Erasing Hindu History: Maulana Azad’s Educational Legacy

India’s post-independence education system, crafted by Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, India’s first Education Minister (1947–1958), and his Muslim successors—Humayun Kabir, Mohammadali Currim Chagla, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, and Saiyid Nurul Hasan—is accused of being fundamentally anti-Hindu.

It allegedly whitewashed the brutalities of Islamic invasions, marginalised Hindu contributions, vilified Hindu culture as superstition, and glorified foreign invaders. This article examines their policies, curricula, and the agenda to suppress Hindu identity, highlighting the distortion of India’s past.

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad: Laying the Foundation

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, born in Mecca in 1888, was an eminent Islamic scholar and Indian National Congress leader associated with the Deobandi school and Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind.

He opposed India’s partition, believing an undivided India—historically Dar-ul-Islam except during British rule—would eventually become Islamic sooner than later. Partition, he argued, would create a Hindu-majority state, weakening the prospect of re-establishing Dar-ul-Islam. This perspective shaped his nationalist stance.

As Education Minister from 1947 to 1958, Maulana Azad shaped India’s post-independent educational framework during its formative period. Maulana Azad’s policies initiated a deliberate anti-Hindu agenda, erasing the violent legacy of Islamic invasions and rule and sidelining Hindu cultural heritage.

Maulana Azad’s system aimed to “deracinate” Hindus, uprooting them from their religious, cultural, and historical moorings through a distorted portrayal of history that glorified Muslim rulers while negating Hindu contributions. His secularism was a smokescreen to suppress Hindu narratives, replacing them with sanitized accounts of Islamic conquests that ignored centuries of oppression.

Whitewashing Islamic Invasions

Maulana Azad oversaw curricula that concealed the brutalities of Islamic invasions and rule. Medieval sources, such as Tarikh-i-Firishta and Chachnama, detail temple destructions, forced conversions, and massacres by invaders like Mahmud of Ghazni, Muhammad bin Qasim, and Alauddin Khalji. These facts were systematically excluded from textbooks, replaced by narratives portraying Muslim rulers as benevolent patrons of culture. The destruction of the Somnath Temple by Ghazni in 1025, a deep wound in Hindu memory, was either omitted or mentioned fleetingly, denying students the truth about their suffering.

Maulana Azad’s negationism extended to events like the burning of Nalanda University by Bakhtiyar Khalji in 1193, which obliterated a global center of Hindu and Buddhist learning. Textbooks ignored such atrocities, focusing on Mughal architectural achievements or Akbar’s “syncretic” policies. This selective storytelling denied Hindus knowledge of their history, presenting Islamic rule as a golden era rather than a period of conquest and subjugation.

Anti-Hindu Bias in Policy

Maulana Azad’s policies marginalized Hindu culture while elevating Islamic influences. He promoted Urdu, an Islamic language, over Sanskrit, the bedrock of Hindu scriptures. His support for institutions like Jamia Millia Islamia, which he helped found, contrasted with the neglect of traditional Hindu gurukuls. This was part of an effort to vilify Sanatana Dharma as backward, replacing its philosophical traditions with narratives favouring foreign cultural imports. 

The cultural academies Maulana Azad established—like the Sahitya Akademi and Sangeet Natak Akademi—are criticized for prioritizing Urdu literature and Persian-influenced art over Hindu epics like the Ramayana and Mahabharata. This de-Hinduization extended to public institutions, where Hindu imagery and values were systematically sidelined, fostering a sense of inferiority among Hindu students about their heritage.

Successor Muslim Education Ministers: Deepening the Distortion

Maulana Azad’s successors—Humayun Kabir (1958–1963), Mohammadali Currim Chagla (1963–1966), Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed (1966–1967), and Saiyid Nurul Hasan (1971–1977)—are accused of perpetuating and intensifying this anti-Hindu framework under Congress governments. Their policies allegedly entrenched a system that glorified Islamic rulers while erasing Hindu resilience, aligning with an effort to undermine Hindu civilization.

