Former Supreme Court Justice Rohinton Nariman has raised concerns about how Mughal emperor Akbar is shown in school history textbooks. He was not happy with Akbar being described as a “tyrant” and alleged that there is a “distortion of history” taking place in these books.

Justice Nariman shared his opinion while speaking at the KM Bashir Memorial Lecture at the Press Club of Trivandrum on 1st September. During the event, he narrated a personal experience. He said that a child once read aloud from a history book in front of him, and the words left him shocked.

He said: “I was flabbergasted to find in a particular book, and a child read it out to me, to find that Akbar is stated to be a person who is a tyrant and a person who organised mass murders at Chittor, where so many women committed jauhar (self-immolation). That is pretty much all that was said about him, and almost nothing was said about any of the great Mughals. So there is a complete effacement followed by a total distortion,” the judge alleged.

Justice Nariman also urged people to take legal steps if they felt the facts of history were being erased. He encouraged citizens to approach courts against what he called the “distortion of history”. He argued that even though courts are not experts in history, they can direct expert panels to review the content and make corrections if needed.

The former judge also defended the contributions of Mughal rulers. He said that emperors like Akbar played an important role in creating the “composite culture” of India. According to him, it is the duty of all citizens “to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture”. If this duty is harmed by erasure or distortion, he suggested, people can go to court.

He added that the court itself would not have the knowledge to change history books, but could “order some panel of experts to look into it and restore what our actual history is. This is only a suggestion made by me. But prevention is always better than cure.”

History book were revised to present an accurate picture of Indian history

The comments of Justice Nariman come at a time when NCERT (National Council of Educational Research and Training) has revised the Class 8 Social Science textbook. The update follows the recommendations of the 2023 National Curriculum Framework for School Education (NCFSE).

For many years, India’s medieval history was shown in a way that ignored or softened many harsh truths. The revision was done to give a more complete picture — not just the positive parts but also the negative ones. The idea was to rely on historical facts instead of giving a polished or romantic story of the past.

The revised book gives a balanced view. For instance, it acknowledges how Jahangir and Shah Jahan supported art and architecture. But it also shows the harsh side of rulers like Babur, who “massacred the entire populations of cities.” Aurangzeb is described not only as a strong military leader, but also as one who banned practices he saw as un-Islamic and reintroduced taxes on non-Muslims. Akbar is defined as a ruler whose rule was a “blend of brutality and tolerance.”

Akbar ordered the massacre of 30,000 Hindus after the siege of Chittorgarh

One of the most important corrections in the new book is about Akbar’s role in the siege of Chittorgarh. In earlier history books, Akbar was presented as the perfect example of tolerance, mainly by pointing out that he abolished the Jizya tax. However, those books often left out his jihad against Hindus during the Chittorgarh campaign.

The revised textbook now explains that Akbar ordered the massacre of 30,000 Hindus after the four-month-long siege of Chittorgarh. Once the fort fell, men were killed in large numbers, and women and children were enslaved. Akbar also proclaimed that the fall of Chittorgarh was a victory of Islam over infidels.

The opinion given by Justice Nariman about the revised book seems to be poorly informed. The purpose of history lessons is to let students see both sides — the achievements as well as the brutalities. But it must always be based on verified facts, not on romantic pictures or personal impressions. Students should then be free to make their own judgments about historical figures.

Exposing Rohinton Nariman: A Story of Privilege and Hidden Deception

Rohinton Nariman is remembered as a former judge of the Supreme Court of India, a man with a strong presence in the judiciary but also known for his controversial remarks and positions. His journey has been described as one that combined privilege, influence, and bold opinions that often placed him in the spotlight.

His entry into the Supreme Court raised discussions. He was elevated to the bench right after stepping down from his role as Solicitor General during the UPA government led by Sonia Gandhi. The “seamless transition” surprised many and was seen as one that invited questions on fairness and neutrality.

Nariman’s rise in the legal field was unusually fast. He was designated as Senior Advocate at the age of just 37, an achievement that is usually rare. But this progress was often linked more to his family background than to ordinary competition. He is the son of Fali Nariman, one of India’s most respected lawyers, who himself had served as Additional Solicitor General during the time of Indira Gandhi. This connection, many observed, created an easier path, supported by “nepotism’s quiet corridors.”

There have also been questions on his claim of secularism. As an ordained Parsi priest, Nariman has, in public speeches, taken critical positions on Hindu religious texts. He is known for delivering strong words against the Vedas, which many see as undermining sacred Hindu texts in public forums.

One such moment came during a lecture at the Justice Ahmadi Foundation. This was an event dedicated to Justice Ahmadi, whose own career was marked by controversies.

Who was Justice Ahmadi? He was the judge who presided over the Union Carbide Bhopal gas tragedy case, one of the darkest chapters in Indian history. The settlement in that case was widely criticized because it was seen as letting Union Carbide escape with a lighter punishment. Victims were left with little support, and this created permanent anger.

And who had defended Union Carbide in that case? It was none other than Fali Nariman, Rohinton’s father. His advocacy before Justice Ahmadi’s bench shaped the outcome that many considered unjust. Later, Justice Ahmadi himself became associated with the Bhopal rehabilitation trust, which was funded by Union Carbide. This happened within 15 days of his retirement from the bench, creating a strong impression of conflict of interest and “cronyism.”

Outside India, Rohinton Nariman has also been active, giving speeches around the world. He has repeatedly claimed that Prime Minister Narendra Modi manipulated the law to change how members of the Election Commission are appointed. According to him, this was interference with democratic institutions.

But the facts tell a different story. During Nariman’s prime years in the legal profession, as many as 29 election commissioners were chosen directly by the prime minister of the day without much debate. After 2014, for the first time in history, the Leader of the Opposition was included in the selection committee to appoint both the Election Commissioners (EC) and the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC). This was not a step backward, but an upgrade towards transparency. Yet Nariman continued to present it as a case of sabotage, creating what many see as a deliberate distortion.

His public image has been filled with contradictions. On one side, he is portrayed as the benevolent figure who fed stray dogs. On the other, critics see him as part of a larger elite class who use the judiciary to work against Hindu concerns. Some say Hindus have historically acted as the hosts of the subcontinent — offering shelter to Parsis fleeing persecution, supporting communities, and giving space to Ambedkarites with reservations. But in return, critics claim, two Supreme Court judges of such background only served “Bhasmasur Burgers: one touch, poof – Hindu hopes to ash.” The warning here is clear: while generosity has been given, gratitude has not always been returned. “Moral? Invite guests, but keep Shiva’s ashes on speed dial.”

The question then arises: how can society respond to such elite enablers of injustice? The call is simple — truth must be amplified. Their actions must be documented, discussed, and shared. Only when people shine light on such shadows can real accountability begin.

As the famous line reminds us, “The corruption of the best is the worst.”