Tipu Sultan, Anglo-Mysore wars missing from NCERT's new Class 8 social science book
While Mysore's resistance is missing, the book includes early uprisings like the Sannyasi-Fakir rebellion, Kol Uprising, and Santhal rebellion. A separate chapter on the Marathas mentions the Anglo-Maratha wars and states that the British 'took India from the Marathas more than from the Mughals or any other power.'NCERT'S EXPLANATION FOR THE OMISSIONMichel Danino, chair of the NCERT textbook development group, clarified that the current Class 8 textbook aims to give an overview rather than exhaustive detail. 'We fall back into the old mode of cramming textbooks with dates and wars if we try to include everything,' he said. On whether Tipu Sultan might appear in Part 2, he added, 'Probably not.'One of the key features of the new book is its focus on the economic impact of colonialism. Citing economist Utsa Patnaik, it claims that colonial powers extracted wealth equivalent to $45 trillion (in today's value) from India between 1765 and 1938. It also refutes the common narrative that infrastructure like railways and telegraphs were British "gifts", stating they were largely funded by Indian taxpayers for colonial interests.CULTURAL LOOT UNDER COLONIAL RULEThe textbook includes a new section on how colonial powers looted India's cultural wealth — statues, manuscripts, jewels, and artefacts — much of which ended up in European museums and private collections. It labels this appropriation as 'massive theft' carried out across colonised nations.While the textbook brings in important perspectives on colonial exploitation and cultural theft, its omission of major resistance figures like Tipu Sultan has sparked concern over whether it presents a holistic view of India's colonial past. Critics argue that skipping such chapters of history could dilute students' understanding of India's diverse anti-colonial struggle.- EndsMust Watch
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
34 minutes ago
- Indian Express
India-US relations: Trump's tariffs, signals on China & Pakistan challenge strategic calculus
After over nearly two decades of steady progress, India-US relations may, quite abruptly, be at an inflection point. The next few months should provide important clues about how matters will unfold. Several developments in the recent past raise questions about the trajectory of the relationship. The first disturbing sign emerged during the Pahalgam crisis. As the short, intense crisis ended, President Donald Trump asserted that he was instrumental in bringing the conflict to a close through the threat of trade sanctions on both antagonists. Subsequently, he has doubled down on his initial claim even as his Indian interlocutors continue to deny their veracity. To compound matters, his Vice President, J D Vance, also offered the good offices of the United States to mediate an end to the Kashmir dispute. Apparently, he was unaware that the last Anglo-US effort in November 1962, in the form of the Harriman-Sandys Mission, had made no meaningful headway whatsoever against a far, far weaker India. From the standpoint of New Delhi, these assertions alone were not the only disturbing signs. Shortly after the crisis concluded, Trump invited Field Marshal Asim Munir, the chief of staff of the Pakistan Army, for lunch at the White House. This was the first time in the history of the US-Pakistan bilateral relationship that a Pakistan Army chief had been accorded this rare honour. (The self-styled Field Marshal, Mohammed Ayub Khan, when he visited the United States, was also the formal head of the Pakistani state). All these developments, no doubt, ruffled feathers in New Delhi. They need to be placed in a broader institutional context. As of today, the Trump administration has yet to appoint an ambassador to New Delhi. During the crisis and even thereafter, the Republican-run United States senate had not confirmed an assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asian Affairs, the highest ranking official responsible for overseeing the bilateral relationship. To make matters worse, just this week Trump, despite good-faith efforts on the part of senior Indian trade negotiators who have made multiple trips to Washington, DC, has threatened to impose a 25 per cent tariff on Indian exports to the United States. In imposing these tariffs, he publicly complained that India was purchasing significant amounts of petroleum from Russia and still purchasing ample quantities of Russian weaponry. What Trump fails to understand is that this latest round of prospective tariffs, far from inducing India to make prompt concessions, may limit Prime Minister Narendra Modi's room for manoeuvre in attempting to reach a trade accord with the United States. Under external duress, and with at least two domestic factors hemming him in, his ability to work toward a deal with the United States may well be quite limited. First, as is altogether well known, his government is facing a difficult election in Bihar. Second, in the current, Monsoon Session of Parliament, the Opposition has been haranguing his government to make a clean breast of the precise role that American pressure may or may not have played in bringing about the ceasefire with Pakistan in the wake of the Pahalgam crisis. These issues, however, are not the only sources of misgiving in New Delhi. For several weeks, key members of the Trump administration have been in discussions with their counterparts in the People's Republic of China (PRC) about reaching a trade accord and even organising a summit between Trump and Xi Jinping. Indeed, it is reasonable to infer that some progress has been made on both fronts. Such an inference is hardly unreasonable given that the current Taiwanese President, Lai Cheng-te, was told not to fly through the United States while on an upcoming visit to Latin America. He was, no doubt, told not to stop over in the United States as PRC officials have routinely objected to such visits or even stopovers on the part of high-ranking Taiwanese officials. If the administration can make headway with the PRC on a trade agreement and, worse still, possibly back away from other historic strategic commitments, such as an unequivocal support for Taiwan, it could very easily leave New Delhi to its own devices when dealing with the threat from the PRC. Consequently, these overtures toward Beijing on the part of Washington, DC, can be of legitimate concern in New Delhi as it has long had fears about possible American abandonment. Trump's abrupt announcement on X (formerly Twitter) on July 30 that his administration had reached an accord to explore and develop Pakistan's oil reserves will only fuel further concern and distrust in New Delhi. At a time when the US-India bilateral relationship was already in the doldrums, this announcement will reinforce further doubts about what significance the administration attaches to the Indo-US strategic partnership. Modi, who had staked much on his personal rapport with Trump, may conclude that the seeming bonhomie that he had developed with him during the first term may not translate into welcome policy choices in the second. Trump, in turn, in his quest for short-term gains, may well squander much of the goodwill and trust that had been so painstakingly built up across administrations, both Democratic and Republican, over the past two decades. Such an outcome will be to the detriment of both parties. The writer is a senior fellow and directs the Huntington Programme on strengthening US-India relations at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
