‘The purpose of history is not to construct statements for contemporary political use’

1. At a Glance

• Core thesis: History should explain how Indian society evolved. It should not produce statements for present-day political use [1].
• Speaker and occasion: Prof. Romila Thapar spoke on ‘Historiography and Early Indian History’ at the second Sitaram Yechury Memorial Lecture [1].
• Her central claim: a Hindutva reading of Indian history cannot be ‘single and fixed’ [1].
• Why it matters for UPSC: It fits GS-I (historiography, sources of ancient Indian history) and GS-IV (objectivity, intellectual integrity). It is also good essay material on history versus memory versus ideology.

2. Why in the News

• Thapar gave the lecture in New Delhi on October 25, 2026 [1].
• The Hindu printed edited excerpts on Thursday, 5 November 2026, Page 11, International edition [1].
• It feeds the continuing public debate over how the past is used politically (curriculum changes, renaming, heritage disputes). These are general context, not covered in [1].

3. Background & Evolution

• Organiser: the Sitaram Yechury Foundation invited Thapar [1].
• Personal link: Thapar says she once had "a small conversation" with Sitaram Yechury on this subject but never discussed it at length with him. She gave the lecture "in remembrance" [1].
• This year's edition: it was the second lecture in the memorial series [1].
• Wider evolution of Indian historiography (uncited — verify):
• Colonial/Orientalist writing, e.g., James Mill's three-period scheme of Hindu, Muslim and British India.
• Nationalist historiography.
• Marxist historiography, including D.D. Kosambi.
• Subaltern Studies, from the 1980s.
• Contemporary contests over who gets to tell the national past.

4. Core Static Facts

Item	Fact
Speaker	Prof. Romila Thapar [1]
Lecture title	‘Historiography and Early Indian History’ [1]
Event	Second Sitaram Yechury Memorial Lecture [1]
Organiser	Sitaram Yechury Foundation [1]
Venue / date	New Delhi, 25 October 2026 [1]
Publication	The Hindu, 5 Nov 2026, p. 11 (International edition) [1]

Key terms:

• Historiography: the study of how history is written. It asks who investigates the past, how that past is spread, and with what intention [1].
• Legitimation through the past: "Every society aspires to a past that explains how it came into being." This often draws on the present and legitimises it [1].
• Source criticism (Thapar's four questions) [1]: 1. Whose past are the sources referring to? 2. Who wrote the sources? 3. Why and how do they want to appropriate the past? 4. How authentic is their version of the past?

Related institutions (uncited — verify):

• Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR), set up in 1972 under the Ministry of Education.
• Article 51A(f): the Fundamental Duty to value and preserve India's composite culture.

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Historical / Historiographical

• Different sections of society claim different pasts, so no single account of the past is natural or given [1].
• New historical perspectives now prevail, and historiography is slowly being recognised as important [1].
• To read ancient texts critically, you need to know who wrote them and for whom. Many early Indian texts were written by elites (general point).

Ethical (GS-IV)

• Separate inquiry from advocacy. Using history for current political ends harms intellectual honesty and objectivity [1].
• The underlying values are truthfulness, professional integrity and openness to evidence.

Governance / Educational

• The way the past is "propagated" is a real issue for policy, because textbooks, museums and public memorials all present a version of history [1].
• Institutions such as the ICHR, NCERT and ASI need academic autonomy to protect evidence-based history (uncited — verify).

Social / Political

• A single, fixed reading of the past can push out the pasts of other communities. This bears on pluralism and composite culture [1].
• History used as identity politics can harden majority–minority divisions (analytical point).

Legal / Constitutional

• Scientific temper, Article 51A(h), and composite culture, Article 51A(f), give a constitutional basis for critical history (uncited — verify).

6. Recent Developments (last 12-18 months)

• 25 Oct 2026: Thapar delivers the second Sitaram Yechury Memorial Lecture in New Delhi [1].
• 5 Nov 2026: The Hindu publishes edited excerpts under this headline [1].
• No other dated developments could be confirmed, because the searches returned nothing.

