ramanujan’s findings.
One could argue that DU’s academic council could have withstood the pressure, which was exerted by Dinanath Batra and a group of vandals who claimed to be upholders of the Hindu faith. Yet, the Supreme Court was petitioned, and in turn directed the university to examine the suitability of the contents of the history curriculum. Some academics argued that this was a scholarly work that had to be included in the syllabus. But the book was finally excised from the college curriculum.
Over the years, things have changed a little. The pressure now is from the inside and a majoritarian world view is being sought to be foisted on students. Two years ago, for instance, there was a sustained movement by some in the academic council to rid the campus of “Maoist sympathisers”. Nandini Sundar’s book on Bastar, The Burning Forest , was dropped from the reading list. This year, the academic committee has recommended that Kancha Ilaiah’s books be dropped from the curriculum. Mr. Ilaiah’s books such as God as Political Philosopher: Buddha’s Challenge to Brahminism , Why I am not a Hindu and Post-Hindu India: A Discourse in Dalit-Bahujan Socio-Spiritual and Scientific Revolution explore new ideas and are provocative, but such modes of thinking seem to have now become unacceptable.
The systemic excising of books from the curriculum raises questions about the education we wish to provide for those stepping into college after 12-14 years of regimented thinking in the school system. After all, if critical thoughts and theories are not nurtured in campuses, where else should they be put to rigorous scrutiny?
Two years ago, California emerged as the centre of a debate over how to tell the story of South Asia. The California Department of Education tried to update textbooks for Grades 6 and 7. The Indian community was up in arms over what it saw as an attempt to refer to ancient India as South Asia and thus a dilution of the Indian identity. It also insisted on seeing the caste system as a phenomenon of the region and not as a Hindu practice.
Within Indian academia, however, one can appreciate why Mr. Ilaiah’s books such as Why I Am Not a Hindu are a problem. They challenge conventional thinking, the majority Hindu view, and the caste system as an element of Hindu practice. Let those who are being taught also have a say in the lessons they must engage with.
The writer is an Associate Editor in New Delhi
