The political storm over India’s Partition has once again taken center stage—this time over the NCERT’s newly released module on Partition Horrors Remembrance Day. Congress leader Pawan Khera on Saturday launched a fierce attack on the educational body, accusing it of omitting crucial facts and presenting a selective version of history.
The special module, unveiled by NCERT to mark Partition Horrors Remembrance Day, places the blame for India’s division on three figures—Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the Congress, and then Viceroy Lord Mountbatten. But this framing has not gone down well with the Congress, which has accused the ruling establishment of rewriting history to suit its narrative.
“Is 1938 mentioned or not?” Khera asked during a sharp critique, recalling the Hindu Mahasabha’s national conference in Gujarat that year, where the idea was floated that Hindus and Muslims could not coexist in a single nation. “Let us move forward to 1940. Is it there in the module? Jinnah only repeated what was floated earlier.”
Khera alleged that NCERT’s resource ignores the role of Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim League in forming coalition regimes after Congress leaders resigned in 1942 during the Quit India movement. “In Sindh Assembly, the partition proposal was tabled jointly by the Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim League. Is it written in the module?” he questioned.
The Congress spokesperson went a step further, urging students and teachers to “set fire to the book” if these omissions persist. He asserted that the real “jugalbandi” (duet) responsible for Partition was between the Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim League, and that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) should be seen as the “villain” of history.
What the NCERT Module Says
The NCERT module, designed as a supplementary resource for students of Classes 6–8 and 9–12, traces Partition through posters, projects, debates, and classroom discussions. It highlights three culprits: Jinnah, who demanded Partition; Congress, which accepted it; and Mountbatten, who implemented it.
The text calls Mountbatten guilty of a “major blunder” by advancing the transfer of power from June 1948 to August 1947, which led to chaos in border demarcations. “In Punjab, even two days after August 15, 1947, millions did not know whether they were in India or Pakistan,” the document states.
The module cites the 1940 Lahore Resolution, where Jinnah asserted that Hindus and Muslims represented “two different religious philosophies, social customs, and literatures.” It also records Jinnah’s later remark that he “never expected to see Pakistan in his lifetime.”
Views from Congress leaders of that time also feature: Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel termed Partition as “bitter medicine,” Nehru called it “bad but unavoidable,” and Mahatma Gandhi, though opposed to the idea, refused to block Congress from accepting it amid violence.
The opening sections of both versions of the module quote Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s 2021 message, marking Partition Horrors Remembrance Day: “Partition’s pains can never be forgotten. Millions of our sisters and brothers were displaced, and many lost their lives due to mindless hate and violence.”
The resource also touches upon the aftermath, noting that Partition left Kashmir as a persistent security challenge for India, with Pakistan and other nations using it to exert pressure on New Delhi.
The Larger Debate
While the NCERT insists the material is meant to foster classroom dialogue and critical thinking, the Congress has accused the government of selectively highlighting episodes to fit an ideological template. Khera’s remarks suggest that the history of Partition is once again at the center of India’s political battlefield—this time over how future generations will be taught to remember it.
For Congress, the concern is not merely about omissions, but about the risk of erasing the role of certain organizations while amplifying others. For the government, however, the aim is to spotlight the pain of Partition and instill remembrance among students.
As the debate intensifies, one question looms large: who gets to decide how history is remembered—the historians, the politicians, or the classrooms?
