The murder of history in Pakistan

[DaRk WaVe]

Just wanted to start this thread and let people know about a great book by K.K.Aziz plus Kill the myths and absurd false glorification of Pakistan's miserable historical moments and the way our Text books have been systematically distorted.

Myths, fables and lies: The murder of history in Pakistan​

KK Aziz’s seminal study, ‘The Murder of History’ is essential to understand what went wrong inPakistan. The most worrying sign of an insecure and fissured polity is when it reinvents, twists and lies about its history especially relating to its genesis and progress. K K Aziz was not an Indiannationalist, nor a screaming ideologue who wanted Pakistan to fritter away. In fact his early work The Making of Pakistanremains an essential reading on how Pakistan came into being. He believed in Pakistan despite his emotional links to the separated eastern part of the Punjab. However, at the zenith of his career he could not conceal his deep anguish and disappointment with the way ‘History’ in his beloved country had turned into sham-narratives comprising fables, myths and outright deceit.

Three brutal realities by the end of Zia era were clear: Pakistan’s military-bureaucracy complex had reinvented an ideological state based on a sectarian worldview; History was an instrument of propagating this ideology; and the jihad factories were flourishing. Jinnah’s Pakistan had been irreversibly shattered and perhaps destroyed. For K K Aziz’s generation this was nothing short of a great betrayal.

Published in the early 1990s, ‘The Murder of History’ for the first time documented a meticulous analysis of the history books taught in Pakistani schools and colleges. The book revolves around the main argument that History and Pakistan Studies curricula was nothing more political propaganda aimed at indoctrinating young minds through half-truths and blatant falsehoods.In this study, Aziz scrutinized over 65 textbooks, which have been promoting prejudice, xenophobia and discrimination in our young children (who have grown up now). According to the Aziz, the publication of suchtextbooks was the responsibility of the provincial textbook boards but the National Review Committee of the Federal Education Ministry had appropriated the role of approving the ‘ideological’ content.

Aziz starts with how the Pakistan movement is disfigured. How lies about Jinnah are perpetrated (for instance about his education, leanings etc.) and how military rule and wars are glorified that too without credible facts. The most incisive part pertains to the events of 1971. Aziz questions this obviously false account found in one of the textbooks: “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 EastPakistan, 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, mentions Maulana Maudoodi among the “founders of the ideology of Pakistan”, when in fact the right-wing leader bitterly opposed the creation of Pakistan

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. Zia ensured that an unconstitutional overthrow of Bhutto’s government was due to an ‘un-Islamic system’. Little wonder, Al-Qaeda and its partners are busy telling us why democracy should be rejected in the Islamic Pakistan. The greatest lie as detected by 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 also records major omissions and makes a robust effort to correct them in the later chapters. The last parts of the book analyse the impact of such chicanery on the students and on the nation at large: Assuming that three students come from one nuclear home, we have at least eight million households where these books are in daily use … Eight million homes amount to eight million parents (father plus mother), not counting other family members… In this way the nonsense written in the books is conveyed to another sixteen million persons.

After reading Murder , one is left distressed with the unethical principles that the governments and thetextbook boards follow while preparing textbooks. This is not just a matter of school curricula as Aziz rather presciently argues: 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.

The rot has already set in. Popular media and generations raised on lies are now a formidable reality of our national discourse. Sections of print media and some TV anchors churn out such half-truths on a daily basis. Above all, the youth (as noted by many surveys) are confused about their identity with an ingrained anti-India sentiment and a vague sense of Pan-Islamic identity.

A decade and a half later when Musharraf tried to reform the curricula his attempts were foiled by powerful ideologues within the Establishment and very soon he lost the will to drive this reform. When the Aga Khan Foundation took the initiative in Karachi, the Mullahs threatened and roared. The current PPP government’s education policy makes no concrete commitment to the textbooks. Aziz’s last line remains relevant: “Is anybody listening?”

