What's new

Textbook biases: ‘Our schools are extremism factories’

Dour sarcasm well noted sir. Perhaps I deserve it.

But being a scholar you would know the importance of group-feeling as a basis for commonly accepted identity. Why do you mind my pointing to this factor as important? After all, being Pakistanis we have shared experience and ideas about our identity. What is wrong with appreciating it? Do Indians themselves not cherish their shared experience, cultural practices, identity, etc...? Is this not reflected in Indian curriculum then?

Let me leave aside the opening sentence for the moment.

I wish to reiterate forcefully that Pakistan's legitimacy is entirely rested on the acceptance of Pakistan by Pakistanis themselves. No other seal or certificate, either on the basis of religion, or on the basis of ancient cultural affinities which bind the country closer together than its components might be bound to surrounding cultural domains, is necessary. That Pakistan exists, as a functioning state in the Westphalian sense, is enough.

Having said that, I would like to spend some time on your posts, one post at a time.
 
This was the post to which I replied. I would like to go through it in some detail, to dispel Chak Bamu's perception that the first reply was superficial and heedless of the contents of his own message.

If our textbooks do not use the language and view that supports our reason to exist as Pakistanis then what use are they? If there is anything overt and radical they of course it is not halal or kosher, but really what do liberals want? An emasculated Pakistan that Indians can ride for free?

The mistake, the fundamental mistake in my humble opinion, is that Pakistanis, Pakistan itself, does not need a reason to exist. That it exists is good enough. A simple statement that the Punjab, Sindh, KP, or the NWFP as it then was and Balochistan gained independence from colonial rule in 1947 is good enough.

Why, after sixty and more years of independent existence, does an elementary textbook have to have the reason for the state to exist? Would you like to examine, for instance, a textbook for any country other than Pakistan, to check if they have the reason to exist nervously, defiantly written in?

Would such a textbook amount to emasculating Pakistan?

It is better to propagate world peace, end to weapons, and elimination of borders of all kind than to cut our roots.

This is where the weariness and the disillusionment start to show themselves. What sense does this line make? It is better to propagate desirable things than to cut your roots? Yes, obviously it is, nobody wants you to cut your roots, they do want you to stop obsessing about the wrong aspect of your roots.

First, let us agree that it is a noble and laudable objective to propagate world peace, end to weapons, and elimination of borders of all kind. Nothing wrong with that. And, contrary to your tangled syntax, promoting these worthwhile objects won't harm your fledgling minds.

So what's the problem?

These liberals are in thrall of themselves and love the attention they get from across the border, hence their chicanery. Do they know how uni-dimensional Indian thinking is in respect to Pakistan? Do they read poisonous posts about Pakistan all around the web? Do they consider that without reciprocation a one-sided plunge is akin to suicide?

I acknowledge, but do not accept the charge that @Chak Bamu has made about me originally. Here I must revert to what he has singled out for adverse mention, a shallow, testy reply.

Does the attention that Pakistani liberals get across the border matter a tinker's f**k to Pakistan.
Does the uni-dimensional Indian thinking matter to Pakistan?
Do the poisonous posts about Pakistan hinder Pakistan in any conceivable way?
Pakistani EXTINCTION?

@pak-marine I want to see specific examples of what is wrong with our textbooks. We can discuss these on a case by case basis individually. A few days ago I responded to an Indian poster on PDF on the same topic. Most of th

I would also like to know how is history taught in India. I remember distinctly that BJP's revision of school curriculum in '00s downgraded Islam to a 'religious development' from Religion. Did any of our liberals talk about that then ?

I am all for peace and stability and development. But I can not fathom why some people want to rush things that need to be carefully thought about; and even more carefully implemented.
The article is trash, just looking at the picture. Reading the article confirms this view.

Please may I be excused from answering this last little benighted bit? If you insist, @ChakBamu, I shall answer. do you insist? Does the rest exorcise your annoyance?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@Joe Shearer Sir, your posts whether pro or against are enjoyable. My reply that you have highlighted was meant for the Thread starter and seeing that he has chosen to identify himself as a Pakistani, chances are that he understood me.

