History Taught In Pakistan

[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.