Pakistan’s existential battle is inextricably linked to the poison of these textbooks. Without a concerted effort to purge our curricula of xenophobia, jingoism and Islamo-fascism, we are simply doomed. The political elites have a small window of opportunity. If they are not going to forge a consensus on textbooks’ reform, their relevance in the long term remains uncertain. This is why K K Aziz’s legacy is formidable and needs to be reiterated every now and then.

Raza Rumi is a writer and policy expert based in Lahore. He blogs at Jahane Rumi - Raza Rumi's website. Email: razarumi@**********

 

[Jango]

The textbooks have got a little better now (as compared to the past), especially the federal courses, but still some way to go.

 

[R-DB]

The most incisive part pertains to the events of 1971. Aziz questions this obviously false account found in one of the textbooks: “In the 1971 war, the Pakistan armed forces created new records of bravery, and the Indian forces were defeated everywhere.”

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/curren...72-murder-history-pakistan.html#ixzz1vzKPHgA2

This is what we have been listening from every pakistani not only on pdf but on other platforms like FB.
This shows how pakistanis are deeply brainwashed.

 

[Jango]

This is what we have been listening from every pakistani not only on pdf but on other platforms like FB.
This shows how pakistanis are deeply brainwashed.

I wouldn't call it brainwashed, but some people do get biased. Some exceptional cases do happen of bravery though.

 

[R-DB]

I wouldn't call it brainwashed, but some people do get biased. Some exceptional cases do happen of bravery though.

The day pakistanis stop listening ppl like hamid gul and search about their history correctly then from that day pakistan will improve

 

[Saleem]

bhutto was lecherous treacherous tyrant who never did an honest days work in his life----he used Ayubs martial law to launch his career ----sabotaged simla, sold east pakistan to india, converted the cease fire line to LOC thus taking the fist steps towards destroyed kashmirs struggle for freedom---as for Zia bhutto promoted him out of turn in the expectation that zia would condone his barbarous ways---but got his just desserts------ask anyone who knows aobut his era ----the FSF were not boy scouts-----ask what he did with pirzada's family-----when you worship scum like that family ---no wonder the state is in such a mess....

 

[Perceptron]

One should actually read "India : A study in profile" by the principal architect in the Gang of Four on Kargil, Lt-Col Javed Hassan. The book is an exercise of brainwashing the highest levels of the Mullah-military alliance existing in Pakistan. An excerpt from there

India had a "poor track record at projection of its power beyond its frontier" and its performance in "protecting its own freedom and sovereignty" was hopeless. This resulted from the weakness of the 'Hindu' character. If one was forced to do it, then the most appropriate, albeit over-simplified summarisation of the key traits of the Hindu would be as "presumptuous, persistent and devious".Hindu India would fragment because of the historic character weaknesses of Hindus; Islam, however, would protect Pakistan because the Pakistani character was shaped by the religion of its people, not their ethnic and racial origins.

The rot in murdering history and spreading deception not only exists in the textbooks but also in the highest levels of Armed Forces in Pakistan.

 

[Jango]

Another side to propagating false history is that people now view ZAB and BB as angels, who did everything right for Pakistan, and were the best thing to happen to Pakistan. Which is far from the truth.

 

[DaRk WaVe]

Murder of History(Part 1)​

In the last 64 years, a lot of wrong Information has been passed on as “facts” by our textbooks and Media. In this article, I have mentioned some of the most popular myths about Pakistan History and tried to debunk them using authentic sources. I should admit that this is a beginner’s effort, I don’t claim to possess absolute knowledge nor do I claim that whatever I have mentioned is absolutely true. My basic aim is to provide an alternate discourse on the below-mentioned issues.
1. The 1857 War of Independence was in fact a mutiny.