7. Prelims Hooks

• The lecture was titled ‘Historiography and Early Indian History’ [1].
• It was the second Sitaram Yechury Memorial Lecture [1].
• It was delivered in New Delhi on 25 October 2026 [1].
• The Sitaram Yechury Foundation issued the invitation [1].
• Thapar argued a Hindutva reading of history cannot be ‘single and fixed’ [1].
• She said historical inquiry must explain the evolution of Indian society [1].
• Historiography asks who investigates the past, how it is propagated, and with what intention [1].
• Her source-critical questions ask whose past the sources describe, who wrote them, why they appropriate the past, and how authentic their version is [1].
• ICHR was established in 1972 (uncited — verify).
• Article 51A(f) is the duty to preserve composite culture (uncited — verify).

8. Where This Debate Actually Happens: NCERT School Textbooks

• Thapar's question "how is the past propagated?" has a concrete answer: school textbooks
• NCERT (National Council of Educational Research and Training, which writes the national school books) removed the Class 12 chapter 'Kings and Chronicles; the Mughal Courts' from Themes of Indian History – Part 2 [4].
• The 2025–26 Class 7 social science book has new chapters throughout. It does not mention the Mughals or the Delhi Sultanate anywhere [3].

• Crores of students learn their first account of the past from these books. So a change here reaches far more people than any lecture or research paper.

• The two sides describe the same change in different words

• NCERT calls it rationalisation: cutting repeated material to reduce the student's load, on the advice of expert panels [4].
• Critics and several opposition parties call it saffronisation: rewriting the past to suit one political ideology [4].
• For your answer: Thapar's test does not ask which label is right. It asks who made the change, why, and whether the evidence supports it [1].

9. The Strongest Case Against Thapar — and What It Gets Right

• The objection: the old textbooks also had a point of view
• Supporters of the revisions say the changes correct long-standing imbalances in earlier books [4].

• Their argument goes like this: the earlier books were also written by a particular school of historians. So replacing them is a rebalancing, not 'political use'.

• What the objection gets right

• No history is free of viewpoint. Thapar herself says every society builds a past that legitimises its present [1].
• In her Britannica account, she notes that early 20th-century nationalist historians exaggerated the glory of the past. The same history writing that helped the freedom struggle also bent the evidence [7].

• So her four questions about sources apply to every school, including Marxist and secular historians. An honest answer should say this.

• Where the objection fails

• Fixing an imbalance means adding missing evidence or correcting wrong claims. Removing a whole 300-year period does not fix the old account. It leaves a gap.
• NCERT itself later admitted that some cuts were never listed in its official notification of changes, and called them a possible oversight [4]. A correction that is not openly recorded cannot be checked. Thapar's method asks for exactly that kind of checking.
• The Class 8 book called Babur 'ruthless' and Akbar's rule 'brutal' and 'tolerant'. NCERT's curriculum head Michel Danino denied any intent to vilify the Mughals [5]. The real dispute is about method: words like these are moral judgements, while history is supposed to explain how society changed [1].

10. Why Cutting Out a Period Breaks the Whole Story

• History is a chain. Remove one link and later events lose their cause
• Thapar called the removal of whole dynasties "nonsense". She said history is a continuous process and stops making sense when it is cut into pieces [2].

• An example: Mughal land revenue, regional states such as the Marathas, and the East India Company's early footholds all grow out of each other. A student who never studied the Mughals cannot explain why the British took over the way they did.

• The gap is still open

• NCERT says the Class 7 book is only Part 1. It has not said whether the dropped periods will come back in Part 2 [3].

• Until that is settled, one batch of students has already studied a version of medieval India with no Sultanate or Mughals in it.

• This is the 'single and fixed' past Thapar warns against [1]

• If the book tells the story of only some communities, other communities do not see their past in the national story. This goes against composite culture (the idea that Indian culture was built together by many communities).

11. Why Textbooks Have Become a Centre–State Fight

• States are now teaching their own version of the past
• Kerala said it would teach the portions NCERT had dropped in its own state syllabus [6].

• Kerala also asked for NCERT to be reconstituted with members from all states [9].

• Why this matters

• When the Centre and a state teach different pasts, students in different states grow up with different ideas of who 'we' are.
• This is Thapar's point again: different groups claim different pasts [1]. But now the disagreement runs through government systems, not just academic debate.
• For GS-II, link it to cooperative federalism: the curriculum is a shared national asset, and states want a say in how it is written.

