Why should young people know a history that is better buried and forgotten?
Other than the aspect of moral-policing, the statement gives an indication of the role and importance of history in society. In this case, why shouldn't people get to know about the incident? Surely, the sikh roits are painful and bring back sad memories, but the story is important to be told to expose the role played by everyone involved---the state, the goons of the Congress party, the lack of convictions, the extent of illogical hatred. Cannot history teach us how excessive powers with the State can result in such unaccountable tragedies? cannot it teach us what the results of such pogroms can be? and cannot it show how short-sighted humans are, blaming an entire sect for the act of a few? Is history viewed in this context and more generally as learning tool for the present and future from past experiences? or is it just an event and a date, with a narrow view of what the events means and implies.
As school kids, history was always taught as a subject to learn dates and related events. The bigger context of the events, the reasons behinds these actions, parallels between events of yesterday and today, ideologies of people rather than people taught as idols is hardly taught. History textbooks do not have letters, essays, articles written during the times being studied. Wonder why? and wonder how it would have been studying history in that manner.