While the rest of the world remains plagued by sub-zero temperatures even in March, India is busy constructing the political equivalent of a natural calamity. It has come to notice with the publication of a report that Mahesh Sharma, the Union minister of state for culture and tourism, has set up a 14-member committee of academics and bureaucrats to rewrite the 'true history' of the Indian nation. The committee aims to study the origin and evolution of 'Indian' culture by proving that the events described in ancient Hindu religious scriptures are 'factually true' and that Hindus are descendants of the occupants of the subcontinent in those times. The findings of this committee will be included in the existing historical curriculum in India which will serve to highlight the 'Hindus first' version of 'true history' and, in turn, obscure the vibrant transcultural pasts that have shaped the formation of modern India.

In the 21st century, we inhabit the world of social media where fake news is not only prevalent but also dominant. So this move may not seem to many as something major or crucial. But when contextualized within a larger genealogy of historical censorship all over the world, the seriousness of this initiative comes to light by underscoring the authoritarian nature of this government. The rewriting of history is a project that has been undertaken by authoritarian regimes globally during the 20th and 21st centuries. In Nazi Germany, from 1934 onwards, many historians went into exile. Similarly, in the 1950s, many notable historians left Argentina during Juan Perón's tyrannical regime. Closer home and also a more recent citation would be the censorship of historians in Pakistan after the Bangladesh war of 1971.

The relationship between history and politics in India has been one of struggle and mutual dependency. The development of history as an institutionalized discipline had its roots deep in the soil of colonial politics. It was formalized out of a need — this was increasingly felt with the rise of British colonialism — for textualizing the past and standardizing an origin narrative. Gradually, during the early decades of the 20th century, when the anti-colonial resistance was at its zenith, it emerged as one of the primary spaces for constructing a national identity. Hence it set an example for political ideologues to seek their validation from history. Within these instrumental narratives, history became redefined within the Indian context as an exclusive search for origins as it limited itself within the 'truth' rather than taking into account the various stories of the truth.

Therefore, 70 years after Independence, as Hindu nationalism attempts to fortify its ideology and create a long-lasting influence, it is only natural that it would turn towards history and archaeology. Archaeological representations need to be used carefully in the creation of histories. Artefacts do not provide normative conclusive 'truths' as it is often claimed in these projects of rewriting. Hence it becomes problematic to cite archaeological sources as proof of mythological narratives. This right-wing revisionism balances itself on binaries, such as fact versus myth and also Hindus versus Muslims. In India, religious sentiments and values could not be divorced from political processes. Identity blocks of 'Hindus' and 'Muslims' are not cultural givens or historical monoliths, but results of political process with innumerable divisions and fragments that can only become the dominant sentiments as a result of a specific political process.

At this juncture, since the identity of being a 'Hindu' has gained primacy in the public sphere, it is being consolidated through this attempt to trace Hindu origins by rewriting 'history'. Not only does this polarization add fuel to the fire of communal tension within South Asian politics at large but it also marginalizes other groups within the broader Indian demographic, such as Dalits and other lower-caste groups, religious minorities like Parsis and Jews, and even women. This Hindu history will reify history by underplaying the role of women and other gender groups. By reiterating patriarchal stereotypes of women, the right-wing government will facilitate its politics of invented traditionalism. It will also obliterate the voices of women and other marginalized gender groups even from the archives. This will aggravate for generations of future historians what has already been one of the main drawbacks for historians attempting to write gender inclusive histories: the lack of archives.

The grand narrative, which is taught in schools as history, is a mouthpiece of the State. This rewriting project will affect future generations of learners immensely. Rather than being taught how to think, they will be absorbed into a system of being told what to think. The pedagogical routes for unlearning will gradually become endangered.

The association of history with the idea of a singular truth has long been criticized by generations of historians. And yet, it remains the bridge over the gulf which separated history and politics in India. However, in these dark times, the promise of a better tomorrow lies within history. Since it always repeats itself, we can only hope that it dethrones the authoritarianism that lurks beneath the facade of democracy, ushering in a new era characterized by greater compassion, understanding and, above all, humanity.