It was no more than a localized uprising in some parts of India.Surendra Nath Sen, in his book Eighteen Fifty Seven(Calcutta,1958) says “Outside Oudh and Shahbad there are no evidences of that general sympathy which would invest the Mutiny with the dignity of a national war”. R.C Majumdar, in his book The Sepoy Mutiny and the Revolt of 1857(Calcutta, 1963) declares that “it cannot be regarded as a national rising, far less a war of independence, which it never professed to be”.

Reference:- KK Aziz, Murder of History;Sang-e-meel Publishers; Chapter 2; p149

2. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan was the Pioneer of two nation theory.

This myth has been propogated ad nauseum since Sir Syed’s death. The origins of this myth can be traced back to Molvi Abdul Haq. He based his claims on parts of a single speech made by Sir Syed in 1884 during his visit to Punjab.(Reference:- Zia-ud-din Lahori, Aasar e Sir Syed, Page 127,128). Iqbal Ali, in his book “Sir Syed ka Safarnama e Punjab” quotes Sir Syed as “ Of the word “nation”, I mean both Hindus and Muslims. That is how I define Nation. It does not matter what their religious belief is because we can not see it and what we see is that despite us being Hindu or Muslim, we are governed by the same rulers, we benefit from the same sources, we suffer from droughts equally. That is why I define the people living in Hindustan as Hindus.” On Page 139 of the same book, Sir Syed is quoted as “I do not think Hinduism is a religion, rather any one can call himself Hindu. Thus, it pains me today that despite living in India, I can not call myself a Hindu”. In an essay written by Sir Syed which was published in Aligarh Institute Gazzette on 12 June 1897, he wrote, “We have been living together for centuries now. We eat the same food, the same water, breathe in the same air. Thus, Hinuds and Muslims are not different. As the Aryans were called Hindus, Muslims can also be called Hindus because they live in Hindustan”.

References via Professor Amjad Ali Shakir, “Do Qaumi Nazriya, Ek Tarikhi Jaiza”, Jamiat publishers; 2007; Chapter 1; Pages 44-52

3. Allama Iqbal was the first person to present an idea of an Independent Muslim state.

This Narrative has been used in textbooks and media for long. We should consider that a lot of schemes for division of India were presented by different personalities between 1857 A.D to 1940 A.D. KK Aziz wrote, “ Exactly 64 such suggestions, vague or definite, were made between 24 June 1858 and 31 December 1929. Twenty-eight Muslims had made such proposals before Iqbal’s address.(in 1930)”. (Khursheed Kamal Aziz, The Murder of History : A Critique of History Textbooks used in Pakistan; Sang-e-meel Publications;Chapter 2; Page 165).
The earliest suggestion was given by John Bright, Member of the British Parliament representing Durham. On the 4th of June 1858, while participating in a discussion in the British Parliament, he suggested that India be divided into five or six large presidencies with complete autonomy, ultimately becoming Independent States. In December 1877, he reiterated that He “is seeing several independent and sovereign states in India when British withdrawal had been affected.”Justice Javed Iqbal(son of Allama Iqbal) wrote in his book Zinda-Rood(biography of Iqbal), that “At Victoria Station, a recent convert to Islam, Khalid received him and presented him a collection of speeches of John Bright. Khalid requested Iqbal to read the book before attending the Round Table Conference. John Bright was the person who, in 1858, had said that India will have to be divided into at least five Independent states when the British leave India. According to Amjad Ali, Iqbal spent the night reading that book”. (Justice® Javed Iqbal, Zainda Rood;Page 451 and 574). Hasan Jaafer Zaidi, in his essay identified a certain Lahore-based Newspaper which started propogating this myth back in 1945-1946. Mr Mohammad Ali Jinnah in an interview given to Beverly Nicholas(author of “Verdict on India”), on 11th January, 1944 in Bombay referred to John Bright’s speech delivered on June 4, 1858 . (We are a Nation, Excerpts from speeches of Quaid-i-Azam; page 60)

Murder of History(Part 1) | Pak Tea House

Murder of History (Part 2)

1.Mohammad Ali Jinah was never arrested in his life.

