History Taught In Pakistan

[acharya]

VIEW: Nationalism: inclusive versus exclusive — I —Ishtiaq Ahmed



Jinnah was too intelligent and too much of a liberal not to understand that religious nationalism is inherently anti-minorities. Therefore, he wanted to go back to his pristine liberal convictions based on equal rights and equal citizenship. However, here he miscalculated



As an ideology and political doctrine, nationalism is a claim set forth on behalf of a body of people claiming to constitute a nation to establish a sovereign state over a specific territory. Once that state comes into being, it has to devise a national identity to distinguish itself from other states. No state can hope to survive in the long run only through the exercise of force or threats. Deeper links in the larger society have to be cultivated so that a substantial number of people, a majority if not the whole of its population, identify with the state in an emotional sense. In order to achieve that, the state has to disseminate the national identity in the larger society through the educational system, the mass media and the political system.



This is not easily done because the selection of unifying symbols and values is a sensitive matter. There is no absolute or objective criterion — or criteria — on which nationalism in general or state-nationalism in particular can be grounded. Language, religion, common ethnic origin, historical experience, cultural heritage or civilisation, common residence in the same region, and various other such factors have been invoked from time to time to construct national identity. All types and forms of nationalism as well as official or state-nationalism can be classified as varieties of two analytically distinct types: the civic-political and the cultural/ethnic type of nationalism.



The civic model is conventionally associated with the emancipatory ethos of the European Enlightenment and the French Revolution. It terminated the feudal system of hereditary privileges requiring inferiors to render duties and obligations to superiors. Instead an egalitarian body of equal citizens entitled to equal rights vis-à-vis the state was established in the new dispensation. It took that model another 156 years before it became truly universal and inclusive when the UN Charter of 1945 proclaimed it as the preferred framework for establishing participatory, democratic states.



The second type is known as the cultural or ethnic model of nationalism. Its origins are traced to the German Romantic Movement, which emerged in reaction to Napoleon’s expansionist wars to spread the European Enlightenment’s universalism and rationalism to the whole of Europe. For the German patriots it meant hegemony of the French culture rather than some universal spread of rationalism. Consequently, they emphasised the peculiarity and even uniqueness of the German culture. The underlying logic of such theorising was that nations were organic communities bound together through feelings of affection and solidarity deriving from a sense of common descent and culture. Thus rather than individual citizens being the main bearers of rights it was the nation or community which had priority over members. However, as a cultural marker, common language was not accepted by the German Romantics; hence only people of German blood could be proper Germans. German-speaking Jews or Roma people, also known as the Gypsies, were thus excluded. Nazism was the manifestation of an extreme type of nationalism based on putative common ethnic descent.



Keeping these two distinct models of nationalism and state-nationalism in mind, we can look at the problem of nation-building that Pakistan has faced from its inception in August 1947. The Muslim League asserted that Indian Muslims were a separate nation by virtue of their common faith in Islam. As a nation it was entitled to the right of self-determination over territories where Muslims were in majority. Such a definition ipso facto precluded non-Muslim Bengalis, Punjabis, Pakhtuns, Sindhis, Baloch or Urdu-speakers from the nation because they were not Muslims.



When Pakistan came into being, Mohammad Ali Jinnah heroically tried to reverse the basis of state-nationalism: instead of Muslim nationalism he proposed Pakistani nationalism. The August 11, 1947 speech was just that attempt to rectify the inherent tendency of ethno-religious nationalism to exclude those who do not fit the bill according to some organic sense of community. Jinnah had no compunctions in using Islam in the election campaign in the Muslim-majority provinces of northwestern India to mobilise Muslim support for Pakistan.



He was, however, too intelligent and too much of a liberal not to understand that religious nationalism is inherently anti-minorities. Therefore, he wanted to go back to his pristine liberal convictions based on equal rights and equal citizenship. However, here he miscalculated. He believed that giving birth to an idea — that Muslims are a separate nation by virtue of faith in Islam — to achieve a political objective would not prolong the life of that idea once the objective was achieved.



The history of ideas shows that once an idea takes off it acquires a life of its own — bigger and more powerful than its originator. That is exactly what happened in Pakistan. The birth of Pakistan was inevitably going to be bloody — anybody who knew the situation on the ground knew that well. Consequently, some one to two million Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs were killed during the partition massacres and pogroms; the biggest forced migration in history took place — at least 14 million Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs were uprooted from their ancestral abodes where they had lived since time immemorial. In the partitioned Punjab — the first case of ethnic cleansing took place as both were emptied of unwanted minorities.