I feel obliged to explain the meaning of my post since it does seem cryptic to you. Pakistan was carved out of British India, and our founding generation felt compelled to explain to later generations as to why that happened and why it was inevitable. In my experience, Indians have a better appreciation of the freedom struggle, while Pakistanis are better able to explain why and how of Pakistan's creation. That is due to the curriculum that is followed in India and Pakistan respectively. Typically Indians use a pretty simple shortcut which goes something like "It was the damn politicians that divided us". The first time one finds this bewildering and uncomfortable and hearing it a few more times does hint at a lack of appreciation across the board.

A second generation Pakistani like myself appreciates the need to explain the process of Pakistan movement, particularly since my grand father was a part of it. Third generation Pakistanis, like many here on PDF, have different sensitivity upon this matter. That is good. Also, I find that most Indians have seemingly come to accept Pakistan as a reality. That is even better. With this younger generation there is hope.

I feel the best course of action is to have a slow, but sure and steady process of normalization of ties between India and Pakistan with a view to achieving friendly relations like USA and Canada, while emphasizing our identity and equality. Liberals on the other hand seem an unbalanced lot. Particularly the ones who are feted, well received, and well appreciated in India. These fools would rather rush the tricky process and consequently invite backlash. My problem is with these fools. If we were to rush things, India would doubtless take advantage and Pakistanis may come to regret the outcome. Something like that happened in 1999. We had Lahore process, Kargil, Coup.

If there is something sinister in our curriculum, I would want it to be removed. If someone wishes to remove material that tells my children as to why they have the identity of being a Pakistani, I would be against any such venture.

You are in some sense right that the drive is based on insecurity. How can it be not? Just look at our neighborhood!

PDF is a bit of a Pakistan - India circus now, but people like me visited this site to get defense related news and analysis. That in some sense says what sort of thinking we have on PDF. You are already working with a biased sample sir. By trying to correct me what would you accomplish sir?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sex education for 14-15 year olds is required for preventing crimes against women. And by sex education I do not mean teaching them how to f**k but teaching them difference between man and woman, hormonal changes, STDs, contraception etc.

And how helpful has that been in the West? Instead of getting knowledge it just increased curiosity...Statistics talks for itself. It is not lack of education for sure that has shown the high Western stats against women...However it is the thinking and mentality maybe even culture ....
 
what is the article about: Pakistan.
who wrote the article: Pakistani
which news paper was it published it in: Pakistani
who posted the article on the forum: Pakistani

whom should the pakistanis blame: evil yindoo bhartis :duh:

Blame other for own mistake is their policy and they are paying for this also
 
@Joe Shearer Sir, your posts whether pro or against are enjoyable. My reply that you have highlighted was meant for the Thread starter and seeing that he has chosen to identify himself as a Pakistani, chances are that he understood me.

Sadly, in a public forum, an unendorsed post is seen to be for general consumption. As you must already be aware, the protocol for drawing an individual's attention, or the attention of a group of individuals, is by listing them by name, preceding the name with an @ sign.

Even then, the matter is effectively in the public domain, without the cover of privacy. It is then vulnerable to any nasty old man fed up of inexactitude and of slurred over definitions and categories that all run into one another, who might then pick on this perfectly innocent post and maul it. Consider yourself collateral damage, if that is any consolation.

I feel obliged to explain the meaning of my post since it does seem cryptic to you. Pakistan was carved out of British India, and our founding generation felt compelled to explain to later generations as to why that happened and why it was inevitable.

This is increasingly looking suspect to me, as I progress through the course of re-learning that I have set myself. I believe that scholars and analysts such as Khaled Anis Ansari and Afroz Alam have it right, although their analysis is contemporary and does not attempt an historical retrospective view. Partition happened, but it looks more and more that it was not inevitable, and even more that it swept under the carpet vital actions and steps, and insights into south Asian society, that would have helped the entire region immeasurably.

