Where Rohith and Baragur are both lacking

The revision of Class 1-10 textbooks in Karnataka is being debated across the political spectrum. The mainstream media creates a binary between the Rohith Chakrathirtha committee, which revised the textbooks, and an earlier revision committee headed by Baragur Ramachandrappa, but in reality, this debate is deeply ideological. I contend that neither the BJP-backed nor the Congress-backed textbooks do justice to our blossoming minds.

Let’s start at the ‘beginning’. In 2020, Karnataka’s BJP government set up a revision committee after it received complaints from the Brahmin community that some sections of the current textbooks were anti-Brahmin. For example, Chapter 6 in the Class 8 social science textbook talked about how rituals during the Vedic period such as homa and havana led to food scarcity; also, it included information on how Sanskrit, a difficult language for common people to learn, had facilitated the growth of Buddhism and Jainism, religions teaching ‘simple ways.’

These aspects of ancient history are based on academic facts and research. But the BJP, which set up a Brahmin Development Board in July 2020, has consistently tried to placate the socially and educationally privileged community. This is not surprising since it is ideologically a ‘hyper Brahmanical’ party built on monolithic Hindutva that attempts to other religious minorities and progressives, include Dalits and Adivasis into its fold, and yet maintain the supremacy and elitism of the Brahmin male.

Now, attempts by the Rohith Chakrathirtha committee to undermine revolutionary icons like Tipu, Bhagat Singh, Basavanna, Periyar, Ambedkar, and Narayan Guru are undeniable. It has included a speech by Hindutva ideologue K B Hedgewar about the importance of ideology. While this amounts to a hyper-Brahminisation of the social sciences, it is not ‘poisoning’ like many liberal activists and Congress backers assert. Nowhere does it spew venom against any community, religion, caste, or creed. Pushing for corrections of any miswriting is definitely the right thing to do, but demanding that Hedgewar be kept out and that the Bargur Ramachandrappa committee textbooks be reinstated is propaganda of the Congress and the liberal intelligentsia.

I oppose the reinstating of the Bargur Ramachandrappa committee textbooks not just because it replaces one party’s textbooks with another’s but also because the textbooks are ideologically incomplete. For example, how much do the Bargur Ramachandrappa textbooks focus on LGBTQ and gender equality? In a discriminatory political discourse that calls our sitting government ‘mangalamukhi’ (C M Ibrahim), uses terms like ‘shikandi’ (C T Ravi) and ‘shanda’, hypes ‘masculinity’ as strength (Ashwathnarayan), and normalises rape by saying it must be ‘enjoyed’ (Ramesh Kumar), we must sensitise our next generation to the struggles of the sexual minorities and the women at large. Also, grassroots histories of the Adivasi (tribals) and alemaari (nomadic) communities have never been given their due in our textbooks. Karnataka’s devadasi tradition in north Karnataka still stigmatises many.

These communities continue to be neglected not just by political parties but also by the liberal intelligentsia. The ideological persuasion of the Baragur Ramachandrappa textbooks is arguably more liberal and moderate than any other. But it has its drawbacks. The Class 10 social science textbook Chapter 8 talks about the ‘Gandhi Age and National Struggle’. In it, a passage on Ambedkar makes no mention of his specialisations in sociology, economics, and history. In other words, the status quoist ideology of the Congress is given more prominence than any other ideology. This institutionalises the Gandhi-Nehru elites as the truly deserving leaders of our nation and marginalises our equalitarian icons— the Phules, Ambedkar and Periyar—as showpiece references.

In conclusion, neither the Rohith Chakrithirtha nor the Bargur Ramachandrappa textbooks truly impart the knowledge our younger generations require. Ideally, an independent group of scholars should determine what our children study, with information drawn from independent academic sources. Until then, those of us who believe in an egalitarian society must mobilise on the ground through social work, activism, and cadre camps. Remember: Hedgewar was never a part of our syllabus, and yet, his ideological ilk are now running our state and nation.

(The author is an actor and activist)