Mr Mohammad Ali Jinnah, popularly known as Quaid-i-Azam, was a brilliant Barrister and Politician. It is often said that unlike other Indian political leaders(Gandhi, Nehru, Abu-al-Kalam Azad, Subhash Chandra Bose, Molana Shaukat Ali etc) he was never arrested in his life.

Actually, Jinnah was arrested just once in his life – for disorderly behaviour while at the 1893 Oxford–Cambridge boat race. (Stanley Wolpert, Jinnah of Pakistan, Oxford University Press, New York, 1984,p. 13). Incidentally, it was another muslim leader that was not arrested even once in his life,Sir Mohammad Iqbal(also known as Allama Iqbal).

2. The establishment of Pakistan as envisaged by 1940 resolution was favored by all the muslim leaders.

The Lahore Resolution declared: ‘the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in the majority, as in the north-western and eastern zones of India should be grouped to constitute “Independent States” in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign’. The resolution plainly indicated a desire for ‘Independent States’ and not one independent state. Some leading Bengali Muslims were highly conscious of the distinction. Speaking in Lahore, for example, the Bengali nationalist and future Pakistani prime minister, Husain Shaheed Suhrawardy, made it quite clear that: ‘Each of the provinces in the Muslim majority areas should be accepted as a sovereign state and each province should be given the right to choose its future Constitution or enter into a commonwealth with a neighbouring province or provinces.’ (K. K. Aziz, The Making of Pakistan: A Study in Nationalism, Sang-e-Meel Publications, Lahore, 1998, p. 56.) A senior Bengali Muslim League official, Abul Hashim, objected that the demand for a united Pakistan amounted to an amendment of the Lahore Resolution. He was ruled out of order. When Abul Hashim made his complaint, Jinnah, the lawyer, could see the problem clearly enough but his first attempt to get around it was feeble in the extreme. He suggested that the letter ‘s’ after the word ‘State’ in the Lahore Resolution was a typographical error. When Liaquat Ali Khan produced the original minutes of the meeting Jinnah had to concede that he was wrong and that the word ‘States’ was indeed in the original text. (Anwar Dil and Afia Dil, Bengali Language Movement to Bangladesh, Ferozons, Lahore, 2000, p. 62.) In May 1954, A.K Fazlul Haq(who had originally presented the Lahore Resolution in 1940) caused havoc among the politicians and bureaucrats in Karachi by telling two foreign correspondents that he favoured the independence of East Pakistan. (Anwar Dil and Afia Dil, Bengali Language Movement to Bangladesh, Ferozons, Lahore, 2000, page 92). Even Mr Jinnah, in one of his speeches made in April 1941 said, “Let me tell you as clearly as I can possibly define it that the goal of the All-India Musim League is this: We want the establishment of completely independent states in the North West and Eastern Zones of India, with full control of defence, foreign affairs, customs, currency etc.” (Fatima Jinnah, My Brother; 1987; Chapter 1; Page 8 and 9)

3. Pakistan was made in the name of Islam.

(Note:- This claim can never be definitely proved or disproved. We have heard countless arguments in its favor courtesy our textbooks and Nawai-Waqt, following is an alternative view on this topic.)