Those Muslims, especially who lost hearth and home in East Punjab, did it because they were Muslims. In fact, the loss of Muslim life in East Punjab was greater than the Hindus and Sikhs killed in West Punjab. Those Muslims who left northern India either under duress or voluntarily were also doing it because Pakistan was going to be a land for the Muslims. I interviewed the formal MQM president Azim Ahmed Tariq in Karachi in early 1990. He said to me that Nehru and Gandhi were insisting to our elders to remain in India but we decided to migrate to Pakistan, which was going to be the national home of Indian Muslims. This claim of the MQM is absolutely right though what they did to the Sindhis who opened their arms to receive them is another matter.



Could such a state easily become a secular, democratic state based on the French model of inclusive nationalism simply because its founder wanted to reverse the basis for citizenship because he was personally a secular-liberal? I will address this question in the follow-up article next week.



(To be continued)



Ishtiaq Ahmed is a Visiting Research Professor at the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS) and the South Asian Studies Programme at the National University of Singapore. He is also a Professor of Political Science at Stockholm University. At ISAS, he is currently working on a book, Is Pakistan a Garrison State? He can be reached at isasia@nus.edu.sg

[acharya]

http://pakhistorian.com/2008/10/14/one-n...-pakistan/





THE ORIGINS OF THE TWO NATION THEORY AND THE TRANSITION TO THE NATIONALITIES FACT

What started as the Nationalities theory was labeled “The two nation theory” and ended up as the SEVERAL NATIONALITIES FACT. The TNT has been around for centuries. Quaid-e-Azam,Mohammad Ali Jinnah on one occasion said that the struggle for Pakistan started when the first Muslim set foot on the shores of Sindh. This is what Al Beruni in his treatise Kitab-Ul-Hind about the differences he observed between the two communities: “The Hindus entirely differ from the Muslims in every respect. One might think that they had intentionally changed them into the opposite, for our customs do not resemble theirs”.



Al Beruni enumerates the following reasons for the complete and entire isolation of the Muslims as a community from the Hindus: “All their (Hindu) fanaticism is directed against those who do not belong to them. They (Hindus) call them (Muslims and others) impure, and forbid having any connection with them, be it inter-marriage, or by any other kind of relationship, or by sitting, eating, and drinking with them, because thereby they think why would be polluted”. In early eleventh century Al-Biruni observed:



“In all matters and usages they (Hindus) differ from us (Muslims).



He wrote:



“They are totally differ from us in religion, as we believe in nothing in which they believe and vice versa.”



According to Beruni:



“the Hindus considered the Muslim “Malachha” i.e. impure and for bid having any connection with them, be it intermarriage or any bond of relations hip, or by sitting, eating and drinking with them, because thereby, they think they be polluted.



Expressing his views on Hindu-Muslim relations in the twentieth century Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah observed:



“The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literature. They neither intermarry, nor interdine together, and indeed they belong to two different civilizations which are based on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects on life and of life are different.”



TNT: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE HINDUS AND MUSLIMS

Here is a Pakistani patriot arguing about the differences between the two nations:



“Dress codes between Hindus and Non-Hindus are apparent in any gathering, specially among women. Standards of modesty for women are very very different. We speak Urdu, you cleansed Urdu of all Persian and Arabic words and speak Hindi. Your literature consists of Tagore and others, ours of the later stages of Iqbal. Our heroes are your enemies (Auranzeb and Mahmud of Gazni). Our scoundrels are your heroes (Shivajee). Our architecture is Moghal in nature- symmetrical with domes and minars. Yours is stupa shaped and temple-like. Our temples are decorated with writings, yours are pictographic representations abhorrent to Muslims. Our civilization is traced from the deserts of Arabia, the sands of Persia and the fertile valley of the Indus.



Yours is traced from the depths of Somnath, and the war plains of the Ganges. Our names are different than yours. Our value systems are based on Judeo-Christian monothieism and the ten commandments. Yours are based on a conglomerations of books that originated in Hindu mythology. Your laws are based on the Hindu Rashtra (or secularism), ours on the ten commandments . We eat meat and relish beef. For you Sex is religious and requires display and celebration, for us sex is private and a duty for procreation. You are vegetarian and abhor beef . On religious holidays we pray and scrifice animals, you celebrate fire. We pray five times a day and want the aazaan to monitor our day, you go to temples every week. We pray towards Mecca, you go to pilgrimage to the Ganges. We bury our dead, you cremate them. We are all equal, you have a caste system. We share our foods, you cannot share between castes. We revere the widows, you used to burn them.We are required to slap back, you believe in ahmisa. We believe in heaven and hell, you believe in re-incarnation.”