Humayun Kabir: Expanding the Narrative

Humayun Kabir, a scholar and poet, furthered Maulana Azad’s agenda by patronizing historians who sanitized Islamic history. Under him, the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), established in 1961, produced textbooks emphasizing Mughal contributions—such as the Taj Mahal or Akbar’s administration—while marginalizing Hindu resistance movements like those of the Marathas or Rajputs. The Chola Empire’s global influence, the Vijayanagara Empire’s prosperity and cultural zenith, the Gajapatis’ coastal wealth and overseas trade, and the Ahoms’ defeat of the Mughals 17 times, including the Battle of Saraighat, were relegated to footnotes, reinforcing a Muslim-centric narrative.

Kabir’s policies, such as expanding minority education, prioritized Muslim interests over Hindu ones. This was part of a second phase of de-Hinduization of education, where Hindu students were taught to view Hindu religion as a collection of superstitions, while Islamic culture was presented as progressive. The omission of events like the massacre of Hindus during Tamerlane’s 1398 invasion of Delhi from curricula reflects Kabir’s complicity in whitewashing Islamic violence.

Mohammadali Currim Chagla: Inaction as Complicity

Chagla, a jurist with a secular reputation, failed to correct distortions in history textbooks. His tenure saw no effort to include accounts of Hindu suffering, such as the destruction of the Martand Sun Temple by Sikandar Butshikan in Kashmir. Instead, curricula highlighted the Delhi Sultanate’s “Ganga Jamuna Tehzeeb,” ignoring discriminatory policies like the jizya tax, solidifying the anti-Hindu narrative.

The rivers Ganga and Yamuna are sacred to Hindus, yet “Ganga Jamuna Tehzeeb” is used to describe a syncretic culture. Let’s apply this analogy to wheat farming. In a wheat field, Gulli Danda (Phalaris minor), a notorious weed, threatens the crop. Just as the Ganga and Yamuna belong to Hindu civilization, the field belongs to the farmer. As these rivers nurture a rich Hindu culture and heritage, the field yields a bountiful wheat crop for the farmer. However, if the farmer is not vigilant, Gulli Danda can overrun the field, transforming it from a wheat haven into a weed-infested wasteland.

Farmers toil tirelessly to keep Gulli Danda at bay, ensuring they produce pure wheat. Should government policies encourage farmers to let the weed flourish and harvest a contaminated crop, or to weed it out diligently? Would anyone buy or consume wheat riddled with inedible Gulli Danda? Just as there is no cereal called “Wheat-Gulli Danda,” there is no culture called “Ganga Jamuna Tehzeeb.” Wheat is an edible grain; Gulli Danda is an inedible weed. The distinction is clear, and the choice is obvious.

Chagla’s focus on technical education was irrelevant to the core issue: the erasure of Hindu history. By not challenging the framework, he perpetuated a system marginalizing Hindu heroes like Krishnadevarayalu, Kapilendradeva Gajapati, Shivaji, or Guru Gobind Singh.

Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed: Continuing the Legacy

Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed’s brief tenure continued the omission of curricula favouring pro-Muslim and anti-Hindu narrative. Events like Aurangzeb’s temple destructions, documented in his farman-s, remained absent, reinforcing a benign view of Islamic rule and ignoring incidents like forced conversions under Tipu Sultan or the persecution of Sikhs under Mughals.

Saiyid Nurul Hasan: Institutionalizing Bias

Saiyid Nurul Hasan, a historian and Education Minister from 1971 to 1977, is accused of being the most egregious, after Azad, in institutionalizing an anti-Hindu education system. Hasan’s tenure was a turning point, where Marxist historians like Romila Thapar and Irfan Habib were empowered to rewrite history in a way that vilified Hindu civilization, culture, and religion.

NCERT textbooks under Hasan inserted imaginary Marxist class struggles into ancient and medieval Indian history and emphasized Mughal achievements, while Hindu resistance—such as the Rajput wars against Babur or the Ahom defiance of Aurangzeb—was barely mentioned.

