When Delhi University chooses to shrink Delhi’s past

The removal of an elective paper on the Delhi Sultanate from Delhi University’s newly notified postgraduate History syllabus, along with several long-taught papers on gender, religion and political structures in ancient India, does students a disservice. It does so not just by narrowing the choice made available to them but also by undermining their ability to engage critically. In recent years, syllabus changes have travelled steadily from schools to colleges and universities, with chapters and subjects rationalised or removed without sufficiently persuasive explanation. Reform is, of course, both desirable and necessary. But the University’s explanation for the omissions — that they are intended to achieve greater balance and regional representation under the National Education Policy (NEP), 2020 — sits uneasily with the NEP’s stated aim of fostering considered judgement. Higher education should complicate what students have learnt at school, place events in wider contexts and expose them to competing interpretations and historiographical perspectives. The Delhi Sultanate paper opened a window to the political formations of the 13th and 14th centuries. Its omission renders connections to a rich past more tenuous.

It is difficult to approach History as a study of discrete episodes. It is a continuum, informed, enriched and complicated by what comes before and after. The Delhi Sultanate occupies a vital place in medieval history because alongside the story of powerful dynasts, it offers insights into the transformation of Delhi into a political centre — the evolution of state institutions, patronage networks, the movement of people and ideas, and the events, freedoms and unfreedoms that eventually shaped Mughal and colonial histories. This intricate tapestry cannot be reduced to neat siloes. If neglected regions, communities and perspectives need greater space, the answer should be to widen the field.

Overall Analysis

The editorial criticises Delhi University’s decision to remove the Delhi Sultanate paper from its postgraduate History syllabus, along with other papers dealing with gender, religion and political structures. The author’s central argument is that curriculum reform should expand students’ understanding of history rather than reduce it.

The opening paragraph immediately establishes a critical and argumentative tone. The phrase “does students a disservice” conveys that the decision is harmful to students’ intellectual development. The author argues that removing subjects does not merely reduce academic choice; it also weakens students’ ability to “engage critically” with different interpretations of the past.

A major linguistic feature of the paragraph is the use of concession and contrast. The author accepts that “Reform is, of course, both desirable and necessary” but then challenges the justification given for the reform. This is an effective argumentative technique: instead of rejecting reform completely, the writer distinguishes between necessary reform and unjustified omission.

The author also connects the issue with the National Education Policy (NEP), 2020, arguing that higher education should encourage “considered judgement”. The phrase “sits uneasily with” is a sophisticated way of expressing disagreement without making the statement overly aggressive. It means that two ideas appear difficult to reconcile.

The paragraph further explains what higher education should accomplish: it should “complicate” what students have learned, provide wider contexts and expose them to competing interpretations. Here, “complicate” does not mean making something unnecessarily difficult. Rather, it means encouraging students to see that historical events cannot always be understood through a single, simple narrative.

The second paragraph becomes more explanatory and historical. The author challenges the idea that history can be divided into isolated events. The metaphor “a continuum” presents history as an ongoing chain in which the past influences what comes later. Similarly, the metaphor “intricate tapestry” conveys that history is made up of many interconnected threads — political institutions, people, ideas, communities and events.

The author then explains why the Delhi Sultanate is historically important. It is not presented merely as the story of rulers and dynasties; it is connected to the development of Delhi as a political centre, state institutions, movement of people and ideas, and later Mughal and colonial history. This strengthens the author’s argument that removing one historical period can weaken students’ understanding of subsequent periods.

The final sentence provides the editorial’s solution: if some regions, communities or perspectives are underrepresented, the answer should be to “widen the field”, not remove existing subjects. This is an example of a concise concluding argument. The author therefore moves from criticism to a constructive alternative.

Overall, the editorial uses formal, measured and intellectually persuasive language. Rather than making an emotional accusation, it builds its case through concepts such as critical engagement, competing interpretations, historiographical perspectives, continuum, and regional representation.

Important Vocabulary — 5

1. Disservice – an action that harms someone or puts them at a disadvantage.
2. Tenuous – weak, uncertain or not firmly established.
3. Discrete – separate and distinct from other things.
4. Historiographical – relating to the study and interpretation of how history is written.
5. Siloes – separate compartments or isolated categories; here, used metaphorically for treating historical subjects as completely disconnected.

Conclusion & Tone

The editorial argues that history education should broaden perspectives rather than narrow them. Removing the Delhi Sultanate paper, according to the author, risks weakening students’ ability to understand historical continuity and competing interpretations. If the objective is greater regional and social representation, universities should add new perspectives rather than eliminate established ones.

Tone: Critical, analytical, reasoned, and intellectually persuasive.