Prompt: It is more important for school children to learn about their local history than world history. Ċ Do you agree or disagree?

There is no doubt that a person always attaches to the roots of the history to which he belongs, while some people say, it is imperative to know any historical significance in the locality a human live rather than exploring it on the worldwide level, however, I think one should have adequate knowledge of local, the national and the international ancient times as well. Ċ To begin with, on one hand it seems important to know native history, the reason is that a child is born with a pure heart without any information about his cultural backgrounds, exposure to ancestral life may attach him deeply to the tradition. For example, being a Brahmin, I never bothered to learn the famous hymn the Om Jai Jagdish, till I came to know that it was written by a priest, who resided in a temple near to our home. Moreover, cherubs feel proud to share such news with their schoolmates, after inculcating the importance of customs they are following. Ċ On the other hand, necessity to learn international histories cannot be overcome. Kids should be familiarised with that too, because this boost up their knowledge. They analyse the things which went wrong and how they could be corrected. Additionally, if they plan to move to an alien country in their future, then this might bring benefits to them. For instance, an Indian citizen, who wants to immigrate to Canada, and become a citizen there, needs to be aware about that nations' background, else citizenship would be cancelled. Ċ In conclusion, it is utmost for the youth to imbibe both local as well as past of other provinces. Therefore, it is clear that the idea of assimilating ones' own ancestral background is not enough. Hence, it is predicted that schools should take the onus of making awareness about all the historical events.