A new educational module from the National Council of Educational Research and Training, intended for students in classes six through eight, has sparked controversy. The module, titled 'Culprits of Partition,' assigns responsibility for the Partition of India to three entities: Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the Congress party, and Lord Mountbatten.

The Congress party has criticized the module, labeling it a distortion of history. Congress leader Pawan Khera stated that the module should be disregarded if it fails to acknowledge the role of the Hindu Mahasabha. He pointed to a 1938 Hindu Mahasabha convention where, he claims, the idea of separate living for Hindus and Muslims was first proposed. This was later endorsed by the Muslim League in 1940, and a coalition government in Sindh province, formed by the Hindu Mahasabha and the Muslim League, passed a resolution in 1942.

Another senior Congress leader, Manish Tewari, commented on social media that the two-nation theory predates the Partition by many decades and had proponents from both Hindu and Muslim communities. He cited figures like V.D. Savarkar, Syed Ahmed Khan, Bhai Parmanand, and Lala Lajpat Rai as having expressed such ideas. Tewari also noted that the Partition primarily involved the division of the provinces of Punjab and Bengal, and that Hindu Mahasabha members had joined with the Muslim League to form a government in the North West Frontier Province in 1943, with Mehar Chand Khanna of the Mahasabha serving as Finance Minister.

The NCERT module, released to mark "Partition Horrors Remembrance Day," suggests that the Partition occurred due to flawed ideas. It mentions that in 1940, the Muslim League, led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, held a conference in Lahore where Jinnah stated that Hindus and Muslims were distinct in their religious philosophies, social customs, and literatures. The module is described as a supplementary resource for projects, posters, discussions, and debates, and not a part of regular textbooks.

Original article

Actionable Information: There is no actionable information in this article. It reports on a controversy surrounding an educational module and does not provide any steps or instructions for the reader to take.

Educational Depth: The article offers some educational depth by presenting different historical perspectives on the Partition of India, citing specific individuals and events. It touches upon the idea of the two-nation theory and its proponents from various political and religious backgrounds. However, it does not delve deeply into the "why" or "how" of these historical developments, focusing more on the controversy itself.

Personal Relevance: The topic of the Partition of India has historical significance and can be relevant to individuals interested in history, particularly Indian history. However, for a "normal person" in their daily life, the direct personal relevance is limited unless they are students in the affected age group or actively engaged in historical study or debate. It does not directly impact their immediate living, spending, safety, health, or finances.

Public Service Function: The article does not serve a public service function. It reports on a news event and a political disagreement without providing official warnings, safety advice, or emergency contacts. It is a report on a controversy, not a public information piece.

Practicality of Advice: There is no advice or steps provided in the article, so its practicality cannot be assessed.

Long-Term Impact: The article's long-term impact is minimal for a general reader. It informs about a current educational controversy, but it does not offer guidance or actions that would lead to lasting positive effects on an individual's life.

Emotional or Psychological Impact: The article is unlikely to have a significant emotional or psychological impact on a general reader. It presents a factual account of a controversy and differing viewpoints, without employing language designed to evoke strong emotions like fear or helplessness.

Clickbait or Ad-Driven Words: The article does not appear to use clickbait or ad-driven words. The language is straightforward and reports on the facts of the controversy.

Missed Chances to Teach or Guide: The article missed a significant opportunity to provide deeper educational value. While it mentions the NCERT module as a supplementary resource for students, it does not offer any guidance on how students or the public could access or critically engage with such materials. It could have suggested looking up primary sources, consulting reputable historical texts, or visiting museums or archives related to the Partition. For instance, it could have provided links to or names of well-regarded historical institutions or scholars who have extensively researched the Partition.

The introduction of a simplified narrative of historical events, even in an educational context, can weaken the bonds of trust and responsibility within communities. When historical accounts are presented as assigning blame to specific individuals or groups, it can foster division rather than reconciliation among neighbors. This can lead to a breakdown in the shared understanding necessary for collective action, such as caring for elders or protecting communal resources.

The focus on assigning blame, rather than on the shared human experience of displacement and loss, can distract from the essential duties of mutual support that have historically sustained families and local communities. If such narratives encourage a sense of grievance and a lack of shared responsibility for the present, it undermines the trust required for elders to pass down wisdom and for parents to teach children the importance of caring for the land.

The emphasis on historical culpability, rather than on the enduring duties of kinship and community stewardship, risks eroding the foundations of social cohesion. If individuals begin to see their primary obligations as tied to historical grievances rather than to the immediate needs of their families and neighbors, the care for the vulnerable, the protection of children, and the preservation of resources will suffer. This shift can lead to a weakening of the intergenerational transmission of responsibility, leaving future generations less equipped to manage their local environments and support their kin.