“Remember that ….we shall fight ,and we shall fight for 1,000 years as we have fought for 1,000 years in the past….we can continue ! ” (ZAB at the United Nations )

[acharya]

Hilarious

The IVC was not Hindu. Gandhi wanted to wage war on Pakistan. He has no cliam to fame except Manu.



…it is South Asia Subcontinent…get it!



Hinduism is NOT older than Islam. There were no Hindus in the IVC. Islam started with Adam. It did not start with Prophet Muhammad. Please read your history. IVC was not Hindu in any sense of the word. The IVC did not worship the Hindu pantheon of Gods, they were not vegetarian, their language was not Sanskrit, they buried their dead, the write right to left, they ate beef, their language was pictographic, and they did not know of the horse (no Arjun and no charriots). No Hindu god was worshipped, neither Agni, nor, Mithra nor Ganesh, nor the 33 million others.



So IVC was not Hindu. It traded with Moses who was a Muslim.



Hindus never lived on the Indus, they live on the Ganges

http://rupeenews.com/most-popular-articl...ilization/

[acharya]

Pakistan?

PAKISTANI HISTORIAN RECENT POSTS



Somnath was looted by Hindu kings many times: Romilla Thapar

The Pakistani Civilization

Book Review: Critical Analysis of Aitzaz Ahsan’s ‘Indus Saga’



Lallu Ji Lal and Dr. Gilchrist created Modern Hindi 135 years ago



Jinnah on Russia and America

History of Pakistan–what they don’t teach you in India

Hitlers Hindu admirers: India’s Savitri Devi Mukherji’s homage to the Nazis in 1958

Hindu Origins of Two Nation Theory: The Non-Hindu Indians by Savitri Devi

The Future of Pakistan: Pakasia

The idea of Pakistan

Abdur Rab Nishtar



Pakistan as it existed 8000 years ago

History of Pakistan–a brief summary

Gandhi extended the British Empire

The Magnificient Rohtas Fort

[HareKrishna]

[quote name='acharya' date='16 July 2010 - 03:39 AM' timestamp='1279231281' post='107480']

Hilarious

[/quote]

the pakis have descifred the indus valley inscriptions

-they are written in proto-arab and are verses from proto-quran .

these inscription were applied on seals in order to protect the people from Aladdin lamp jinn-ies.

-and the indus statues is actually proto-mohamed preying in the direction of proto-mecca.

[acharya]

http://rupeenews.com/most-popular-articl...ilization/



TOTAL COMEDY

[acharya]

A[size="5"]s the saying goes whoever controls Indus river, controls the subcontinent.[/size] Indus was the basis for holding power on the subcontinent. Indus valley, Alexander the great, delhi sultanate, Ghazni, Ghauri, Mughals and then british all came to know the importance of Indus. 1857 Mutiny didn’t work because Punjabi dominated Indus didn’t support the rebels.

The british mostly used Punjabi Rajputs to suppress the rebellion. The entire Punjab, the province in which the Upper Indus flows, remained loyal to Britain, It confirmed earlier assessments, such as those made after the Sir Alexander Burnes expedition (who was the first Westerner to explore the Indus River) of the strategic importance of the Indus that Britain could control the region if they held the Indus, and consequently, the Punjab.

The british didn’t care about congress party antics as long as they controlled Punjab and had the support of marshall race of Punjab. The first muslim general in British army was also Punjabi Rajput as well as Pak army. It was only after 1946 election in which Muslim league power house in Punjab ended the support of foreign rule that british were assured that they have lost Punjab and thus Indus which makes up subcontinent.

This is not about glorifying Punjab but indus which is mostly controlled by inhabited and controlled. Ghauri and Ghaznavids have also made their capitals at Lahore. 1857 mutiny was largely bengali mutiny, Pakistan lost bengal because of bengali mutiny and again in 2009 mutiny in Bengal. [...] Punjab have always been loyal to country and army there is no doubt why India, Bangladesh, bugti, pushtun and sindhi separatist hate punjabis.

