Dr. Kazi had published a similar article about myths of history in Pakistan. Here are some the common history myths in Pakistan as narrated by her.
The myth of history
By Prof Shahida Kazi
We, in Pakistan, are a breed apart. Lacking a proper mythology like
most other races, we have created our own, populated by a whole
pantheon of superheroes who have a wide range of heroic exploits to
their credit.
But the difference is that these superheroes, instead of being a
part of a remote and prehistoric period, belong very much to our own
times. A seemingly veritable mythology has been created around these
heroes, their persona and their achievements, which is drummed into
the heads of our children from the time they start going to school.
So deep is this indoctrination that any attempt to uncover the facts
or reveal the truth is considered nothing less than blasphemous.
Here are some of the most common myths:
Myth 1
Our history begins from 712AD, when Mohammad bin Qasim arrived in
the subcontinent and conquered the port of Debal.
Take any social studies or Pakistan studies book, it starts with
Mohammad bin Qasim. What was there before his arrival? Yes, cruel
and despotic Hindu kings like Raja Dahir and the oppressed and
uncivilized populace anxiously waiting for a liberator to free
them from the clutches of such cruel kings. And when the liberator
came, he was welcomed with open arms and the grateful people
converted to Islam en mass.
Did it really happen? This version of our history conveniently
forgets that the area where our country is situated has had a long
and glorious history of 6,000 years. Forget Moenjo Daro. We do not
know enough about it. But recorded history tells us that before
Mohammad Bin Qasim, this area, roughly encompassing Sindh, Punjab
and some parts of the NWFP, was ruled by no less than 12 different
dynasties from different parts of the world, including the Persians
(during the Achamaenian period), the Greeks comprising the
Bactrians, Scthians and Parthians, the Kushanas from China, and the
Huns (of Attila fame) who also came from China, besides a number of
Hindu dynasties including great rulers like Chandragupta Maurya and
Asoka.
During the Gandhara period, this region had the distinction of being
home to one of the biggest and most important universities of the
world at our very own Taxila. We used to be highly civilized, well-
educated, prosperous, creative and economically productive people,
and many countries benefited a lot from us, intellectually as well
as economically. This is something we better not forget. But do we
tell this to our children? No. And so the myth continues from
generation to generation.
Myth 2
Mohammad Bin Qasim came to India to help oppressed widows and orphan
girls.
Because of our blissful ignorance of history, we dont know, or
dont bother to know, that this period was the age of expansion of
the Islamic empire. The Arabs had conquered a large portion of the
world, comprising the entire Middle East, Persia, North Africa and
Spain. Therefore, it defies logic that they would not seek to
conquer India, the land of legendary treasures.
In fact, the Arabs had sent their first expedition to India during
Hazrat Umar Farooqs tenure. A subsequent expedition had come to
Makran during Hazrat Usmans rule. But they had been unsuccessful in
making any in-roads into the region. Later on, following the refusal
of the king to give compensation for the ships captured by pirates
(which incidentally included eight ships full of treasures from Sri
Lanka, and not just women and girls), two expeditions had already
been sent to India, but they proved unsuccessful. It was the third
expedition brought by Mohammad Bin Qasim which succeeded in
capturing Sindh, from Mansura to Multan. However, because of the
Arabs internal dissension and political infighting, Sindh remained
a neglected outpost of the Arab empire, and soon reverted to local
kings.
Myth 3
The myth of the idol-breaker.
Mahmood Ghaznavi, the great son of Islam and idol-breaker par
excellence, took upon himself to destroy idols all over India and
spread Islam in the subcontinent.
Mahmud, who came from neighbouring Ghazni, Central Asia, invaded
India no less than 17 times. But except Punjab, he made no attempt
to conquer any other part of the country or to try and consolidate
his rule over the rest of India. In fact, the only thing that
attracted him was the treasures of India, gold and precious stones,
of which he took care and carried back home a considerable amount
every time he raided the country. Temples in India were a repository
of large amounts of treasure at the time, as were the churches in
Europe, hence his special interest in temples and idols.