'Let them sail': Russian lawmaker shrugs off Trump's nuclear sub threat
A senior Russian lawmaker has said that Russia has enough nuclear submarines at sea to handle any potential threat from the two US subs ordered into position by President Donald Trump, news agency PTI reported. Viktor Vodolatsky, a member of the Russian Parliament (Duma), told state news agency TASS that there is no need for a response from Russia to Trump's decision. "The number of Russian nuclear submarines in the world's oceans is significantly higher than the American ones, and the subs that US President Donald Trump ordered to be redirected to the appropriate regions have long been under their control,' he said. 'So no response from the Russian Federation to the American leader's statement about the submarines is required." Vodolatsky also said: 'Let the two US subs sail, they have been in the crosshairs for a long time now.' Trump orders US nuclear submarines on alert On Friday, Trump posted on his social media platform Truth Social that he had ordered the movement of two US nuclear submarines to 'appropriate regions'. He said the decision was in response to what he described as 'extremely provocative statements' made by former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, now the deputy chairman of the Russian Security Council. In his post, Trump wrote: 'Based on the highly provocative statements of the Former President of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev... I have ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that." Russian minister backs peaceful approach, warns against direct conflict Responding to comments made by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in a Fox News interview, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov welcomed the US position that a direct military clash with Russia must be avoided. 'We wholeheartedly concur with this position. Such shared understanding has been facilitated through constructive Russian-American dialogue,' Lavrov said. 'While Europeans are hysterically pushing for Ukraine's integration into NATO... Marco Rubio recently reaffirmed a responsible stance, explicitly stating that a direct military confrontation between the United States and Russia must be avoided," he said. Trump slams Medvedev, India and Russia In another post on Thursday, Trump attacked both India and Russia, calling them 'dead economies' and suggesting they could 'take their dead economies down together'. He also criticised Medvedev. 'Russia and the USA do almost no business together. Let's keep it that way. Tell Medvedev, the failed former President of Russia, who thinks he's still President, to watch his words. He's entering very dangerous territory!' Trump said. In response, Medvedev dismissed Trump's remarks, saying they showed nervousness. 'If some words from the former president of Russia cause such a nervous reaction from the supposedly mighty president of the US, then Russia is doing everything right,' he wrote on Telegram. He also reminded Trump of Russia's Cold War-era nuclear capability, designed to retaliate even if the country's leadership were destroyed in a first strike. Mocking Trump's interest in pop culture, Medvedev added: 'He should remember his favourite films about 'The Walking Dead' and think about how dangerous a 'dead hand' can be, even one that doesn't exist in nature,' ending his post with a laughing emoji. (With agency inputs)
Scroll.in
an hour ago
- Scroll.in
New Delhi rejects UK parliamentary report accusing India of transnational repression
New Delhi on Friday rejected a recent British parliamentary report that listed India among countries allegedly involved in 'transnational repression' activities in the United Kingdom. Responding to media queries about the report released on Wednesday, the Ministry of External Affairs said that the allegations were 'baseless'. 'These claims stem from unverified and dubious sources, predominantly linked to proscribed entities and individuals with a clear, documented history of anti-India hostility,' said ministry Spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal. 'The deliberate reliance on discredited sources calls into question the credibility of the report itself,' he added. While the report compiled by the UK Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights focuses primarily on China, Russia and Iran, it also names India alongside countries such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. The report accuses 12 countries, including India, of carrying out transnational repression by targeting political opponents, activists and journalists in the UK. It states that the committee had received 'credible evidence' of such actions, which had a serious impact on those targeted, 'instilling fear, limiting their freedom of expression and movement, and undermining their sense of safety'. It alleges that the countries had misused Interpol's Red Notice system for political purposes. The report also criticised the UK government's response to the alleged transnational repression and urged stronger measures to address foreign state interference. The report's appendices cite Sikhs for Justice, a UK-based pro-Khalistan group banned in India under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, along with other Sikh advocacy groups, as some of the sources behind the allegations. Khalistan is a proposed independent state for Sikhs sought by some groups. The UK Home Office stated that it takes the threat of transnational repression ' extremely seriously ', PTI reported. 'Any attempts by a foreign state to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm individuals on UK soil are considered a threat to our national security and sovereignty, and will not be tolerated,' a spokesperson was quoted as saying. Interpol said that it has ' robust processes ' in place to ensure all notices comply with its regulations. 'Our constitution forbids Interpol from undertaking activities of a political, military, religious or racial character and all our databases and activities must also comply with the universal declaration for human rights,' a spokesperson stated.