Hasan’s policies entrenched a narrative that shamed Hindus about their identity. For example, the Maratha Empire’s role in dismantling Mughal power was not only understated but vilified, while Babur’s conquests were detailed extensively. Hasan’s support for Urdu and minority institutions further marginalized Hindu cultural symbols, and education became a tool to “Abrahamize” India, erasing its indigenous Hindu culture.

Mechanisms of De-Hinduization

The specific mechanisms through which Maulana Azad and his successors de-Hinduized education and whitewashed Islamic brutalities include:

Denial of History: Textbooks omitted key events of Hindu suffering, such as genocidal violence, forced conversions, the destruction of thousands of temples by Mughal and Sultanate rulers. Aurangzeb’s demolition of the Kashi Vishwanath Temple, recorded in contemporary accounts, was ignored, while his patronage of poetry was highlighted.

Glorification of Invaders: Muslim rulers like Babur and Alauddin Khalji were presented as complex figures rather than oppressive bigots. Babur’s destruction of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya, a historical flashpoint, was excluded from curricula, while his Baburnama was praised for its literary merit.

Erasure of Hindu Heroes: Figures like Krishnadevarayalu, Rana Pratap, Shivaji, and Lachit Borphukan, who resisted Islamic rule, were given minimal space compared to Mughal emperors. This was deliberate, ensuring Hindus saw their past as one of defeat rather than defiance.

Vilification of Sanatana Dharma: The education system portrayed Hindu religion and culture as backward, focusing on caste and superstition while ignoring its philosophical depth. This contrasted with the positive depiction of Islamic culture, creating a sense of inferiority among Hindus.

Control of Academia: Maulana Azad and Hasan, in particular, stacked all central universities and educational institutions, such as NCERT and the Indian Council of Historical Research, with historians who aligned with anti-Hindu agenda. These bodies produced textbooks that generations of students internalized, embedding a distorted narrative.

Evidence of Distortion

The education system’s de-Hinduization began post-independence under Maulana Azad and was perfected by his Muslim successors, who denied Hindus their historical agency.

Medieval Chronicles: Texts like the Tabaqat-i-Nasiri document temple destructions and massacres, yet these were absent from textbooks. For instance, Alauddin Khilji’s sack of Chittorgarh in 1303, involving mass suicides by Rajput women, was rarely mentioned.

Western Historians: American historian Will Durant, in his 1935 The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage, noted, “The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. Islamic historians and scholars have recorded with great glee and pride the slaughters of Hindus, forced conversions, abduction of Hindu women and children to slave markets, and the destruction of temples carried out by the warriors of Islam from 800 AD to 1700 AD. Millions of Hindus were converted to Islam by sword during this period. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precarious thing, whose delicate complex of order and liberty, culture and peace may at any time be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within. The Hindus had allowed their strength to be wasted in internal division and war; they had adopted religions like Buddhism and Jainism, which unnerved them for the tasks of life.” Yet, not a word of it is found in India’s education system.

Textbook Content: Early NCERT texts, influenced by Maulana Azad and Hasan, focused on Mughal administration while ignoring events like the jizya tax’s impact on Hindus or the forced conversions under Muslim rule.

Cultural Neglect: Indian civilization, rooted in a vast repository of knowledge, boasts treasures like the Rig Veda, the world’s oldest known text, and the Mahabharata, the longest poem ever written—achievements any nation would cherish. Yet, the Indian education system, shaped by Maulana Azad and his Muslim successors, exhibits stark bias by neglecting this heritage. The lack of support for Sanskrit, the language of Hindu scriptures, and traditional gurukuls, contrasted with funding for Urdu and institutions like Aligarh Muslim University, reveals a deliberate tilt against Hindu culture.

The Broader Consequences

The education system crafted by Maulana Azad and his Muslim successors had far-reaching effects. By whitewashing Islamic invasions, it robbed Hindus of their historical pride, portraying them as passive victims rather than resilient survivors. The glorification of Mughal rulers created a narrative that foreign invaders were India’s true architects, sidelining thousands of years of glory of Hindu civilization, including indigenous empires like the Mauryas or Guptas.