This claim has been repeated by different parties and group for their own vested interests since the creation of Pakistan. Hasan Jaafar Zaidi and Zahid Chohdary in Volume 2 of their book, Pakistan Kesay Bana, suggest that the claim “Paksitan will be a laboratory for Islamic system” is not true. They argue that had it been the case, the first Law Minister of Pakistan appointed by Mr Mohammad Ali Jinnah would not have been a Hindu(Jogindhar Nath Manal). They also argue that of all the legislative assembly sessions that Mr Jinnah presided over,none except one was started with Tilawat from Quran. Mr Jinnah also chaged the oath for Governor General and the words that he omitted included “God may help me”.(Pakistan Kesay Bana, Zahid Choudary and Hasan Jaafer Zaidi; Nigarishat Publishers; Volume 2;Pages 624-629) Speaking to the Muslim League Legislator’s Session, the Quaid said that Pakistan was not going to be a theocratic state. He said that though the religion played an important role but tehre were other aspects which were vital for a nation’s existence.(The Nation’s Voice, Volume 4; Pages 611-616)(Civil and Military Gazette, April 11,1946). On the other hand, founder of the party that later claimed that Pakistan was formed as a Labarotary of Islamic System(JI) was strongly against formation of Pakistan. He wrote an article in Nawai-Waqt newspaper, on 1st May 1946, named “A solution for the current Crisis gripping India” in which he advocated formation of a federation of nations living in India(International Federation were his exact words). Interesting to note is that there was a note from the editorial board that appeared before the article stating that they strongly disagree with Mr Maududi’s “solution”.(Pakistan Kesay Bana, Zahid Choudary and Hasan Jaafer Zaidi; Nigarishat Publishers; Volume 2;Pages 637-638)

Murder of History Part III​

For people who constantly ask WHO is responsible for altering the history of this country, Please Do read K.K.Aziz’s book for the answers. I.H.Qureshi and Dr.Safdar, both historians, played a major role in the distortion.


1. Mujahidin had gone to conquer Kashmir in 1948.

The first war between newly-independent Pakistan and India happened in 1948 A.D in Kashmir Valley. It is postulated that the prime objective of Mujahideen(mostly from NWFP) was the liberation of Kashmir. Actually,when they reached near Sri Nagar, they forgot their “objective” and started criminal activities. Regarding this, Owen Bennet Jones in his book writes, “At this crucial juncture, when Kashmir was ready for the taking, Pakistan paid the price of the haphazard nature of its operations in Kashmir. Rather than striking forward, the tribesmen became distracted by the opportunities for plunder. Their increasingly lawless conduct had a disastrous consequence. The local Muslim population, rather than seeing them as liberators, began to fear them and, far from providing help to the tribesmen, turned against them. These developments and the bad international press Pakistan was receiving as a result of the invasion dismayed the government in Karachi. Officials not only disowned the tribesmen but also obstructed them. (Owen Bennet Jones, Pakistan:Eye of the storm, Yale University Press; 2002; Chapter 3; page 65) Sherbaz Khan Mazari, a seventeen year-old tribal leader from Balochistan who tried to take some men to join in the fighting, later recounted that when he tried to enter Kashmir, ‘I was stopped by Pakistani officials who told me in clear cut terms that I would not be allowed to cross into Kashmir. It became clear that they thought we were intent on partaking in the plunder that was taking place.’ (Sherbaz Khan Mazari, A Journey to Disillusionment, Oxford University Press,Karachi, 2000, pp. 11 and 12.)

2. Our Ancestors arrived from Arabian Peninsula.

This claim has been made by the Ghairat Brigade since long. They have tried to downplay the linkages that we have with our subcontinental ancestors and tried via popular media and textbooks to somehow prove that our ancestors were not people living in the Subcontinent for thousands of years rather they came from the Arabian Peninsula.
A look at the genealogies of two of our founding fathers i.e Jinnah and Iqbal tells us that Mr. Jinnah belonged to a Sindhi family that had migrated to Gujarat.(Akbar S Ahmad, Jinnah, Pakistan and Islamic Identity; Routledge, 1997; Chapter 1,page 1 ) while Iqbal belonged to a Kashmiri Sheikh family. Also, there was a considerable population consisting of Jatts and Gujjars before Islam came to our part of the world. Most of us are descendents of those early converts. The people most likely to have come down from Arabia are the Syeds who claim to be direct descendents from the Prophet (PBUH). Interestingly, in a research conduted by University College London, Y chromosomes of self-identified Syeds from the Indian subcontinent show evidence of elevated Arab ancestry but not of a recent common patrilineal origin For more on the castes of our country, visit this page.