Before going further, let me intone in the most solemn tones that I can assemble from within my diaphragm that I am not a Hindutvavadi, or an irredentist, and I do not deny the legitimacy of Pakistan. On the contrary, to place it on record, I believe that Pakistan is a viable state, and should, and will do well, once it has de-wormed itself.

It is to other, deeper issues relating to identity that I refer. These issues have already overtaken Pakistan, more than once, on two past occasions in conditions of peculiar horror, in the present in conditions that go beyond horror. These issues are mounting rapidly in India, and I expect that they will turn acute before democracy evolves a solution - that is my hope, and it may be belied - so we are in the same boat. If you prefer the vernacular, "Hammam mein sab nangey hain." So dispel any notion that this is intended to denigrate Pakistan in particular. It is intended to point to the fundamental faults within nation-states in the south Asian region. Please note that I have tried to word my description with the utmost care.

In my experience, Indians have a better appreciation of the freedom struggle, while Pakistanis are better able to explain why and how of Pakistan's creation. That is due to the curriculum that is followed in India and Pakistan respectively. Typically Indians use a pretty simple shortcut which goes something like "It was the damn politicians that divided us". The first time one finds this bewildering and uncomfortable and hearing it a few more times does hint at a lack of appreciation across the board.

I too find it bewildering and uncomfortable. Is this the impression that Indian textbooks give you? That would be a matter for considerable worry. That is not a good basis on which to build tolerance, more, acceptance of a neighbouring state. Even an enfuriating and contumacious neighbouring state.

A second generation Pakistani like myself appreciates the need to explain the process of Pakistan movement, particularly since my grand father was a part of it. Third generation Pakistanis, like many here on PDF, have different sensitivity upon this matter. That is good. Also, I find that most Indians have seemingly come to accept Pakistan as a reality. That is even better. With this younger generation there is hope.

"Let me count the ways."

There is a section (1) of Indians who believe that partition was a mistake,that it was a concession to a racial and cultural enemy, that it should be reversed and that it should be reversed, and the racial and cultural differences wiped out as quickly as humanely possible. They may number in the thousands, because the nature of the Indian demographic is such that a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the population mounts in number into the thousands.

There is a section(2) of Indians who agree with the rabid first category, but believe that the natural instability and proneness to inflict self-inflicted injuries upon the country is strong enough to expect to gain their ends peacefully. A natural and inevitable collapse of Pakistan is what they expect; They are larger in number than the first, several times larger, and they are to be seen on this forum as well. I am troubled about their mental health, but feel helpless in terms of their obduracy and intransigence. Perhaps lobotomy should not be peremptorily ruled out.

There is a section(3) of Indians who do not necessarily start with any strong feelings about Pakistan, but view it in much the same light as the neighbourhood kid with a rich father and a powerful bike without mufflers, who comes into his own around midnight, and takes great pleasure in racing up and down empty streets. This section prays nightly for an opportune (from their point of view) rock in the road, dreams wistfully of thin cords across the road, or of a dramatic descent by the police to lay the lout by the heels. This view may disconcert the mature and grown-up reader, but will delight another section which is likely to give Peter Pan a run for his money.

There is a section(4) of Indians who don't much care, but wish the government of India would do something - anything - to stop nuisances from that country. So long as there are no bomb blasts or terrorist attacks, Pakistan may go about its business so long as it does not let off explosive devices in our bakeries. This number is perhaps the largest, and numbers in the millions.

Then there are those who generally wish everybody well, not just Pakistan and the people of Pakistan, and wring their hands in anguish when a nasty incident takes place. This is the Why_can't_we_all_just_get_on_together? school of thought.

Finally, there are those who wish Pakistan to prosper, her people to do well, including the liberals, and for the country to be a happy place, but even they sometimes despair of that country ridding itself of its clinging parasites. These are small, very small in number, and approximate the number of Pakistani liberals, into six.