[acharya]

http://www.humsafar.info/storyofpakistan01.php

[acharya]

http://www.daily.pk/from-india-to-dinia-...sia-18608/



From India to Dinia: Pakistan to Pakasia

Written by Moin AnsariEditorialsJun 10, 2010

“Pakistan manzil nahin–nishan e manzil hai”



Chaudlry Rehmat Ali had a seminal role in describing the vision and the future of the Muslims in South and Central Asia. He has not been given the credit that he deserves. His personality conflicts with Jinnah overshadowed his achievements. It was Rehmat Ali, who not only was the cartographer of Alam Iqbal’s global vision, he also choreographer of the events that led to the creation of Pakistan, and its future vision. The cross-pollination of ideas between Iqbal, Ali and Jinnah is incredible and a subject of several Phds. All three started out as “Indian nationalists”. However there is a caveat. Their “Indian nationalism” has been misread by Jaswant Singh and company who think of Jinnah as some sort of nationalist who wanted Akhand Bahrat.

In actual fact the “nationalism” of Iqbal, Ali and Jinnah–all educated in the West was a reaction to the nationalism of the West. As the Britishers, and Germans waved their flags, all three recoiled and cringed. Iqbal came up with the Hindi Tarana, and Jinnah focused on the political of the day. As Mohammad Ali Jinnah became more and more disenchanted with the Brahman Club called the Indian National Congress, he was constantly guided by the critical analysis of Chaudhry Rehmat Ali–who also was also going through a a metamorphosis. Iqbal started out singing “saray jahan main acha Hindustan hamara’ but ended up with “khanjar hilal ka hai quami nsiahn hamara”.

Chaudhary Rahmat Ali laid out the vision for all Muslims of South and Central Asia and the Middle East.

1. Pakistan is our base

2. Dinia is our field of action

3. Pakasia is our goal

The League’s indebtedness to Ch Rahmat Ali should not be minimized. over and above what has been said above, one more example may be given.

“..the inconsiderable fact remains, in its fundaments, the clash is neither-religious, nor inter-communal, nor even economic. It is in fact an international conflict between two national ambitions–Muslem for survival and Hindu for supremacy”–Ch Rahamt Ali

“The problem in India is not of an inter-communal character, but manifestly on an international one, and must be treated as such”. M.A. Jinnah

The entire body politics of the Musalmans of South Asia was going through a colossal paradigm shift. After being harassed for a hundred years by the joint forces of the Hindu Mahasabah (Bad Cop) and the Indian National Congress (Good Cop), and facing the wrath of a biased referee (British Raj) the Muslims were searching for survival in a country that has been snatched from them. The loss of Bengal (Orrissa, Bihar and Bengal) to Lord Clive was a the beginning of the decline of Muslims power. The British connived with the Hindus to disenfranchise the Muslims by first imposing the Devanagri script on them–making the Muslims illiterate overnight, and then snatching their kingdoms in Bengal, Awadh and other areas. With the cultural centers in British hands, the outlier areas were left defenseless. The British made sure that they were kept tribal. Thus West Punjab was tribal, as was Balochistan and Khyber-Pakhtunkhawa. Kashmir was of course the “Hilly region of Punjab” not a separate entity.

Dr. Jamil Khan author of Urdu/Hindi an artificial divide adds the following.

1786- William Jones creates Aryan/Semitic language race fraud–and tries to build the Hindu-European Aryan brother hood.

1800 Ft William College makes Bengali and Hindi as Hindu languages–calls Urdu as Muslim and foreign

1816 British starts ” Hindu college” the seed of Calcutta University. Muslim’s were NOT allowed to enroll. A shocking policy –that closed English education to Muslims (See p 237 in Urdu/Hindi an artificial divide).

By 1870s Hindus, mainly Bengali Hindus monopolized modern English education.

The Muslim majority of Bengal (including Bihar, Orrisa, Assam) turned into a backward illiterate have-not group.

1871 census revealed Muslim majority in East and in West Bengal

1884: In late 1881 William Hunter was appointed to conduct an Education Commission into the state of education in India. The Hunter Commission published its detailed report in 1884 and its focus was to explain the failure of Charles Wood’s Education Dispatch of 1854 and to recommend reform. The principal objective of Wood’s Dispatch had been to spread government and mission education to the broader population in India.

Pathetic condition of Bengali Muslims emerges- Hunter commission (http://www.chaf.lib.latrobe.edu.au/dcd/hunter.htm) investigated the result of “NOT admitting Muslims in the HINDU college” so in 1871 commission revealed the following;

— of 14 Assistant engineers ,50 accountants,and 22 other high positions THERE WAS NO Muslim.

–of 65 over seers there were only 2 Muslims.

