Go easy on history, keep it out of school curriculum
The AI newsreader interjects: 'But we had satellite pictures to show the bombed airbases. Even The New York Times had published''Just some grainy pictures? We have recorded video footage of Pakistanis celebrating their victory. You can see fireworks. The army chief got promoted to the rank of a field marshal. There is so much corroborative evidence. Are you even listening to what you are saying?'As this is patently evident, any historical event or period will have different recorded versions of it, based on the agenda of the writer. Even in an era of satellite surveillance, Operation Sindoor had multiple versions of its chronology. Imagine 400 years ago, when there was no evidence recording mechanism, how easily one could distort truth.In such cases, we are destined to believe whatever written records survived from that era. In most cases they are hagiographies like Ain-i-Akbari or Baburnama, which were written by writers working on a retainer being paid by the kings. Even a highly communal Jizya tax is portrayed as protection money paid by the citizens to ensure security. A century later, we will whitewash hafta vasooli or Rangdari tax as well.Every kingdom or reign had varying degrees of atrocities and reforms. Every king had shades of grey. A history book should be aware of the same, and provide a balanced take for young students. It's easy to create binaries of heroes and villains which suit story books. History is far too serious a subject matter to be taught to young minds.A sixth standard student, a 12-year-old, tries to paint characters in black and white, purely out of convenience, and lack of reasoning abilities. And such tropes are then carried over by the film and television industry to create hagiographies of such rulers. We are all aware of dramas like The Sword of Tipu Sultan and Akbar, The Great. When an entire generation feeds on such stuff, grows up, and learns the darker things about such rulers, they revolt and naturally cry propaganda. They are unable to digest it.advertisementMost students study history to memorise facts and figures and regurgitate them on answer sheets during their exams to score marks. When was the first Battle of Panipat fought? becomes a quiz question, stripping it of all the complexities of a war - the ensuing politics and its impact on subsequent generations. Why was Babur invited to fight Ibrahim Lodi? And why did Babur eventually defeat the guys who invited him? No clue. History is essentially a domino effect, but we are so focused on individual slabs or dominoes that we never really zoom out to see the entire picture.Only when we grow up, in our 30s and 40s, do we buy expensive hard-bound books at airports to read history from the lens of a mature grown-up man. Then, we will appreciate it. But by that time, we have already hard coded our biases, and hence we look for stuff that confirms our biases. It's too late. That's why, focus on geography, teach civics, but maybe, go easy on history, as it's far too complex to be taught to young people. Let them grow up and buy history books at airports.(Abhishek Asthana is the founder of a creative agency – GingerMonkey. He tweets as @GabbbarSingh)- Ends(Views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author)Tune InMust Watch
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
an hour ago
- The Print
‘If you are a true Indian, you wouldn't say this'—SC slams Rahul Gandhi over Army remark
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh government and the complainant in the case. The top court, however, stayed proceedings against Gandhi before a Lucknow court in the matter. New Delhi: If you are a true Indian, you wouldn't say such a thing, the Supreme Court remarked on Monday while slamming Congress leader Rahul Gandhi over his alleged derogatory remarks about the Indian Army during his Bharat Jodo Yatra. 'You are Leader of Opposition. Say things in Parliament, why do you have say it on social media? 'How do you get to know that 2000 sq km land was occupied by Chinese, if you are true indian, you wouldn't say such a thing,' the bench observed. The Allahabad High Court on May 29 had dismissed Gandhi's plea. Gandhi had challenged the summoning order and the complaint arguing that it was motivated and lodged in mala fide manner. In his plea filed in a court here, complainant Udai Shanker Srivastava alleged that during the December 2022 Yatra, Gandhi made several derogatory remarks about the Indian Army in context of the border standoff with China. This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content. Also Read: Hunt for Vibhishan in Gujarat Congress. Why Rahul Gandhi must stop blaming colleagues
India.com
2 hours ago
- India.com
How The U.S. Rewired Pakistan's Air Force; Why That Legacy Still Matters Against India
