Teaching Diversity in Class: An Indian Textbook Shows the Way Forward

Does India “love Hitler”? Is the Indian government “fascist”? The Financial Times recently published a commentary by well-known journalist Edward Luce, which claimed that Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” is highly popular in India, using this as evidence to prove the fascist leanings of the Modi government. The truth is much more complicated.

First, while “Mein Kampf” is indeed selling well in India, the reasons for this are elusive, and have not been satisfactorily connected to politics. We can indeed easily see Hitler’s nonsensical work being sold on footpaths in cities like Delhi, but we have not witnessed it being held in the hands of the Hindu nationalists of Modi’s party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), or being quoted in their publications. Second, one can certainly criticize many of the Modi government’s actions, as well as the views of the Hindu nationalists from among whom he hails – including their disdain for religious minorities. But I still disagree with simply calling the BJP or its government “fascist” – a word that historically described a particular ideology and an authoritarian government that lent its hand in the killings of millions.

One field that demonstrates the complexity of the political situation in India is that of education. During their 1999-2004 tenure in the central government, the Hindu nationalists made a lot of changes to history textbooks – modifications that other political circles opposed, and which, more importantly, historians concluded to be falsifications of history. However, no such sweeping and highly controversial changes have been made in the eight years and counting of Modi’s rule – even though the BJP has a much more comfortable majority now than it had at the turn of century.

Among the central government textbooks that the BJP has retained is a class 6-9 auxiliary civics textbook: “Sāmājik evaṁ rājnītik jīvan” or “Social and Political Life.” It is a work of particular note not only because it places a strong emphasis on tolerance and diversity, but also because it clearly leans politically left, to the point of being critical of countries like Israel or the U.S. Despite this, the textbook is being used by a Hindu nationalist government of a country that enjoys good relations with both the United States and Israel.

Someone may point out that by picking just one textbook I am doing as much of a cherry-picking job as those who are counting copies of “Mein Kampf” sold in India as a way of measuring the popularity of fascism (or Nazism). I would like to reiterate that I am picking one textbook for its particular features, yes, but also due to paucity of space: A much broader point is that the BJP government did not make substantial changes in any central government textbooks. I elaborate on this subject in my upcoming book, “Endless Siege. Education and Nationalism in Vidya Bharati Schools” (OUP, 2022), where references to other textbooks will be made in greater detail. Moreover, I am also aware that, in India, a federal state, the central government textbooks are only used in a certain type of schools (those affiliated to the central government education board) and hence the reach of such textbooks is lesser than it would have been in a country with a unitary education system. But, conversely, the same point could have been raised when the BJP was changing textbooks during the 1999-2004 period: Whatever the reach of those books was, the broad changes in the curriculum invited a political storm. In both cases, therefore, what is being considered is the pedagogical intent – judging the pedagogical impact is much more difficult to measure.

“Social and Political Life” could easily be used as a textbook to teach tolerance in places like Europe. It is a book in which tolerance and diversity are the protagonists of the story. While it stresses that basic equality is a constitutional right, it does not idealistically stay at the level of abstract ideas, but gives cases of common inequality in social life, thereby criticizing India itself. One case given is the ghettoization of Muslims. The textbook stresses that just because followers of Islam have certain different traditions they are not different from other human beings, and that this should not be a basis for refusing them a place among the rest of society.

Another instance connected to the above matter is that of housing apartheid. Here one passage strikes many political targets with a single stone:

“Imagine that you are a Hindu or a Muslim and you live in such part of America where Christian radicals are very strong. Let’s assume that despite the fact that you an American citizen somebody does not want to rent out a house for you. How would you feel about it? Wouldn’t you feel bad about it? Imagine that if you would complain against this discrimination, in reply you would hear: ‘This is not your country! Go back to India!’ How would you feel about it? Wouldn’t you feel bad about it?”

But “Social and Political Life” does not address the housing apartheid only with a parallel, by merely giving the case of the U.S. and ignoring that of India. Another passage states openly that the same scenario takes places in the country of the authors. Mention is made of refusing to rent flats to non-vegetarians, which often means rejecting tenants from lower castes and religious minorities. Yet another instance is the caste system: The textbook shares marriage advertisements from Indian newspapers to show how even educated people in cities stick to their caste identities. Most of the marriage advertisements in India call out for potential spouses from a specific community. By not only praising equality but pointing out existing inequalities, the textbook shows what should be done (and what practices should be rejected). This inadvertently puts a mirror to society and therefore risks its wrath.

The textbook also preaches diversity. While it does admit that diversity causes its own problems, and that people feel more secure among their own, the (anonymous) authors also point out that diversity is what makes societies richer (figuratively speaking). “What stories would have been written in a place where people would wear only clothes of two colors, eat one type of food (maybe potatoes!), generally keep two kinds of domestic animals… and have fun only by playing snakes and ladders?”they ask.

Moreover, the textbook makes a point that differences between communities cannot be conflated with stereotypes. A difference between individuals does not always mean the whole groups are different in the same way. The textbook shares a description of two boys, a Muslim and a Hindu, from a short story (P. Sengupta’s story, “The Lights Changed”), asking the students to compare the two children, and then pointing out that the two kids in the story were different as they hailed from two families of different economic backgrounds, not as symbolic members of separate religious communities.

If India really was a fascist authoritarian state, “Social and Political Life” would have been the first book to be burned.