Selective outrage: on Supreme Court and NCERT textbook

The Supreme Court Bench that took up the NCERT Class 8 social science textbook case might have overreacted when it saw the critical references to the judiciary as a “deep-seated conspiracy” and declared that it will not allow “anyone on earth” to tarnish the judiciary’s integrity. While the government has expressed remorse, Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan’s statement that action will be taken against officials responsible for inserting references to case pendency and “judicial corruption” is an exercise in executive arbitrariness prompted by judicial overreach. In fairness to the Court, it would likely not have taken offence to the passages had these had been in any other book. But textbooks are official, authoritative accounts and the judiciary found the passages ill-motivated. Instances of judicial corruption are real and censoring textbooks is not a corrective measure.

Since the BJP came to power, rewriting school and college textbooks has been a key part of its agenda. Right-wing commentators often find court judgments, such as those giving precedence to the environment as against development, or worse, as against religious practices of Hindus, and therefore not nationalistic or beneficial to the vast majority of the people of India. An adviser to the Prime Minister recently called the judiciary the single biggest obstacle to development. The Court, perhaps, saw the textbook as an attempt to intimidate the judiciary. Some of the sentences were indeed in the form of broadbrushing social media assertions not carefully constructed with rigour. The textbook, for instance, said, “People do experience corruption at various levels of the judiciary” and went on to describe complaints and redress mechanisms. But, such critical references had been used in chapters dealing with the government or the political executive as well. The chapter on elections had a picture of currency notes apparently found in the car of a candidate. The textbook writers probably aimed to spark critical awareness, not offer bland tutorials in civic studies. But as with other textbooks, there are problematic passages. The many history chapters uncritically valorise medieval Hindu kingdoms and portray their struggle to retain power as rightful resistances to Muslim rule. Wars for plunder and territorial expansion have always been part of history, and they did not begin with Muslim invaders. Chapters on Muslim kingdoms briefly refer to Akbar’s tolerance and Babur’s intellectual curiosity but remain largely negative. The chapter on penury under British rule and Mughal-era wealth is not balanced. The problem is not that the textbook selectively targets the judiciary; it is that the judiciary selectively targets certain portions.