At a time when debates over history are growing sharper, historian and author Syed Ubaidur Rahman has raised serious concerns about how India’s past is being presented to future generations. In a recent discussion, he questioned whether a large part of Indian history, nearly 1,000 years of the medieval period under Muslim rule, is slowly being pushed out of public memory.
According to Rahman, this is happening through a combination of textbook changes, renaming of cities, and selective narratives promoted online.
A Thousand Years Being Pushed Aside: Rahman said earlier changes in the NCERT school syllabus show a clear pattern. He believes the intention is not to correct history, but to reduce the medieval period to such an extent that it appears unimportant or negative.
This period is increasingly described as an “era of slavery” or a “dark age,” while the cultural, administrative, and intellectual contributions of Muslim rulers are ignored. These include developments in architecture, governance, language, education, and science.
“History is being used to decide who belongs to India and who doesn’t,” Rahman said.
Rahman stressed that the issue is not only about what is added to textbooks, but also about what has been removed quietly.
Some key deletions from the Class 12 history syllabus include:
Mughal court life: The chapter Kings and Chronicles, which explained Mughal administration, culture, and governance, has been completely dropped.
Gandhi’s assassination: References to the communal environment surrounding Mahatma Gandhi’s killing and the temporary ban on the RSS have been removed.
Regional Sultanates: Important powers such as the Bahmani Sultanate and the Gujarat Sultanate, which once played a major role in Indian politics and culture, are now barely mentioned.
Beyond the Classroom: Renaming of Cities
Rahman said the reshaping of history is not limited to textbooks.
He pointed to the renaming of cities, Allahabad to Prayagraj, Faizabad to Ayodhya, Aurangabad to Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, and Ahmednagar to Ahilyanagar—as steps that weaken the public’s connection to the medieval past. According to him, changing names does not erase history, but it does make it easier to forget it.
The Digital Battle for History: Rahman also warned about what he called a digital displacement of history.
On online platforms such as Amazon, he noted that serious academic works on historical figures like Babur or Tipu Sultan are increasingly pushed aside by popular books that focus on vilification rather than research.
“If a student searches for Babur today, they are more likely to encounter a narrative designed to malign him than a balanced account of his life and rule,” Rahman said.
Questioning the “Dark Age” Narrative
Rahman challenged several widely repeated claims about medieval India.
He addressed the alleged destruction of Nalanda University, stating that strong historical evidence directly linking it to Bakhtiyar Khilji is weak and based on accounts written decades later.
He also rejected the idea that medieval conflicts were mainly religious. Most wars, he explained, were political struggles for power and territory. Rulers formed alliances across religious lines, and many Muslim kings appointed Hindu generals and officials.
Reducing this complex period to a simple Hindu–Muslim conflict, he said, is historically inaccurate.
A Warning for the Future: Rahman concluded with a strong warning, especially for the younger generation.
He expressed concern over the declining level of historical awareness among students and warned that if this trend continues, an entire generation may lose touch with its own past.
“If we do not protect our history, we risk losing our identity,” he said. His call was for a return to original sources, stronger libraries and archives, and serious historical study to safeguard India’s diverse and plural heritage.
At the same time, the author urged citizens to pause and reflect on such decisions. He said people must think seriously about what is truly necessary and what is not. More importantly, citizens should consciously choose what kind of priorities they want for the country. “Every name change comes with a cost, new signboards, official documents, records, and administrative work, and that cost is ultimately paid by every Indian citizen through public money,” he said. He stressed that public discussion should focus on real needs like education, employment, healthcare, and development, rather than symbolic changes that place a financial burden on people without offering real solutions.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FOEJ.