This distortion fuelled communal tensions by ignoring Hindu grievances. Events like the persecution of Kashmiri Hindus under Muslim rulers or the destruction of the Hampi temples by the Bahmanis were excluded, fostering resentment among Hindus who felt their history was erased. Meanwhile, Muslim students were taught a sanitized past, hindering honest dialogue about historical wrongs.

The cultural impact extended to media, literature, and cinema, where Hindu imagery was replaced by “Christo-Islamic” symbols. By the 1990s, this agenda intensified, ensuring that Hindus grew up ashamed of their religion and culture, viewing it as inferior to foreign ideologies.

Historical Context and Intent

Maulana Azad and his Muslim successors operated within a Nehruvian framework of nationalism and secularism that prioritized Muslim and Christian appeasement over historical truth and constitutional equality. The post-Partition context served as a pretext to suppress Hindu narratives under the guise of fostering unity. This represents a profound travesty of truth: India’s partition stemmed from demands for a Muslim state, yet Hindus are falsely blamed, and this distortion is exploited to silence their heritage. Such policies with their false justifications reflect a deliberate effort to “Abrahamize” India, aligning it with monotheistic, totalitarian ideologies while eroding its pluralistic Hindu roots.

Maulana Azad’s Islamic background and education in Arabic and Persian are cited as influencing his policies. His Muslim successors, particularly Hasan with his Marxist leanings, allegedly deepened this bias, ensuring that Hindu history was rewritten to favour invaders. The Congress’s political dominance allowed this narrative to persist unchallenged, embedding it in India’s academic and cultural fabric.

Dismissing Counterarguments

Defenders of Maulana Azad and his Muslim successors claim their policies aimed at unity, omitting Islamic brutalities to avoid inflaming tensions. Critics argue this was a betrayal of Hindus, who suffered centuries of violence. The emphasis on secularism was a cover for anti-Hindu policies that prioritized Muslim interests over historical accuracy. Claims that Maulana Azad’s institutions benefited all communities are irrelevant, as the core issue was the distortion of history, anti-Hindu bias and denial Hindus their heritage.

Inaction of BJP Central Government: Perpetuating the Anti-Hindu Education System

Despite the BJP in power since 2014, the anti-Hindu education system crafted by Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and his Muslim successors remains largely unchanged. Rather than revising the syllabi to restore historical accuracy and correct the whitewashing of Islamic brutalities, the BJP-led government has not only retained the existing framework but also introduced elements of imported “woke” content, further diluting Hindu cultural identity.

One of the BJP’s education ministers Prakash Javadekar claimed that they have not rewritten a single chapter in the curricula, signalling a reluctance to challenge the entrenched distortions. The National Education Policy (NEP) of 2020, touted as a transformative step, has been criticized for its failure to define the purpose of education. In the absence of a clear definition and vision rooted in India’s indigenous heritage, the NEP merely rehashes the anti-Hindu policies of the past, focusing predominantly on administrative reforms rather than substantive curricular change. It sidesteps the critical task of addressing the vilification of Hindu civilization and the glorification of foreign invaders embedded in textbooks.

As a result, the education system continues to deny Hindus knowledge of their resilience, marginalize their cultural contributions, and perpetuate a narrative that shames their identity. This inaction has ensured that the legacy of Maulana Azad endures, leaving Hindu students with no respite from a curriculum that erases their history and undermines their heritage.

Neglect of Education by Hindu Leadership: A Self-Inflicted Wound

Hindus have long revered knowledge as divine, with their civilization rooted in the pursuit of wisdom through texts like the Vedas, Upanishads, and epics. Saraswati, the goddess of learning, is worshipped as a cornerstone of Hindu identity, symbolizing the belief that knowledge shapes destiny. Yet, it is baffling that Hindu politicians across the spectrum—whether from Congress, BJP, or regional parties—have consistently undervalued the Education portfolio, often leaving it to non-Hindus, including Marxists, whose ideologies clash with Hindu values. This neglect has allowed the distortion of India’s educational framework, undermining the very civilization that venerates learning.

