New Delhi, December 5, 2025 – In a move aimed at re-examining India’s post-colonial education and official documentation, BJP parliamentarian Sujeeth Kumar has called upon the Union government to remove the honorific “Lord” when referencing former British Viceroys, Governors, and other colonial administrators in textbooks, NCERT materials, official records, and government websites. Kumar argued that the continued use of such titles represents a lingering “colonial hangover,” decades after India gained independence, and impedes the development of a truly independent, self-respecting historical consciousness.

Speaking during Zero Hour in the Rajya Sabha on Friday, Kumar said that his investigation into government and educational materials revealed that the colonial honorific is still extensively used. “It was striking to see how prevalent this terminology remains,” he said, noting that it appears not only in classroom textbooks but also across official channels such as government publications, websites, and archival references.

Kumar specifically highlighted the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) textbooks for Classes 8 and 12, which routinely refer to British administrators as Lord Curzon, Lord Mountbatten, Lord Dalhousie, Lord Leighton, and others. According to him, the honorific is also visible on official platforms maintained by the Ministry of Culture, the Press Information Bureau (PIB), the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), and even on the website of Bihar’s Raj Bhavan, now renamed Lok Bhavan.

“The use of titles like ‘Lord’ during colonial times was deliberate,” Kumar stated. “They were instruments of imperial propaganda, designed to impose notions of British superiority. These titles were invented by the British, for the British, and served their interests, not those of India or its people.” He emphasized that continuing to use such designations today, in government documents and educational resources, effectively perpetuates a hierarchy that elevates colonial figures while ignoring the sacrifices and contributions of Indian freedom fighters.

Kumar’s remarks touched upon a broader debate regarding decolonization of Indian history education, a conversation that has gained traction in recent years. Advocates argue that retaining colonial-era nomenclature, monuments, and honors in public life subtly reinforces the historical narrative of British superiority and undermines the struggle of local leaders who fought for India’s independence. Kumar stressed that a mature, inclusive democracy should actively remove remnants of colonial influence and reinterpret history in a manner that reflects national values, civic duty, and equality.

As an example of India’s ongoing effort to shed colonial vestiges, Kumar cited the renaming of Rajpath to Kartavya Path under Prime Minister Narendra Modi. He noted that such changes demonstrate a conscious attempt to replace colonial-era symbols with names that signify national ideals and collective responsibility. “If we have taken steps like renaming Rajpath to Kartavya Path to reflect the spirit of duty, why should we continue to bestow British administrators with unwarranted honorifics in our textbooks?” Kumar asked.

Kumar also linked his proposal to Prime Minister Modi’s vision articulated in his Independence Day address, particularly the Panch Pran pledge for the Amrit Kal period leading up to 2047, which emphasizes the eradication of a “slave mentality.” According to the MP, the continued use of “Lord” as a prefix for British colonial figures contravenes this vision and keeps alive a psychological vestige of subjugation that should be consigned to history.

The MP argued that historical narratives taught in schools shape not only knowledge but also national consciousness. By continuing to highlight colonial administrators with honorifics while failing to accord equivalent recognition to Indian freedom fighters, textbooks inadvertently communicate that India’s own heroes are secondary to foreign rulers. Kumar asserted that revising these references is not merely a symbolic gesture but an essential step toward cultivating a sense of pride, equality, and historical accuracy among young learners.

He further suggested that the Union government should undertake a systematic review of all educational and official materials to identify and remove colonial-era titles, references, and language that do not align with India’s post-independence identity. Such a process, he argued, would reinforce India’s sovereignty in education, policymaking, and official discourse.

Kumar also stressed the importance of ensuring that Indian textbooks highlight local leadership and resistance movements, thereby giving students a balanced understanding of the colonial period. “We need to educate our children not just about the British rulers and their policies but about the sacrifices of our own people—freedom fighters, social reformers, and local leaders who challenged colonial rule,” he said.

This proposal to drop the “Lord” title is likely to reignite debates about historical interpretation and textbook revisions in India. Critics of similar efforts have sometimes argued that such changes may be symbolic or risk oversimplifying historical complexities. However, Kumar contended that removing honorifics associated with colonial administrators is not an attempt to rewrite history but to present it without implicit glorification of imperial figures. He stressed that accuracy, context, and critical engagement with history remain paramount, but symbolic titles that elevate colonial figures over indigenous leaders have no place in India’s educational materials.

The MP also highlighted how such reforms can promote critical thinking and historical awareness among students, encouraging them to analyze history from multiple perspectives rather than accepting narratives that subtly perpetuate colonial hierarchies. He called on NCERT, state education boards, and government departments to collaborate on a comprehensive revision of textbooks and public documents, replacing honorific-laden references with neutral, factually accurate language.

Kumar’s remarks have sparked interest among policymakers and educators, with some supporting the idea as part of a broader “decolonization” movement that seeks to reassess historical narratives, monuments, and ceremonial titles inherited from colonial times. Proponents argue that such reforms are crucial to fostering a history curriculum that reflects India’s own values, achievements, and struggles, rather than the lingering influence of imperial powers.

In conclusion, Sujeeth Kumar’s call to remove the “Lord” prefix from historical references is emblematic of a wider national conversation on how India remembers and teaches its past. By advocating for textbooks and official documents that reflect Indian perspectives and democratic ideals, Kumar is urging the government to take concrete steps in decoupling education from colonial-era biases, thereby strengthening national identity and historical awareness among future generations.

As India approaches 2047 and the centenary of its independence, debates over decolonizing history education are likely to intensify, with significant implications for curriculum design, official documentation, and public discourse. Kumar’s proposal underscores the importance of critically examining even the smallest remnants of colonial influence—honorifics, terminology, and nomenclature—that persist in everyday knowledge and governance, shaping how generations of Indians perceive their own history.

---