Commission initiated reforms/ reservation etc for Muslims of Bengal AND Hindu Bengalis started opposition–ending in the formation of congress

Muslims started some movement for education and fight for job (Sir Syed took lead) (Advanced study in the history of modern India, Volume 2 By G. S. Chhabra)

The condition of the Muslims deteriorated precipitously between 1776 and 1857 (Plassy to War of Independence). However as attested to by Jaswant Singh in his book “Jinnah”, the decline of the Muslims from 1857 onwards was even more catastrophic. The Mughal Empire even when it existed in name provided succor and comfort to the Muslims and of course was a huge employer.

Chaudhry Rahmat Ali’s Pakistan National Movement submitted the following:

1) New interpretation of the Muslim history of the subcontinent in terms of three revolutions:

a) Sequel of the first revolution which coincides with the the later Muslim rule, which “reduced our Fraternity from the position of a mighty force to that of a medium factor in the power-politics of the world. Further it punished our Millat for the blunder of following “Dynasticism”, of fraternizing with “Indianism, and of establishing a heterogeneous state in the Continent of Dinia. Furthermore, it eclipsed our nation in Pakistan, Bangistan, and Osmanistan; extinguished our empire in Dinia; upset the equilibrium of Asia to our disadvantage as a people; and started a new cycle in the history of the world”.

<img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' /> Sequel of the second revolution after 1857:

“…among other things, it further degraded our Fraternity from a medium force to a minor factor in the power politics of the world, revived ‘Indianism’ to an amazing degree, and reducing the Millat throughtout Dinai. broke up her social cohesion and turned her intelleigentsia into a mass of wage-slaves and blind careerists”.

“At the end of this revolution, while most other peoples in our position were re-integrating themselves into nation, we were dissolving our Millat herself into Indian castes and communities”.

“..The crisis of Indian Federation which nearly wrote the epitaph of our Millat in 1932, when our “leaders” at the round Table Conferences, succumbing to the pressure and persuasion of the Anglo-Hindu entente, surrendered our 1200 year old national position, renounced our birth-right to distinct nationhood, and accepted the destructive and dishonorable principle of “Indianization” of our Millat throughout the Continent of Dinia.”

c) Third revolution started in 1933 with the Pak plan, “Which was to save us from the national self-destruction on the altar of “Indianism”, safeguard our right to distinct national existence, mark the appearance of de-Indianized Muslim country of nearly 35 million people, protect the heritage of the first three centuries of our history, inflict the first decisive defeat on the forces of “Indianism”, and last but by no means the least, alter for ever the course of history of the Milalt or Dinia, and I dare say Asia”

The goal was to attain sovereign freedom of the Millat and supreme fulfillment of her mission in Pakasia leading to the creation of a new world “a world with its peoples and nations remade, with its continents and countries re-mapped, with its seas and skies recharted, and with its surface and subterraneous wealth re-distributed. It will be a world inspired by new principles and purposes, helped by new developments and discoveries of science, directed by new men and methods, and pledged to new tasks and triumphs.”

2) The second scheme was the promulgation of the following sever commandments of destiny for the “seventh continent of Dinia”.

i) Avoid “Minorityism”

ii) Avow Nationalism

iii) Acquire proportional territory

iv) Consolidate the individual Nations.

v) Coordinate them under “Pak Commonwealth of Nations”

vi) Convert “India” into “dinia”

vii) Organize “Dinia” and its Dependencies into “Pakasia”

It is obvious that the clairvoyant Chaudhary Rahmat Ali had already been to the mountain and seen the other side. Quaid e Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Alama Iqbal came to the same conclusion–it just came later. It was the constant pressure of Chaudhry Rahamat Ali that kept the Muslim League on “sirat ul mustqeem” and stopped it from making grave errors.

The need of the hour was a Mohammad Ali Jinnah. Bharati demonization of the man not withstanding, if Jinnah did not exist, he would have been invented. Jinnah was simply a reflection of what was going on around him. His Two Nation theory was actually a play back of the Two Nation Theories of Lai, Haldiram, Gowalkar, and Savarkar. The Hindu Mahasabah was not only bent upon expelling, converting or killing the Muslims at an intellectual level, they had actually begun to operationalize the forced conversion through Shuddi and Sangatham.

Chaudhary Rahmat Ali rose up to the challenge:

“In pursuit of that decision, I first dedicated my life to the cause of the faith, the Fraternity, and the Fatherland, and then drafted the Declaration, ‘Now or Never’ which embodied the first part of my Pak Plan.”

He proposed:

1. Recognition of the distinct nationhood of Pakistan

2. Creation of a Federation of Pakistan separate from the Federation of India

3. Stress on the unlimited possibilities of Islamic Renaissance

4. Protection of the heritage from “further Indianization”.

He had the utmost respect for Iqbal.

