Why our textbooks should include Ranjit Singh

[RazPaK]

Its quite simple if you like......

lets say you want your readers know the ENTIRE historical fact and tales..and let the readers decide who was the hero and who was the evil.....in India as far as i know..we dont make any king or emperor hero , just because he was Hindu or Mulsim (infact we dont care about that fact,and only see them as Indian kings)...the entire story is depicted and its easy to judge for the students/readers who was who and how was he chractered.... whereas in pakistan, the history books are made to serve the ourpose of islam(and that where most of the readers miss the entire story)...a hindu king is either not mentioned, or is never shown in a good colours inspite of the fact that they were the son of the soil..where as the invaders who came from other places were shown as hero because they were muslims....the best would have been to just tell them the entire hostorical facts and let the Pakistan students decide themselves, whom they should consider their hero...they have just learnt the edited historical facts.

Some people would be opposed to the invasion, while others would welcome it. It would have depended upon the political situation at the time and religion had not so much to do with it, as most Indians like to think.

 

[GURU DUTT]

Depends on what school you attend and what their curriculum focuses on. In Universities everything is fair play. Many of you Indians don't even know that most of the Islamic invaders had hindu advisors. Or that Ranjit Singh had muslim brothers.

unlike some countries in india its either CBSE or ICSCE board or at uni level its more op less same

 

[Manas]

The question still lies why kids of PakistaN don't read about non muslims kings like Ranjit Singh ??

 

[Mirza Jatt]

Some people would be opposed to the invasion, while others would welcome it. It would have depended upon the political situation at the time and religion had not so much to do with it, as most Indians like to think.

well..I think its vry much related to religion. let me explain how..

1. history is history..whatever happened in the past must be mentioned...thats not he case with history books in pakistan...they kept the fact in mind that they were pakistanis after partition so Indian history is not worth mentioning in the books...thats where the readres are deprived of the historical facts of the land they come from...they now just know the facts of the soil hey got transfred to.

2.why only mughal emperors coming from outside of India is shown in good colours..I'll tel you why because they were working on spreading islam...see religion comes again.

 

[RazPaK]

well..I think its vry much related to religion. let me explain how..

1. history is history..whatever happened in the past must be mentioned...thats not he case with history books in pakistan...they kept the fact in mind that they were pakistanis after partition so Indian history is not worth mentioning in the books...thats where the readres are deprived of the historical facts of the land they come from...they now just know the facts of the soil hey got transfred to.

2.why only mughal emperors coming from outside of India is shown in good colours..I'll tel you why because they were working on spreading islam...see religion comes again.

What about Akhbar and what he did? You'll find some Pakistanis approved of his actions and others did not. It was more politics than religion and that's my point.

 

[RajputWarrior]

What about Akhbar and what he did? You'll find some Pakistanis approved of his actions and others did not. It was more politics than religion and that's my point.

It's a bit of both IMO, it's not what you learned but what you didn't learn. The fact that you can agree and disagree with Akbar's ruling only describes further the biases of pakistani textbooks.

 

[GURU DUTT]

What about Akhbar and what he did? You'll find some Pakistanis approved of his actions and others did not. It was more politics than religion and that's my point.

unlike most pakistanies we indians dont live in past(glories & vengence)

 

[kingkobra]

What about Akhbar and what he did? You'll find some Pakistanis approved of his actions and others did not. It was more politics than religion and that's my point.

In the siege of Chittor when Akbar killed 30,000 civilian, unarmed residents of Chittor, because they refused to convert to Islam, this left a lasting impression on Maharana Pratap's mind and he decided he cannot bow to such an unjust and cruel human being as Akbar was..

 

[Mirza Jatt]

What about Akhbar and what he did? You'll find some Pakistanis approved of his actions and others did not. It was more politics than religion and that's my point.

i dont know how akbar is shown inyour history books ?? wether bad or good. bu am sure he is mentioned there..and i know why..i told you why..cause he is a muslim leader.

on your point that some like akhbar and some not..then I think thats great..thats what i am talking about..let the readers decide themselves, who was bad and who was goood by reading about evrything and everyone from the past..the ntire story....why enforce them to read what you want them to read...by just mentioning about indianmuslim rulers and not hindu kings and rulers who were more historical than even the mughals....you read about the fist history of the land i.e harappan civilisation and then you skip the hindu kings like ashoka and mauryas and then jump to the mughal rulers..why skip those periods where the rulers were Hindus ??