More later. My vitiated health does not permit very long hours.

I feel the best course of action is to have a slow, but sure and steady process of normalization of ties between India and Pakistan with a view to achieving friendly relations like USA and Canada, while emphasizing our identity and equality. Liberals on the other hand seem an unbalanced lot. Particularly the ones who are feted, well received, and well appreciated in India. These fools would rather rush the tricky process and consequently invite backlash. My problem is with these fools. If we were to rush things, India would doubtless take advantage and Pakistanis may come to regret the outcome. Something like that happened in 1999. We had Lahore process, Kargil, Coup.

If there is something sinister in our curriculum, I would want it to be removed. If someone wishes to remove material that tells my children as to why they have the identity of being a Pakistani, I would be against any such venture.

You are in some sense right that the drive is based on insecurity. How can it be not? Just look at our neighborhood!

PDF is a bit of a Pakistan - India circus now, but people like me visited this site to get defense related news and analysis. That in some sense says what sort of thinking we have on PDF. You are already working with a biased sample sir. By trying to correct me what would you accomplish sir?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I rally one more time to the sound of an uncertain trumpet.

[MENTION=15420]Joe Shearer[/MENTION] Sir, your posts whether pro or against are enjoyable. My reply that you have highlighted was meant for the Thread starter and seeing that he has chosen to identify himself as a Pakistani, chances are that he understood me.

I feel obliged to explain the meaning of my post since it does seem cryptic to you. Pakistan was carved out of British India, and our founding generation felt compelled to explain to later generations as to why that happened and why it was inevitable. In my experience, Indians have a better appreciation of the freedom struggle, while Pakistanis are better able to explain why and how of Pakistan's creation. That is due to the curriculum that is followed in India and Pakistan respectively. Typically Indians use a pretty simple shortcut which goes something like "It was the damn politicians that divided us". The first time one finds this bewildering and uncomfortable and hearing it a few more times does hint at a lack of appreciation across the board.

A second generation Pakistani like myself appreciates the need to explain the process of Pakistan movement, particularly since my grand father was a part of it. Third generation Pakistanis, like many here on PDF, have different sensitivity upon this matter. That is good. Also, I find that most Indians have seemingly come to accept Pakistan as a reality. That is even better. With this younger generation there is hope.


I feel the best course of action is to have a slow, but sure and steady process of normalization of ties between India and Pakistan with a view to achieving friendly relations like USA and Canada, while emphasizing our identity and equality.

What is there to contest in this eminently sensible formula?

Liberals on the other hand seem an unbalanced lot. Particularly the ones who are feted, well received, and well appreciated in India. These fools would rather rush the tricky process and consequently invite backlash. My problem is with these fools. If we were to rush things, India would doubtless take advantage and Pakistanis may come to regret the outcome. Something like that happened in 1999. We had Lahore process, Kargil, Coup.

While I acknowledge the candour, I can only regret the hostility.

Why are liberals, Pakistani liberals and Indian liberals alike, immoderate, if you will bear with that usage for a second? It is because they are faced with a hostile environment. It is is because even a fair and reasonable, moderately worded statement will be trampled by a thousand extremist statements marching over it. Can you say what will happen to a Pakistani liberal if he/she moderates his statements? They will be under constant pressure, as we Indian liberals are, to modify one very small thing at a time. And if we give in, the entire position is outflanked. If we hold out, we are criticised, exactly as you are doing. Chit and Put, you win both.

Regarding the example you set, I am bemused, to put it mildly and in as placatory a tone as I can summon. India would take advantage? Is that your view of what happened in 1999? I would be most interested in your depiction of this Indian taking of advantage. At this moment, I cannot think of reconstructing what it might be; my brain wants to jump out of its skull and run skittering around the room.

If there is something sinister in our curriculum, I would want it to be removed. If someone wishes to remove material that tells my children as to why they have the identity of being a Pakistani, I would be against any such venture.