“Sir Muhammad Iqbal that immortal poet of Islam, whose poetry served as a beacon light in the darkest period of our history, and whose message will ever help us on the way to our destiny” Chaudhary Rahmat Ali.Chaudhary Rahmat Ali

Chaudhry Rehmat Ali’s timely vision arrived at an opportune time. After being booed in the Indian National Congress by an upstart who had recently arrived in South Asia from a foreign land, Mohammad Ali Jinnah– a very senior member of the INC had left South Asia and had gone to London in disgust. What compelled him to come back.

It was Alama Iqbal?

This is where it starts getting more and more interesting. While Jinnah was waging a constitutional struggle against colonialism and hegemony, Chaudhry Rehmat Ali free of any logistical constraints was free to visualize the future of South Asia and Central Asia. While many in South Asia were stuck in the mental quagmire of “India”–Chaurdhry Rehmat Ali was looking out for a future of the Musalmans. He clearly saw that Pakistan was a beginning—he saw a new perception and clearly defined it.

“In the five Northern Provinces of India, out of a total population of about forty million, we, the Muslims constitute about thirty million. Our religion, culture, history, tradition, economic system, laws of inheritance, succession and marriage are basically and fundamentally different from those of the people living in the rest of India. The ideals which more our thirty million brethren-in-faith living in these provinces to make the highest sacrifices are fundamentally from those which inspire the Hindus. These differences are not confined to the broad basic principles far from it. They extend to the minutest details of our lives. We do not interline; we do not inter-marry. Out national customs and calendars, even our diet and dress are different.”

“Hindus and Muslims are the followers of two essentially and fundamentally different religious systems”. For Chaudhary Rahmat Ali India is a not a single country nor a home of one single nation. It is a Subcontinent where peoples of different nationalities live. India is a “a state created by the British”. This alternative of a separate Federation “will lay the foundation of a peaceful future for this great subcontinent; and should certainly allow the the highest development of each of these two peoples without one being subject to another”.

[acharya]

Pakistan has existed for 13 centuries if one has to go by the following excerpt in Pakistan studies



Quote:

“…as a matter of fact, Pakistan came to be established for the first time when the Arabs led by Muhammad-bin-Qasim occupied Sindh and Multan in the early years of the eighth century, and established Muslim rule in this part of the South-Asian Sub-continent. Pakistan under the Arabs comprised the Lower Indus Valley.”



“… during the 11th century the Ghaznavid Empire comprised what is now Pakistan and Afghanistan. During the 12th century the Ghaznavids lost Afghanistan, and their rule came to be confined to Pakistan… By the 13th century, Pakistan had spread to include the whole of Northern India and Bengal… Under the Khiljis Pakistan moved further Southward to include a greater part of Central India and the Deccan… Many Mongols accepted Islam. As such Pakistan remained safe for Islam… During the 16th century, ‘Hindustan’ disappeared and was completely absorbed in ‘Pakistan’… Under Aurangzeb the Pakistan spirit gathered in strength. This evoked the opposition of the Hindus… After the death of Aurangzeb in 1707, the process of the disintegration of Mughal Rule set in, and weakened the Pakistan Spirit… The shape of Pakistan in the 18th Century was thus more or less the same as it was under the Ghaznavids in the 11th century.”



“Shah Waliullah accordingly appealed to Ahmad Shah Durrani, the ruler of Afghanistan and ‘Pakistan’ to come to the rescue of the Muslims of Mughal India, and save them from the tyrannies of the Marhattas… Ahmad Shah Durrani died in 1773, and with his death things became dark for the Muslims both in ‘Pakistan’ and Mughal India. In the ‘Pakistan’ territories the Sikhs raised their head in the Punjab and became a great headache for the successors of Ahmad Shah Durrani… In the ‘Pakistan’ territories, where a Sikh state had come to be established, the Muslims were denied the freedom of religion. The Mujahideen set up an Islamic state in the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) which was a manifestation of Pakistan spirit… Thus by the middle the 19th century both ‘Pakistan’ and Hindustan had ceased to exist; instead British India had come into existence. Although Pakistan was created in August 1947, yet except for its name, the present-day Pakistan has existed, as a more or less single entity, for centuries.”





Source TFT

[acharya]

teaching of distorted history and religious hatred in Pakistan.



As usual, Ejaz Haider, while agreeing that it happens, cites India for doing similar things. Says he

Quote:

India too has created its history which, like Pakistan’s anti-India narrative, is often anti-Pakistan. The interesting point to note is that histories, among other things, rely for internal uniformity by referring to external threats, the process of “othering”. In India, Prof Aziz’ role was played by Prof Krishna Kumar with Prejudice and Pride: School histories of the freedom struggle in India and Pakistan who explained this process of othering the “former self”.