The consequence of such a focus, if unchecked, is a fracturing of community trust. Neighbors may become suspicious of one another based on perceived historical affiliations, hindering cooperation in essential tasks like resource management and mutual aid. The natural duty of fathers and mothers to raise children and care for elders could be overshadowed by a preoccupation with past wrongs, diminishing the focus on procreation and the continuity of the people. This would weaken the social structures that support families, potentially leading to a decline in birth rates and a diminished capacity for the stewardship of the land, ultimately threatening the long-term survival of the community.

The text shows a political bias by presenting the Congress party's viewpoint as the primary criticism of the NCERT module. It highlights Congress leaders' statements that label the module a "distortion of history" and demand the inclusion of the Hindu Mahasabha's role. This focus on the Congress party's reaction, without equally detailing the NCERT's perspective or other potential criticisms, suggests a leaning towards that political party's narrative.

The text uses loaded language to frame the NCERT module's content. Words like "controversy" and "distorted history" immediately cast the module in a negative light. The phrase "assigns responsibility" can also be seen as a strong, potentially accusatory, way to describe the module's purpose. This language choice aims to influence the reader's perception of the module before they consider its actual content.

The text presents a selective use of historical claims to support the Congress party's argument. By quoting Congress leaders who point to the Hindu Mahasabha's alleged role in proposing separate living and forming coalitions with the Muslim League, the text emphasizes specific historical events. This selection of facts, while potentially true, serves to bolster the Congress party's criticism that the module is incomplete and biased by omission.

The text implies that the NCERT module's approach is flawed by stating it "suggests that the Partition occurred due to flawed ideas." This phrasing frames the module's explanation as a simplistic or even naive interpretation. It contrasts with the detailed historical arguments presented by the Congress leaders, potentially making the module seem less credible in the eyes of the reader.

The text uses a form of whataboutism by focusing on what the NCERT module *doesn't* say. Congress leader Pawan Khera's statement, "if it fails to acknowledge the role of the Hindu Mahasabha," implies that the module's exclusion of this information is a deliberate oversight. This tactic shifts the focus from the module's stated content to what the Congress party believes should have been included, creating a criticism based on absence.

The text expresses a strong sense of disagreement and criticism, primarily from the Congress party, towards the new educational module. This emotion is evident when Congress leader Pawan Khera labels the module a "distortion of history" and states it should be "disregarded." This criticism is quite strong, as it directly challenges the accuracy and fairness of the module's content. The purpose of this strong disagreement is to persuade readers that the module is flawed and should not be accepted as a true account of the Partition. It aims to change the reader's opinion by presenting the Congress party's viewpoint as the correct one, building trust in their interpretation of history.

Another emotion present is concern or disappointment regarding the perceived incompleteness of the module's historical narrative. This is shown when Pawan Khera emphasizes the need to acknowledge the role of the Hindu Mahasabha, suggesting that its omission is a significant failing. This concern is moderately strong, as it points to a specific historical group that the Congress party believes has been unfairly excluded. The purpose here is to highlight a perceived injustice in the historical presentation, aiming to make the reader question the module's objectivity and perhaps feel a similar sense of unease about the missing information. This emotion guides the reader to consider alternative historical perspectives, potentially swaying their opinion towards the Congress party's stance.

Furthermore, there is an underlying emotion of defensiveness or justification in the statements made by Congress leaders. Manish Tewari, for instance, brings up the idea of the two-nation theory predating the Partition and names various figures from both Hindu and Muslim communities who expressed such ideas. He also highlights instances of the Hindu Mahasabha collaborating with the Muslim League. This is a measured but firm attempt to defend the Congress party by showing that the historical complexities and the involvement of other groups were not solely the responsibility of those named in the module. The purpose of this is to broaden the historical context and dilute the blame placed on specific individuals or parties, thereby protecting the Congress party's reputation. This persuasive tactic aims to shift the reader's focus from the module's accusations to a more nuanced understanding of the past, making the reader more receptive to the idea that history is not always simple.

The writer uses emotional language to persuade by choosing words like "controversy" and "distortion of history," which immediately signal a negative and contentious situation. The direct quotes from Congress leaders, such as "disregarded" and "flawed ideas," carry significant emotional weight, conveying a strong sense of disapproval. The repetition of the idea that the module is incomplete or biased, by referencing the Hindu Mahasabha's role and historical collaborations, serves to reinforce the criticism. By presenting historical facts and figures that challenge the module's narrow focus, the writer is essentially making a comparison between the module's simplified account and a more complex reality, aiming to make the module seem less credible. This approach increases the emotional impact by framing the issue as a significant historical debate, steering the reader's attention towards the perceived unfairness of the module's presentation and encouraging them to question its validity.