12. What Should Change in How Textbooks Are Revised

• NCERT should publish every change with a written reason
• The 2023 cuts were not all listed in the official notification, and NCERT had to call this an oversight afterwards [4].

• If NCERT published each deletion with the reason, historians, teachers and parents could check whether the stated reason (less load, repetition) holds up.

• NCERT should name the experts and release their advice

• NCERT said it consulted 25 experts and 16 CBSE teachers for the rationalisation [8].

• Releasing who advised what would let others test the advice against evidence. This is Thapar's own question applied to textbook writers: "Who wrote the sources, and why?" [1].

• The Ministry of Education should give states a formal role in NCERT

• This responds to Kerala's demand to reconstitute NCERT with all states represented [9].

• A shared body is less likely to fix a single version of the past that half the country rejects.

• Teach the method, not just the facts

• Students can learn to ask Thapar's four questions about any source [1]. Then whatever version reaches them, they can question it. This is the spirit of scientific temper (the habit of asking for evidence before believing).

13. Anchors for Answers

• Data: The 2025–26 NCERT Class 7 social science book has no mention of the Mughals or Delhi Sultanate [3]; NCERT says it consulted 25 experts and 16 CBSE teachers for the 2023 rationalisation [8]
• Report/Committee: National Curriculum Framework 2023, the framework behind the new NCERT Class 8 book [5]
• Comparison: Kerala chose to teach the NCERT-deleted portions in its own state syllabus [6]
• Law/Case: Article 51A(f), composite culture, and Article 51A(h), scientific temper. These are the Fundamental Duties already listed in the note (verify before use)

14. Mains Relevance

• GS-I:
• Indian culture, covering art forms, literature and architecture from ancient to modern times.

• Sources and historiography of ancient India, needed for answer framing.

• GS-IV: Ethics and values in public life, intellectual integrity, objectivity, and the ethics of using knowledge for political ends.

• Essay: history, memory and identity.
• Possible question stems: 1. "The past is often invoked to legitimise the present." Critically examine this with reference to the historiography of early India. 2. Discuss how the authorship and purpose of historical sources shape our understanding of ancient Indian society. 3. (GS-IV / Essay) "The purpose of history is not to construct statements for contemporary political use." Discuss the ethical responsibilities of historians and public institutions.

15. Related Topics to Study Next

• Schools of Indian historiography (colonial, nationalist, Marxist, subaltern): the framework Thapar's critique assumes.
• Literary vs. archaeological sources of ancient India: applies the "who authored the sources" question.
• Aryan debate and Harappan continuity: a classic area where history and present-day identity politics collide.
• ICHR, NCERT textbook revisions: institutions that decide how the past is spread.
• Fundamental Duties, Art. 51A(f) and (h): the constitutional basis for composite culture and scientific temper.
• ASI and heritage disputes: where official claims about the past turn into politics.
• GS-IV objectivity and intellectual honesty: the ethics dimension of the thesis.

16. NCERT Concepts to Revise

• Hindutva (Polity): Thapar's central target: a Hindutva reading of the past, which she says cannot be 'single and fixed'.
• Subaltern Studies (History): One school of Indian historiography, writing history from below, showing that different groups hold different pasts.
• Identity politics (Polity): Shows how a chosen version of the past is used to mobilise communities for present political ends.
• Pluralism (Polity): A single fixed past pushes out other communities' pasts, which cuts against accommodating diverse cultures.
• Scientific temper (Polity): Article 51A(h) spirit of inquiry gives a constitutional basis for questioning sources, as Thapar urges.
• Archaeological Survey of India (History): ASI findings are key evidence for early Indian history and often feature in heritage disputes.

17. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Historiography is not history. Historiography is the study of how history is written: its methods, authors and intentions. It is not the past itself [1].
• Getting the edition wrong. This was the second memorial lecture, not the first or inaugural one [1].
• Misreading the thesis. Thapar does not say the past has no present relevance. Her point is that the past should not be manufactured for present political use, and that sources must be questioned [1].
• Mixing up dates. The lecture was on 25 Oct 2026; the print excerpt appeared on 5 Nov 2026 [1].
• Citing the wrong ministry. ICHR falls under the Ministry of Education, not the Ministry of Culture. The ASI falls under Culture (uncited — verify).