Khaled Ahmed, in his usual unsparing style recalls a panel discussion anchored by Hamid Mir in GEO tv in 2004 that also included AH Nayyar, of the famous SDPI report that finds a prominent place in the first post of every incarnation of this thread and a certain academic by name Ms Dushka Syed

Quote:

Ms Dushka Syed said that SDPI and its scholars had been given a certain line (from outside) and they were pushing it. She said there was nothing wrong with teaching jihad to children; after all, Islam was not the religion of Christ who taught its followers to turn the other cheek. Why should jihad be wrong when the Americans feel that it is against them? What was required of Pakistan now? Are we supposed to become prostrate in front of India (lait na jayen)? She said our history was full of jihad and the Holy Prophet PBUH himself did jihad. But the SDPI was obstinately against our history. ‘What are we supposed to do? Should we do namastay-namastay ?’ There was injustice being done in Palestine and Israel was crushing the Muslims with impunity. Should Pakistan become Switzerland in these conditions? The SDPI Report was given the same kind of treatment a day earlier, on 24 March 2004, when ARY TV had its host Dr Shahid Masood take up the subject.





Dr. A.H. Nayyar himself has contributed an article that says

Quote:

In this effort, some actions of the Hindu revivalist movements were blown out of proportion, to show the danger Indian Muslims faced. Similar actions taken by Muslim parties were simply overlooked and the Two Nation Theory was put on a strong pedestal.

He quotes an unusually blunt passage from a Pakistani textbook written in 1956

Quote:

We have a high regard for Mohammad bin Qasim. He laid the foundation for the Muslim rule in India. But the first brick of the foundation was defective. Therefore the structure erected on this foundation turned out to be defective and fragile, not destined to last long. Had Mohammad bin Qasim and the conquerors that followed relied less on sword to increase their numerical strength and more on preaching and other methods, we would have been spared the events because of which we are presently facing tribulations.

He goes on to say

Quote:[size="6"]

Soon thereafter {1965 war} writing and publishing school textbooks became the sole prerogative of the state, and the history textbook writers were required to exhibit patriotism, often at the cost of truthfulness.[/size]





Raza Rumi quotes from K.K. Aziz's well-known book, 'The Murder of History'

Quote:

“In the 1971 war, the Pakistan armed forces created new records of bravery, and the Indian forces were defeated everywhere.” He further traces how the Pakistani Hindus in East Pakistan are blamed for engineering anti-Urdu demonstrations during Jinnah’s time. This movement started by ‘Hindus’ had sowed the seeds of separation of East Pakistan, if the disingenuous sham-historians of the state were to be believed. Aziz questions how the great surrender of Pakistan Army in December 1971 happened apparently when our troops were bagging so-called victories on all fronts. Furthermore, Aziz also dismisses the notion that accepting Bengali cultural values, as a part of national heritage, was some sort of a national humiliation.



A textbook, as Aziz notes, even mentions Maulana Maudoodi among the “founders of the ideology of Pakistan”, when in fact the right-wing leader bitterly opposed the creation of Pakistan and called Jinnah a non-Muslim. . . . Aziz’s meticulous pen relates how the arrival of Zia-ul-Haq was celebrated: “General Zia ul Haq was chosen by destiny to be the person who achieved the distinction of imposing Islamic law.... The real objective of the creation of Pakistan, and the demand of the masses, was achieved.”



Aziz rather presciently argues: [i]Some of the people bred on these books become journalists, columnists and editors of popular magazines and digests ... making all possible allowances for’ the margin of duplication, we are still left with a very conservative figure of say thirty million people being told what they should not be told and hearing what they should not hear. When we recall that this group contains within itself the social and intellectual elite and the actual or potential leadership of the country, we have nothing but stark despair staring us in the face and promising rack and ruin.

[acharya]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...stan-islam

By the time Ayub Khan launched the first military coup in 1958, 11-year-old Pakistan had been ruled by seven prime ministers. His finely clipped moustache and fondness for scotch whiskey led outsiders to view him as a great moderniser. Indeed, Ayub's first major act as president was to commission the construction of a new capital city. A Greek firm of architects was tasked with the job. On 24 February 1960, Ayub gave the city its name: Islamabad, the City of Islam. Fittingly, while the parliament and the supreme court built by the Greeks are frequently forced into abeyance, the one building that is always open for business in today's Islamabad is a mosque named after a Saudi despot who funded it.