New Delhi: When Indian jets pounded Pakistani positions under Operation Sindoor, Islamabad's narrative tried to flip the script. Claims of tactical success echoed through Pakistani media, even as damage reports told a different story. But behind these optics, Pakistani defence analysts are pointing to a system that did not come from China, but from the United States nearly 70 years ago. Defence portal Quwa highlighted how the foundations of Pakistan's air force still rest on operational practices and doctrine handed down by the United States as far back as the 1950s. The report claims that what many today call 'software', mindset, structure and operational culture, was installed in the early days of the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) by American advisors. That legacy has shaped PAF's command philosophy to this day. It even influenced the decision to move the Air Force Headquarters from Rawalpindi to Peshawar, giving the force its own command ecosystem, distinct from the army's shadow. How America Gave PAF Its Operational 'Software' According to Quwa, in the early 1950s, Pakistan's air force lacked both equipment and a professional framework. The turning point came with the 1950 Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement with the United States. Under this, Washington not only provided F-86 Sabre aircraft to Pakistan but also embedded an entire operational doctrine into the PAF. Considered the architect of a modern PAF, then Air Marshal Asghar Khan recognised that the United States was sending jets as well as exporting a full system. This included depot-level aircraft maintenance, rather than the traditional squadron-level model; strict safety regulations, based on U.S. Air Force protocols; and clearly separated departments for operations, maintenance and administration. This model replaced the older British system and gave Pakistan's air force an American-style command structure that is still in use today. According to Quwa, this is the backbone that allows the PAF to integrate foreign fighter jets, including the Chinese J-10CE, into its arsenal smoothly. The report argues that this inherited mindset enables faster pilot adaptation and more coherent training cycles, which translates into better performance during real combat situations. A Quiet Nod to the U.S., Not China While Pakistani media has hyped up the role of Chinese-origin J-10CE fighter jets in countering India's Rafales, Quwa takes a more nuanced position. It suggests that the real enabler was not Chinese technology, but American methodology. The systems laid down decades ago by the United States, it claims, allow the PAF to function as a streamlined and adaptable air force, something its regional rivals have had to build from scratch. This legacy also explains the PAF's ability to quickly operationalise new platforms. Pilots transitioning to newer aircraft often show higher mission-readiness because the doctrine standardises procedures across the force. And it was this very consistency, Quwa argues, that allowed Pakistan to mount any kind of coordinated air response during India's strikes. What Really Happened in the Skies? Despite Pakistan's claims, the outcomes of the recent aerial confrontations tell a more complex story. Islamabad managed to shoot down one Indian aircraft, but failed to intercept or prevent Indian strikes on nine strategic sites in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). Indian Rafales inflicted heavy damage. In military terms, Quwa concedes, these results raise questions. One of the contributing factors was a misjudgement by Indian forces regarding the range of China's PL-15 missiles, a gap in calculation that Pakistan used to its advantage. Even then, say Indian analysts, PAF's performance could only be counted as successful if it had prevented India's deep-penetration airstrikes, not merely retaliated after the fact. A Legacy That Still Shapes Air Battles Pakistan's narrative of victory, critics say, may not hold up under scrutiny. But the story that emerges from Quwa's reporting is not about flashy dogfights or headline-grabbing missile launches. It is about how a 70-year-old framework continues to define one of South Asia's most professionalised air forces. In the end, as Quwa puts it, it was not Chinese, but American 'software' (a system of discipline, structure and long-term strategic thinking) that made the real difference.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
SC pulls up Rahul for 'Chinese thrashing our soldiers' remark
. NEW DELHI: Rahul Gandhi , the leader of opposition in Lok Sabha, got a rap on his knuckles on Monday from the Supreme Court for his 2022 statement - Chinese are "thrashing our soldiers in Arunachal Pradesh" - while criticising the government for its handling of the Galwan Valley clash at the LAC. "If you were a true Indian, you would not say all this," the apex court told him. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A G Masih lambasted Rahul for making allegations that China captured 2,000 sq km of Indian territory and asked him whether he was present there. It made it clear to him that as leader of opposition he cannot go on saying whatever he wants. Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Gandhi, defended him saying, "if he cannot say these things which are published in the Press, he cannot be a leader of opposition". However, he agreed that the statement could have been worded better. SC's censure came during the hearing on Rahul's plea for staying a defamation case filed against him over his claim about Indian jawans having been walloped by the Chinese during the Galwan standoff. After the hearing, the court stayed the defamation proceedings against him but not before giving him an earful. "Tell, Dr Singhvi, how do you get to know that 2,000 sq km of Indian territory was occupied by the Chinese? Were you there? Do you have any credible material? Why do you make these statements without you were a true Indian, you would not say all this if there is a conflict at the border," the bench said.
