NEW DELHI: External affairs minister (EAM) S Jaishankar attended the launch of historian Vikram Sampath‘s book Tipu Sultan: The Saga of the Mysore Interregnum 1761-1799 at the India Habitat Centre in Delhi on Saturday.
During his address at the event, Jaishankar described Tipu Sultan as a “very complex figure in history.” “Tipu Sultan is actually a very, very complex figure in history. On the one hand, he has the reputation as a key figure who resisted the British colonial control over India, and it is a fact that his defeat and death can be considered a turning point when it came to the fate of peninsular India,” Jaishankar said.
He also pointed out that in Tipu Sultan’s case, a “particular narrative” has been promoted over the years, which has largely focused on his anti-British stance while downplaying other dimensions of his rule.
“History in all society is complicated, and the politics of the day often indulges in cherry-picking facts. To a considerable extent that has happened in the case of Tipu Sultan,” he remarked. According to Jaishankar, this narrative focuses on the “Tipu-English binary” while excluding a broader and more nuanced understanding of his role in history.
The EAM noted that the current political environment in India has allowed for “alternative perspectives” on historical figures like Tipu Sultan to emerge. He said, “In the last decade, the changes in our political dispensation have encouraged the emergence of alternative perspectives and balanced accounts. We are no longer prisoners of a vote bank, nor is it politically incorrect to bring out inconvenient truths. There are many more subjects on which the same degree of objectivity is needed.”
Jaishankar discussed the importance of studying history with an open mind and engaging in genuine debates. He emphasized that a pluralistic society and vibrant democracy require objective accounts of history. He suggested that much of India’s past has been edited to suit specific political or ideological purposes. “How much of our past has been airbrushed, how awkward issues have been glossed over, how facts are tailored for regime convenience—these are basic questions which confront us all today,” he said.
Referring to Tipu Sultan’s actions in different regions, Jaishankar noted that opinions about him remain divided. While many remember him for resisting British colonial control, others have strong negative sentiments about his rule, particularly in regions like Mysore, Coorg, and Malabar.
He acknowledged that Tipu Sultan’s resistance to the British was significant, saying, “There can be no doubt that Tipu Sultan was fiercely and almost consistently anti-British. But how much of it was inherent and how much a result of their allying with his local rivals, that is difficult to distinguish.”
The minister also highlighted Tipu Sultan’s alliances with foreign powers, which complicate a straightforward interpretation of his legacy. “To counter British ambitions, Tipu Sultan had no hesitation in collaborating with the French and that makes a ‘straightforward anti-foreign narrative’ very difficult to assert,” he said.
Touching upon Tipu Sultan’s foreign policy, Jaishankar said Tipu reached out to the rulers of Turkey, Afghanistan, and Persia for support, often on the basis of shared religious ties. He noted that this reflects the historical context of the time, where the modern sense of nationhood was absent. “Perhaps the truth is that the sense of nationhood, all of us have now, was simply not there then,” he observed.
Jaishankar praised Vikram Sampath’s book for providing a detailed and “balanced” account of Tipu Sultan’s life and the era he lived in. He said the book goes beyond being a simple biography, offering insights into politics, strategy, administration, sociology, and diplomacy. “To call Sampath’s book a biography would be a serious understatement. It is something very much more, capturing the flavour of a fast-moving and complicated era but offering insights into politics, strategy, administration, sociology and even diplomacy,” he said.
He also appreciated the challenges Sampath might have faced in presenting a more comprehensive view of Tipu Sultan, given the strong existing narratives. He emphasized that the book allows readers to make their own judgments by presenting a detailed context.
Jaishankar concluded by reiterating the importance of objective historical accounts. He shared his perspective as someone who has experienced what he calls politically influenced historical narratives during his education. “As a product myself of an institution that was at the centre of these politically driven endeavours, I could well appreciate the need to present an actual representation of history,” he said.
Jaishankar spoke about selective narratives at a time when, as part of the syllabus “rationalization” process, NCERT last year removed significant portions of Mughal history from its textbooks for Classes 7-12. As a result, Mughal history is now briefly covered in Class 7, touched upon in Class 8, omitted entirely in Classes 9 to 11, and included in a shortened form in Class 12.
This reduction is not limited to school education. At the undergraduate level, Delhi University’s BA History Honours program has also revised its curriculum to exclude references to the Mughals. In the 2019-20 academic year, the syllabus for Semester 4 dropped the topic The Consolidation of Mughal Rule under Akbar from the course The History of India (V) c. 1550-1605. This topic had previously covered Akbar’s military campaigns, administrative reforms, and responses to revolts and resistance.