A new constitution was promulgated in 1962. Pakistan's official name was changed to Republic of Pakistan, dropping the "Islamic" that the 1956 constitution had introduced. But this was superficial at best. The constitution created a greater role for religion – and religious policing. It established an Advisory Council of Islamic Ideology to bring Pakistanis "into conformity with the teachings and requirements of Islam". It called for the creation of an Islamic Research Institute to "assist in the reconstruction of Muslim society on a truly Islamic basis". The first amendment to the constitution restored the country's old name: the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Pakistan's pluralistic heritage was subsequently erased in order to create a malleable monolith. Education was the principal target – the study of Islamiyat was promoted at universities; a new discipline called Pakistan studies, locating the country's origins in the history of Islam, was created; and the army, particularly Ayub, was portrayed as its saviour. India, meanwhile, was demonised as a "Hindu" state.



Ayub launched a war against India in 1965. At the battle of Badr in the 7th century, the prophet's tiny band of Muslim soldiers claimed to have vanquished the Quraysh with the help of white-turbaned angels sent by Gabriel. Ayub's propaganda machinery borrowed directly from that legend, reaffirming Pakistan's position as the defender of Islam. Stories about Pakistan's forces being assisted by green-robed angels who deflected Indian bombs with a wave of their hand were circulating, as were legends about Pakistani soldiers shooting down Indian aircraft with Enfield rifles. Pakistanis weren't just being invited to celebrate the valour of their soldiers – they were being told that their side had received celestial sanction.

[acharya]

http://www.uvm.edu/~envprog/madrassah/Te...kistan.pdf



Summary

Pakistan’s public education system has an important role in determining how successful we

shall be in achieving the goal of a progressive, moderate and democratic Pakistan. A key

requirement is that children must learn to understand and value this goal and cherish the

values of truthfulness, honesty, responsibility, equality, justice, and peace that go with it.

The identity and value system of children is strongly shaped by the national curricula and

textbooks in Social Studies, English, Urdu and Civics from Class I to Class XII. The

responsibility for designing them lies with the Curriculum Wing of the Ministry of Education

and the provincial Text Book Boards.

However, a close analysis by a group of independent scholars shows that for over two

decades the curricula and the officially mandated textbooks in these subjects have contained

material that is directly contrary to the goals and values of a progressive, moderate and

democratic Pakistan.

The March 2002 revision of curricula undertaken by the Curriculum Wing of the Ministry of

Education did not address the problems that existed in earlier curriculum documents. In

some cases, these problems are now even worse.

Our analysis found that some of the most significant problems in the current curriculum and

textbooks are:

• Inaccuracies of fact and omissions that serve to substantially distort the nature and

significance of actual events in our history.

• Insensitivity to the actually existing religious diversity of the nation

• Incitement to militancy and violence, including encouragement of Jehad and Shahadat

• Perspectives that encourage prejudice, bigotry and discrimination towards fellow

citizens, especially women and religious minorities, and other nations.

• A glorification of war and the use of force

• Omission of concepts, events and material that could encourage critical self-awareness

among students

• Outdated and incoherent pedagogical practices that hinder the development of interest

and insight among students

To give a few examples:

The books on Social Studies systematically misrepresent events that have happened over

the past several decades of Pakistan’s history, including those which are within living

memory of many people



This history is narrated with distortions and omissions. The causes, effects, and

responsibility for key events are presented so as to leave a false understanding of our

national experience. A large part of the history of this region is also simply omitted, making it

difficult to properly interpret events, and narrowing the perspective that should be open to

students. Worse, the material is presented in a way that encourages the student to

marginalise and be hostile towards other social groups and people in the region. The State of Curricula and Textbooks in Pakistan

ii

The curricula and textbooks are insensitive to the religious diversity of the Pakistani society.

While the teaching of Islamiat is compulsory for Muslim students, on average over a quarter

of the material in books to teach Urdu as a language is on one religion. The books on

English have lessons with religious content. Islamiat is also taught in Social Studies classes.

Thus, the entire education is heavily loaded with religious teachings, reflecting in this respect

a very narrow view held by a minority among Muslims that all the education be essentially

that of Islamiat.1



There is an undercurrent of exclusivist and divisive tendencies at work in the subject matter

recommended for studies in the curriculum documents as well as in textbooks. Pakistani

nationalism is repeatedly defined in a manner that is bound to exclude non-Muslim

Pakistanis from either being Pakistani nationals or from even being good human beings.

Much of this material would run counter to any efforts at national integration