Assuming, always, that these are opposing categories. Sadly, they may not be. I reproduce a passage, a reasonable reconstruction from memory, of what a KM once said:

The idea is not mine. It came as a low full toss (in a Facebook group interaction, a couple of years ago) lobbed by a Kashmiri Muslim friend. I quote his exact words: "Muslims have developed this ideology, since I was born a Muslim I will go to heaven irrespective of what I do in this world. And Mangat Ram/Jaipal Singh/Dalai Lama/George Stevens, irrespective of what good they do in this world, will go to hell. Hands down. What CRAP !!! Every KM here can attest, in our school years we were pestered with questions. Will Einstein go to heaven ? And the answer we used to get was NO, because he does not believe in the Kalima. That is not absolutely correct, our generation needs to change our take on that, and give the right answer to our children."

I hope you see the problem. If an exclusivist theology is the basis for your country's existence, you cannot be inclusive at the same time. There is no need to labour the point.

You are in some sense right that the drive is based on insecurity. How can it be not? Just look at our neighborhood!

"...the unkindest cut of them all...."

PDF is a bit of a Pakistan - India circus now, but people like me visited this site to get defense related news and analysis. That in some sense says what sort of thinking we have on PDF. You are already working with a biased sample sir. By trying to correct me what would you accomplish sir?

Did it seem like an attempted correction? I must beg your pardon. It started off as an attempt to counterpose an alternative point of view, one that might make you think and revise your opinions on matters vital to me and my fellow citizens. I don't know where it lost its way.
 
@Joe Shearer, Thanks for your two posts. They are well put together and I enjoyed reading them. I shall pick a few points and share my observations:

1. Your picking on my post is most welcome. In the troll-heavy atmosphere the exchange of ideas gets dumbed down to the level of a street affair. It is most refreshing to have a conversation with someone who is obviously knowledgeable and (more importantly) who knows how to put a point across delicately with mastery of the English language that is rare on this forum.

2. The partition was not inevitable. I for one can not say what would have happened had there been no partition. I have come across different POVs from within Pakistan. An interesting one was that the British purposely encouraged creation of a buffer state that lived up to its purpose during Afghan Jihad against USSR. In any case I do not wish to think of the horror that took place in 1947 and on a lesser level in 1946. Perhaps India is a more cohesive entity than it might have been without partition. Who knows. But within Muslim League there was some flexibility that was shown during Cabinet Mission and w.r.t its plan. I would not have been averse to being called an Indian had the apprehensions of my community been taken into account. But that is history. I just do not wish my children to live through the consequences of perpetual animosity.

3. Regarding the issues of identity, not for nothing is South Asia a sub-continent. Collectively we are too big to be a viable and cohesive country, but if we were to be divided, we would not know where to draw the lines. Pakistan's dilemmas is this: If we are a geographical entity then what marks our borders? What defines our identity if we are an artificial country? There are no easy answers. The standard answer that we are taught is that we are a country based on Islam and it does not matter where the lines are drawn. There is comfort in this answer, and also serious contradictions. Pakistan these days is being challenged by these contradictions.

The distortions and competition between differing visions was rolled aside between 1940 - 1947. When we emerged as a new country, we found that different visions competed with one another without attempting to find an effective formula for coexistence. On one hand were the ideological children of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, exemplified by Ali Garh types and on the other hand were the religious scholars and mullahs who were subdued but were equally adamant. The Muslim religious establishment had gone into survivalist mode post-1857. The mindset was perhaps appropriate for those times, but post-1947 there ought to have been a change. The Ali-Garh types were uncompromising and dismissive of the religious scholars and never attempted to take these people on board to evolve a formula for the new country which would take all stakeholders into account. The Deoband-inspired element came to dominate the religious establishment and with its legacy of anti-imperialism has been asserting itself against the grain of the time and place. TTP of course is seemingly a disgruntled off-shoot of the Deoband mind set. The Taliban in Afghanistan too are similar. Thrown into the mix are the effects of Iranian revolution, Saudi and UAE money and their reactionary Anti-Iran (Anti-Shia) policies. So on top of unresolved paradoxes, we have unbridled sectarianism and proxy wars by our good friends. This is today's Pakistan and we are thinking of how to get things right. In the background of all of this looms the question of identity.