3. Sheikh Mujib ur Rehman and his Awami league wanted to break the country.

In its report on the events of 1971, the Hamood-ur-Rehman Commission argued that: ‘We must give full weight to the fact that before the elections he[Mujib] offered the Council Muslim League and the Jamaat-e-Islami a number of seats in East Pakistan which would have still permitted him to obtain the majority of the East Pakistan seats but not to have a clear majority in the whole house. Quite clearly his purpose was to be able to play the role of the leader of the largest single party without being under pressure for (sic) members of his own party to go through with the Six Point programme on the basis of an overall majority in the house. This fact clearly established that Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, at that time at least, had not decided on secession’. (Hamoodur Rehman Commission Report, part I, chapter VI, para. 96; Dawn; 13 January 2001; page 21)

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Its good that historians/writers like K.K. Aziz are possessed with the intellectual integrity to rationally analyse the plethora of information and misinformation that floats around masquerading as facts. That will help a great deal in allowing the average (thinking) citizen to moor the ship of his knowledge to secure bollards of truth.

Raza Rumi is undoubtedly a credit to the intelligentsia of Pakistan and one of the shinning stars of PTH (Pakistan Tea House). More power to his pen!

 

[zip]

Brain Surgery was already happened ..few decades will be required to make it look like natural .. In two or three decades pakistan will be completely arabised leaving no trace of original culture .. The critical resistance period is already over and there is no returning .. One only can wish them best of luck

 

[SQ8]

The book is a great read.. and an eye opener for the sort of lies poured into Pakistani minds since the first dictatorship of Ayub Khan.
You need these lies to keep control over a populous, and make certain institutions seem "god-gifted" and untouchable.
Thankfully, that is all changing.. even from within these institutions as more educated people join its ranks.

 

[DaRk WaVe]

The textbooks have got a little better now (as compared to the past), especially the federal courses, but still some way to go.

The amendments were approved but they have still not been implemented

Distortion of History in Pakistan -1/3 - YouTube

 

[RazPaK]

Lib Pakis.

enough said.

 

[DaRk WaVe]

Since there was a mention of 1971....

Erasing memory to deal with loss – Pakistan, Bangladesh and India​

For Pakistan, the worst fallout of the 1971 debacle was excessive militarism resulting from the deep insecurity of the state.

Forty years ago, South Asia underwent another traumatic experience with the Bengali separatist movement in East Pakistan, the India-Pakistan war and the eventual creation of Bangladesh. South Asians are a strange lot. In 1947, the political elites refused to accommodate each other and a hurried, bloody Partition was imposed on millions. Instead of working to undo the harmful effects of 1947, India and Pakistan found themselves entangled in yet another battle. Again this time it was the intransigence of West Pakistani elites to accede to the Bengali demand for autonomy, and India's short-sighted decision to momentarily ‘benefit' from its neighbour-enemy's woes. The jury is still out on whether 1947, and 1971, were avoidable or at least could have been handled in a manner that involved less suffering, and bloodshed.

TAILOR-MADE HISTORIES

What has however happened is that three nation states (some say state-nations) now exist with three standing armies, nationalist discourses, honour and of course tailor-made histories.

In Pakistan, a child grows up learning that it was an Indian conspiracy, woven through the Hindu teachers of “East Pakistan” that led to the separatism of the Bangladeshis. For instance, here is a passage from a secondary school textbook: “There were a large number of Hindus in East Pakistan. They had never really accepted Pakistan. A large number of them were teachers in schools and colleges. They continued creating a negative impression among the students. No importance was attached to explaining the ideology of Pakistan to the younger generation. The Hindus sent a substantial part of their earnings to Bharat, thus adversely affecting the economy of the province.”

