Debate intensifies as academics and commentators scrutinise omissions in a major publication on Indian history
Team Clarion
NEW DELHI – The recent publication of the Handbook of Indian History, edited by Lavanya Vemsani and released by Springer, has sparked significant controversy due to its neglect of Islam and Muslims in the narrative of India’s past. The book, spanning 507 pages, contains just five references to Islam and nine to Muslims, while omitting a dedicated chapter on their contributions, despite the profound influence of over a millennium of Muslim rule on Indian history.
The issue was highlighted by Brannon D. Ingram, Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Northwestern University, in a widely discussed post on the social media platform X. “Springer has recently published a handbook on Indian history. It has no chapter on Islam or Muslims. The word Islam appears 5 times in the 507-page book, and the word Muslim appears 9 times. Is this negligence or Hindutva-isation of South Asian studies? Whatever it is, it is outrageous,” Ingram wrote.
The post quickly ignited heated debates across academic and public spheres. Supporters of the book, many aligned with Hindutva ideology, praised it as a corrective to what they view as an overemphasis on Islamic influence in Indian historiography. One commenter lauded the handbook as “a scholarly text that restores balance by focusing on pre-colonial and indigenous Indian history, long overshadowed by Marxist and Islamic narratives.”
However, critics argue that the exclusion represents a deliberate marginalisation of a significant chapter of India’s history. “The omission is glaring and troubling,” noted historian Prof Faizan Ahmed, who has extensively studied medieval Indian history. “To deny the contributions of Islam and Muslims is to distort the very essence of India’s rich and diverse past.”
Lavanya Vemsani, the editor of the handbook, dismissed the concerns, stating, “Is this your biggest concern? This is a Handbook of Indian History, not a compendium of religious studies.” Springer echoed her sentiments in its statement, asserting that the book offers “a wide-ranging exploration of India’s cultural, social, political, and intellectual history, encompassing topics such as religion, philosophy, gender, language, and literature.”
The publisher emphasised that the handbook aimed to fill gaps in pre-colonial Indian history, but critics remain unconvinced. “Broad representation is essential in any scholarly endeavour,” said Prof Ingram in a follow-up post. “This book fails to meet the basic standards of inclusivity in historical scholarship.”
The controversy highlights broader tensions in Indian historiography, where debates over whose stories are told — and whose are excluded — continue to polarise scholars and the public alike. Critics allege that the book reflects a growing trend of “Hindutva-isation,” in which historical narratives are tailored to align with Hindu nationalist ideologies, often sidelining the contributions of other communities.
Right-wing voices, however, accuse critics of hypocrisy. “Where was this outrage when Indian history was Islamised for decades in school textbooks?” questioned one user on X, reflecting a common argument among Hindutva proponents who claim that historical narratives have long ignored indigenous Hindu achievements.
The Handbook of Indian History debate underscores the challenges of crafting inclusive narratives in a country as diverse as India. While the book’s defenders maintain that it offers a fresh perspective, its critics insist that the omission of a significant aspect of Indian history undermines its credibility. As discussions around representation and historiography intensify, the need for balanced, comprehensive scholarship remains ever more critical.
For now, the debate continues, with academics and commentators urging publishers and authors to address the omissions in future editions.