We in Pakistan need space to resolve our various conundrums. If we fail and descend into chaos, the entire region would be destabilized. If we break up into smaller pieces, the effect of balkanization would get to India too. We need India to understand the dangers inherent in Pakistan's instability and its possible effects. Our mutual antagonism has the potential to undo us both. That is why we have one shot at peace and we must get it right. Personally, being a citizen of an independent Punjab would not bother me. What would bother me is the bloodshed that occurs when large countries break.

4. I can not comment upon the quality of Indian text books. From my admittedly limited interactions with educated Indians, I have arrived at an understanding in the light of which I made my observation. Feel free to disagree.

5. Your description of various layers of Indian reaction to Pakistan is well appreciated. We have a somewhat similar make up with some important differences. My following remark is not directed at you sir, and I include it only to contrast our two countries' view of one another. In my experience, often Indians come across as arrogant and dismissive in relation to Pakistan. On the other hand Pakistanis seem to be insecure, reactionary, and defiant. As and when we in Pakistan are able to resolve our current difficult situation, I feel that the sense of insecurity and consequently reaction would be much less.

6. Regarding my observation about liberals, you need not feel aggravated with a perception of hostility. There are two reasons for this. A) On various fora a Pakistani like me comes across so many hostile and hurtful comments and posts that I can not help but be conditioned by it somewhat. I would suggest that you overlook occasional abrasiveness in my posts. I shall appreciate your indulgence. B) I am acutely aware that the rhetoric, actions, and arrogance of Pakistani liberal class drives a reaction from the opposite end of spectrum that shows itself in shape of disenchantment and hostility to our society. While on surface the liberals are eloquent, educated, concerned about the degradation of our society, in reality their actions and words feed insecurity and reaction. When a small elite wishes drag a conservative society towards liberalism, reaction is to be expected. So, we have a situation where ordinary Pakistanis like myself feel sandwiched between Anvil of aggressive liberalism and the hammer of militant conservatives.

What is the point of it all? What end do we wish to achieve? If liberals wish to affect a rapprochement, then they need to see how their actions are impacting upon the chances of a process which is inevitable in any case? I see trends in place and forces naturally at work that would compel India and Pakistan to improve their relations. To me, liberals are secondary in this process. They are in position to improve the process if they are truly wise; and scuttle it if they are aggressive.

7. The happenings in 1999 were not quoted in reference to India being in a position to trump Pakistan. I referred to it in order to show the futility of a rushed process. In today's scenario, if Pakistan wishes to hasten the process, Indians can easily maneuver themselves into an advantageous position. It is just the stage of the process which is super critical for Pakistan. If you wish me to quote a process in which Pakistan came out smarting, then I shall point to Indus Basin Treaty, which effectively gave away all the water of three Eastern rivers of Punjab without ensuring a guarantee of required minimum flow into Pakistan from Ravi, Sutlej, and Beas. We have felt and continue to feel acutely the environmental effects.

8. I am not a historian. I just like to read about History. The history of genesis and unfolding of Pakistan movement is important to us. I do not feel like I have to elucidate as to why it is important. It ties into our identity - I hope you appreciate this much. If not, then let us leave this subject.

9. You are right about exclusivist theology not encouraging inclusivity. However, the matter of Islam being exclusivist is debatable with benefit of the doubt hanging in the balance. Second, despite leaving a lot of room for improvement, there is an idea of rights and obligations. I keenly feel the effects of past fascist practice upon today's problems. But we can only hope for the better without being entirely dismissive. After all my study of Islam's theology tells me that fascism of Indian Muslim kings of Turkish origin had little to do with Islam.

