Last week, Narendra Modi came under public scrutiny: after his claim that no Congress leader visited Bhagat Singh while he was in jail was debunked. While the readers of publications like Alt News and Boom enjoy the advantage of a team of fact checkers, the electorate being addressed by the Prime Minister is likely to have taken his statement at face value.

In a similar vein, anyone who has been on social media, is now aware of “fake news”. At a time when we consume so much of our news through Facebook and Whatsapp forwards, it might seem prudent to at least have a cursory understanding of contemporary politics, based on which we can make future judgements. In countries like the United Kingdom and the United States, it is common to study contemporary history. A large number of students taking their A-level examinations read about their country’s history—not only the legends of the past, but also the realities of today.

On the other hand, the vast majority of Indians read history only till the age of 16. The problem doesn’t lie in the amount of history we read, but in what we read. It is true that India is an ancient civilisation, and our history syllabi has to condense 6,000 years of history into a few hundred pages, spread and taught over 4-5 years. However, what seems to be conspicuously absent is any study of India post-1947. While one cannot discount the importance of knowing about the Vedic Age, or the rule of Khilji, one must also remember that by not being aware of our recent past—the most important years of our political identity—we are doing a great disservice to our democracy.

Guha’s magnum opus India After Gandhi, an account of the post-Independence era, makes for interesting reading. For example, in the very first few pages, Guha discusses the proceedings of the Constituent Assembly. It is fascinating to see how Nehru stood up against regressive arguments put forth by the Hindu Right. Similarly, we all too often forget the chequered history of the Congress. Indira Gandhi was herself guilty of playing the “politics of cow”, as can be seen from pamphlets used by her during her election campaigns in the 1970s. The Congress, which is now by default the poster-boy party of secular harmony, was culpable for the anti-Sikh riots of 1984. One can also read about the excesses of Emergency (before speaking highly of strict government control), the Gujarat pogrom, and the history of individual states and the stories of their formation (for example, the tussle over Mumbai, and the legendary fast of Potti Sreeramulu to ensure statehood for Andhra Pradesh).

Other landmarks of Indian political history have been the nuclear tests of 1974 and 1998, the liberation of Bangladesh, the political miracle of the accession of the Princely States to India, India’s role in the Sri Lankan civil war, and how India took over erstwhile Portuguese and French territories such as Goa. Sadly, only a few young Indians know what it took for India to stand where it currently does today. Is this why all our political debates turn back to Ram and Babur?

A citizenry armed with the knowledge of the past is far less likely to base its decisions on WhatsApp forwards and social media hacks. Citizens will also be able to make more informed political judgements. It is often said that the electorate lacks long-term memory, and this is perhaps why political parties get away with riots and corruption.

However, an awareness of our history will mean that political parties will be constantly questioned on their past, and consequently, this may induce them to act more judiciously—lest a teenage voter asks them about the happenings of the 1990s!