I agree it was politics..but what was the politics about in that time buddy ?? in your country the politics was based on religion while the books were published...the very base of the creatin of Pakistan is religion...thats why you refused to share Indian land, indian name and ofcourse Indian history ..isnt it ?? and thatsmy point.

 

[RazPaK]

unlike most pakistanies we indians dont live in past(glories & vengence)

I can explain this to you in a simple way. Most Pakistanis and Indians fed off Nationalistic dogma after the atrocities that both parties suffered from the partition. It's been going on for 64 years until now.

 

[HZR2011]

i think 1 Pak. Soldier = 5-10 Hindus part is deleted after 71'. Wait for time being, other corrections will also see the sun.

yea that part was deleted after 1971,but may be Let and Islamic extremists still have saved that part and are teaching in madrassahs and send them to kashmir and u know wat happens to those people who try to cross border...

 

[Don Jaguar]

Why are we deviating from the topic and trying to find the egg came first or the chicken?

I think the contemporary issue holds more importance,and that is the topic of discussion here.
There has been abstraction of history of non-Muslim people living in the land which is presently Pakistan.Is it because that was irrelevant,or its a part of a systematic abstraction.Is it the correct version of history what is being taught in Pakistan?

By,the 5 pages down the line,and still no Pakistani is able to answer my question,"Who are the prominent historical figures mentioned in history books of Pakistan,that took part in struggle for independence against the British?"

Cmon,you all learned people have read your history,now give me the answer to the question.

Quaid-e-azam muhammad ali jinnah, Allama iqbal, maulana muhammad ali jauhar, nawab mohsin-ul-mulk, nawab waqar-ul-mulk, sir syed ahmed khan, liaquat ali khan, mohandas karamchand gandhi, jawaharlal nehru, Abul Kalam Azad and many others but i remember only these right now.

 

[RazPaK]

i dont know how akbar is shown inyour history books ?? wether bad or good. bu am sure he is mentioned there..and i know why..i told you why..cause he is a muslim leader.

on your point that some like akhbar and some not..then I think thats great..thats what i am talking about..let the readers decide themselves, who was bad and who was goood by reading about evrything and everyone from the past..the ntire story....why enforce them to read what you want them to read...by just mentioning about indianmuslim rulers and not hindu kings and rulers who were more historical than even the mughals....you read about the fist history of the land i.e harappan civilisation and then you skip the hindu kings like ashoka and mauryas and then jump to the mughal rulers..why skip those periods where the rulers were Hindus ??

I agree it was politics..but what was the politics about in that time buddy ?? in your country the politics was based on religion while the books were published...the very base of the creatin of Pakistan is religion...thats why you refused to share Indian land, indian name and ofcourse Indian history ..isnt it ?? and thatsmy point.

I understand where you are coming from, but how can you say Pakistanis only read about the Mughals? Who did the Mughals interact with and why? These questions are discussed within classrooms. I am no history major, but it's unfair to say that we Pakistanis don't acknowledge our history.

 

[RajputWarrior]

I understand where you are coming from, but how can you say Pakistanis only read about the Mughals? Who did the Mughals interact with and why? These questions are discussed within classrooms. I am no history major, but it's unfair to say that we Pakistanis don't acknowledge our history.

Off topic but do you have an ebook of a pakistani textbook? Or even a scanned page?

 

[RazPaK]

yea that part was deleted after 1971,but may be Let and Islamic extremists still have saved that part and are teaching in madrassahs and send them to kashmir and u know wat happens to those people who try to cross border...

You are an idiot. The place to go for knowledge about 100 years ago was the great madrassa of Dehli, and also AliGarh Muslim university.

---------- Post added at 05:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:36 AM ----------

Do you have an ebook of a pakistani textbook? Or even a scanned page?

No, sorry. However, what your asking is kind of silly. There is no particular history book standardized for every school in the country.