Too much preoccupation about who did what to whom and how does little to solve today's problems if we do not have the self-motivated drive. History is an impossibly large canvas. And just as you say :"Iss Hamam main sub nangay hain".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What I learned about Partition
By Shivam Vij
Published: July 4, 2013

The writer is a journalist in Delhi. His work has appeared in The Christian Science Monitor, The New York Times International Weekly, The Friday Times, Rediff, Hindustan Times, among other publications. He is a member of the South Asian team blog Kafila.org and tweets @DilliDurAst

Pakistani students have to read a course called Pakistan Studies; there is no such thing as “India Studies” in India. The burden of teaching Indian students about Indian identity thus falls on history, geography and civics textbooks.

I had to wait till college to satiate my curiosity about Partition because the history textbooks in school told me so little about it, such as that Jinnah was the villain of the event and so on. I was thus surprised that India’s new history textbooks for Class 12 (last year in school) that were made in 2005, spend 29 pages on Partition.

So, what is the new narrative? The chapter begins not with politics but three short oral testimonies written by an unnamed Indian historian doing research in Lahore in 1992.

In the first one, our man asks the librarian of the Punjab University library why he is so helpful to him. The librarian explains that the Indian was from Jammu, where an old Hindu woman had saved his father’s life during Partition violence. The librarian said he was repaying that debt. In the second story, a former staffer of the Pakistan High Commission in Delhi tells the Indian about asking a Sikh man in Delhi for directions. Then, the man introduced himself as Iqbal Ahmed from Lahore. At this, Sardarji exclaims, “Stop! Stop!” Mr Ahmed thought he’d be stabbed, but got a hug instead. It’s been years since I met a Punjabi Musalman, Sardarji explained.

The romance of these two stories is brought in check by the third one, in which the Indian researcher meets a Pakistani who goes cold and stops being cordial upon discovering he was talking to an Indian. Do your work and go back soon, he says, “You can never be ours. Your people wiped out my entire village in 1947.”

I’m startled to see that a government textbook has progressed so much that it begins talking about Partition with oral narratives, that too from 1992 and not 1947. In one go, it has told 17-year-olds the importance of oral history, introduced them to the idea of Partition as a continuing event and showed them how their own family narratives about Partition have a mirror image across the border. The chapter’s last four pages discuss oral history and its limitations in understanding the past.

Now, the chapter moves to a discussion on whether Partition can be compared with the Holocaust, and its impact on Hindu-Muslim and India-Pakistan relations. This is followed by questions, exploring the reasons behind Partition. This begins with a mild rebuttal of the two-nation theory and talks about Britain’s divide-and-rule policy, hardening of communal identities, prominently mentions the role played by the Arya Samaj and the Hindu Mahasabha, goes through the history of electoral politics between the Muslim League and the Congress, tells about the Lucknow Pact, the Pakistan Resolution, the growth of the RSS and so on. Most importantly, it avoids certitude and mentions what “some scholars” say and what “others argue”. This is not how I was taught history in school. It gives due space to describing how Jinnah saw something or how some event was taken by the Muslim League. The not-so-curious gap is the actual Partition negotiations, about which Pakistani nationalists and Indian right-wingers agree that the Congress’s obstinacy is to be blamed for Partition. It instead presents Partition as a fait accompli to the violence of the Muslim League’s Direct Action Day on August 16, 1946. It quotes Gandhi as “a voice in the wilderness” in opposing Partition. I wonder if students that young will question that if Gandhi’s was a lone voice against Partition, what were Nehru and Patel doing? Did they acquiesce to Partition and why?

It spends more space talking about what women went through during Partition; showing again how Gandhi’s was a lone effort in trying to stop the bloodbath, discusses how Partition was felt by north Indian Muslims as compared with those in Punjab and Bengal, and urges students to read Saadat Hasan Manto. Even if another government changes this text around one of these days, a whole generation of Indians will have learnt about Partition in the most progressive way possible in an Indian government textbook. You can read the chapter online.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top Bottom