The adage “We become what we read, not what we eat” encapsulates the Hindu understanding that ideas, not mere sustenance, define a people’s character and future. Modern Hindus, however, have forgotten this timeless wisdom. By ceding control of education to those who do not share their cultural ethos, they have invited their own intellectual and spiritual erosion. From Maulana Abul Kalam Maulana Azad to Saiyid Nurul Hasan, the Education Ministry was shaped by figures who prioritized foreign ideologies—Islamic, Marxist or Christian—over indigenous Hindu heritage. This pattern persists, as even the so called Hindu-friendly governments fail to reclaim the narrative, allowing curricula to vilify Sanatana Dharma as superstitious while glorifying invaders.

The consequences are profound. Generations of Hindus have internalized a distorted history, taught to view their traditions as backward and their heroes as insignificant. The absence of Hindu voices in education policy has enabled Marxist historians and secular apologists to dominate institutions like the NCERT and ICHR, embedding narratives that shame Hindu identity. Had Hindu leaders prioritized education, they might have ensured historical accuracy in curricula that celebrated the resilience of figures like Shivaji, the philosophical depth of Advaita Vedanta, or the global influence of ancient Indian universities like Taxila. Instead, the field lies fallow, overrun by ideological weeds that choke the growth of Hindu pride.

This self-inflicted wound stems from a misplaced belief that political power or economic progress outweighs cultural education. Hindu politicians, distracted by electoral battles, have ignored the truth that a nation’s soul is forged in its classrooms. By abandoning this sacred domain, they have allowed external forces to reshape Hindu consciousness, producing “Hindus in Name Only” (HINOs)—individuals disconnected from their heritage, ashamed of their roots. The failure to treat education as a priority is not merely an oversight; it is a betrayal of Hindu civilization’s knowledge-based legacy, inviting its slow but steady self-destruction.

Hindu Education Ministers: Complicity Through Ideology or Apathy

One might argue that singling out Muslim Education Ministers unfairly overlooks the numerous Hindu ministers who held the portfolio, outnumbering their Muslim counterparts. However, this defence crumbles under scrutiny, as most Hindu Education Ministers either actively reinforced the anti-Hindu narrative or perpetuated it through indifference. Ministers like V.K.R.V. Rao (1971, intermittently) and Arjun Singh (1991–1994, 2004–2009) were either Left-leaning or favoured minority appeasement over historical truth. Beyond Leftist ideology, many Hindu Education Ministers treated the portfolio as low-priority, overshadowed by more glamorous ministries like Finance or Home Affairs. This apathy allowed the narrative crafted by Maulana Azad and Nurul Hasan to persist unchallenged.

The complicity of Hindu ministers, whether through ideological alignment or neglect, has had devastating consequences. These ministers, bearing Hindu names, did not represent Hindu interests but instead perpetuated an anti-Hindu framework that eroded cultural pride. Their inaction or active reinforcement of the anti-Hindu narrative underscores a tragic irony: the betrayal of Hindu civilization came not only from external forces but from within, through leaders who neglected their responsibility to safeguard India’s indigenous legacy.

Conclusion

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and his Muslim successors—Humayun Kabir, Mohammadali Currim Chagla, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, and Saiyid Nurul Hasan—architected an education system that was anti-Hindu at its core, designed to whitewash the brutalities of Islamic invasions and rule. Their policies denied Hindus knowledge of their past, glorified foreign invaders, and vilified Hindu culture as backward. This de-Hinduization of education produced generations of Indians, called HINOs (Hindus in Name Only), who are ashamed of their religion, culture, heritage, and Hindu identity. The consequences were profound, creating a distorted national consciousness that celebrated invaders while ignoring Hindu resilience. It is time to recognize this distortion and reclaim India’s true history, ensuring that the sacrifices and triumphs of Hindus are no longer buried under layers of negationism.

The author is a retired IPS officer and a former Director of CBI. Views are personal.