On the other hand, some textbooks in Bangladesh that I have seen paint Pakistanis as rather unsavoury characters if not complete villains and butchers. They cannot be blamed for this resentment — what a united Pakistan and its civil-military bureaucracy did in East Pakistan was quite unforgivable. I hold the view that India also nurtured the paranoia for generations to come through the Schadenfreude it articulated in 1971; and, talk to any Pakistani and he or she would give you 1971 as the example of utter treachery of the Indian side. This mess makes the task of us peace activists rather insurmountable.

The 1971 human tragedy and subsequent triumph of Bengali nationalism has lessons for all three countries. Most notably for Pakistan, that its remote, centralised governance and negation of ‘local,' multiple identities was not working. However, rather than imbibe the lesson, the Pakistani state and a vast majority of its people have simply ‘erased' the bitter memory and focused on India as the real problem.

The Indian role may partly be true but to focus on it is to create a lop-sided, warped history, of the kind provided in that secondary school textbook. Not surprisingly, a large number of young Pakistanis — the dominant demographic group — are unaware of what really happened in 1971. Perhaps this is how people in Pakistan learnt to deal with the loss and the trauma: by pretending to forget it.

Growing up in post-1971 Pakistan, I too was blissfully unaware until my senior classes. But I was on the privileged side of the country's education apartheid, so I had the opportunity of reading some alternative texts and finding teachers who were not made from the ultranationalist “ideological” mould. However, I could not help notice when I entered Lahore's Government College how indoctrinated my peers were in the dominant narrative.

For them — as a grade 5 book sets it out — the plot was simple: “After the 1965 war, India, with the help of the Hindus living in East Pakistan, instigated the people living there against the people of West Pakistan, and at last in December 1971 herself invaded East Pakistan.” In a classroom, I invited the ire of my teacher by mentioning the excesses made by Pakistani state in East Pakistan.

IN PAKISTAN

The worst fallout of the 1971 debacle was the excessive militarism that emanated from the resultant deep insecurity of the Pakistani state. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's nationalist rhetoric remained anti-Indian, focused on the neighbour's conspiracy to separate East Pakistan from us. By Zia-ul-Haq's time, this rhetoric acquired a deeper dimension. One social studies' textbook line summed it all up thus: “All of us should receive military training and be prepared to fight the enemy.” The enemy was India.

As if the separation of East Pakistan was not sufficient, the U.S. and Saudi-funded ‘jihad' in Afghanistan changed the complexion of Pakistan permanently. It resulted in the complete breakaway from the plural ‘Muslim' country that was Jinnah's vision of Pakistan, a vision for which Bengalis too had struggled. Ironies have multiplied over the decades; the Pakistan project without the Bengalis is almost a new country.

Several of us in Pakistan have been advocating curricula reform. Certainly, reformed textbooks have also appeared, but these books are restricted to the English medium schools. For the rest, the distortions of Bhutto and Zia continue, attempting to recover from the 1971 shock.

Forty years later, it is time for Pakistan to admit that it wronged Bangladeshis. Certain wounds are difficult to heal but an effort can be made. Not just by Pakistan apologising to Bangladesh but also recognising that it must respond to the ongoing struggles in the country's northwest and South; and that increased autonomy strengthens polities.

The 18th Amendment to the Constitution, which the National Assembly adopted in 2010, is a major step in this direction. In a similar vein, India might also introspect a little. As a nation, it also faces several ‘local' upheavals; the use of force in the northeast or in Kashmir may not be the answer.

Dealing with history squarely and honestly will help put the past behind for all three of us in South Asia. Indira Gandhi's notorious remark on the death of two-nation theory in 1971 was more rhetoric than reality. After all, Pakistan survives and Bangladesh exists on the other side. My various trips to Bangladesh have given me the impression that the younger generations have moved on. Yes, they read the 1971 horror tales and their separateness and nationalism vis-à-vis Pakistan (as well as India) is undeniable. Yet, they are far from the event. After two partitions and several wars, perhaps the time has come to move on. In Pakistan for sure, but across South Asia as well.

The Hindu : Opinion / Op-Ed : Erasing memory to deal with loss