Contrary to popular belief, it was not the kings, the Central Asian
sultans who ruled for over 300 years and the Mughals who ruled for
another 300 years, who brought Islam to the subcontinent. That work
was accomplished by the Sufi Sheikhs who came to India mainly to
escape persecution from the fundamentalists back home, and who,
through their high-mindedness, love for humanity, compassion,
tolerance and simple living won the hearts of the people of all
religions.
Myth 4
The myth of the cap-stitcher.
Of all the kings who have ruled the subcontinent, the one singled
out for greatest praise in our text books is Aurangzeb, the last of
the great Mughals. Baber built the empire; Humayun lost it and got
it back; Akbar expanded and consolidated it; Jahangir was known for
his sense of justice; Shahjehan for his magnificent buildings. But
it is Aurangzeb, known as a pious man, who grabs the most attention.
The prevalent myth is that he did not spend money from the treasury
for his personal needs, but fulfilled them by stitching caps and
copying out the Holy Quran. Is there any real need for discussing
this assertion? Anyone who is least bit familiar with the Mughal
lifestyle would know how expensive it was to maintain their dozens
of palaces. The Mughals used to have many wives, children,
courtiers, concubines and slaves who would be present in each
palace, whose needs had to be met. Could such expenses be met by
stitching caps? And even if the king was stitching caps, would
people buy them and use them as ordinary caps? Would they not pay
exorbitant prices for them and keep them as heirlooms? Would a king,
whose focus had to be on military threats surrounding him from all
sides and on the need to save and consolidate a huge empire, have
the time and leisure to sit and stitch caps? Lets not forget that
the person we are referring to as a pious Muslim was the same who
became king after he imprisoned his won father in a cell in his
palace and killed all his brothers to prevent them from taking over
the throne.
Myth 5
It was the Muslims who were responsible for the war of 1857; and it
was the Muslims who bore the brunt of persecution in the aftermath
of the war, while the Hindus were natural collaborators of the
British.
It is true that more Muslim regiments than Hindu rose up against the
British in 1857. But the Hindus also played a major role in the
battle (the courageous Rani of Jhansi is a prime example); and if
Muslim soldiers were inflamed by the rumour that the cartridges were
laced with pig fat, in the case of Hindus, the rumour was that it
was cow fat. And a large number of Muslims remained loyal to the
British to the very end. (The most illustrious of them being Sir
Syed Ahmed Khan.)
Furthermore, the Muslims did not lose their empire after 1857. The
British had already become masters of most of India before that
time, having grasped vast territories from both Hindu and Muslim
rulers through guile and subterfuge.
The Mughal emperor at the time was a ruler in name only; his
jurisdiction did not extend beyond Delhi. After 1857, the Hindus
prospered, because they were clever enough to acquire modern
education, learn the English language, and take to trade and
commerce. The Muslims were only land owners, wedded to the dreams of
the past pomp and glory, and when their lands were taken away, they
were left with nothing; their madressah education and proficiency in
Persian proved to be of no help. As a matter of fact, it was a
hindrance in such changing times.
Myth 6
The Muslims were in the forefront of the struggle against the
British and were singled out for unfair treatment by the latter.
Not at all. In fact, the first gift given to the Muslims by the
British was in 1905 in the form of partition of Bengal (later
revoked in 1911). The Shimla delegation of 1906 has rightly been
called a command performance the Muslims were assured by the
viceroy of separate electorates and weightage as soon as their
leaders asked for them. After that, he Muslim League came into
being, established by pro-British stalwarts like the Aga Khan,
Justice Amir Ali, some other nawabs and feudal lords. And the first
objective of the Muslim League manifesto read: To promote feelings
of loyalty to the British government.
The Muslim League never carried out any agitation against the
British. The only time the Muslims agitated was during the Khilafat
Movement in the early 20s, led by the Ali brothers and other
radical leaders. Not a single Muslim League leader, including the
Quaid-i-Azam, ever went to jail. It was the Congress which continued
the anti-British non-violent and non-cooperation movement in the
30s and 40s, including the famous Quit India
movement, while
Muslim League leaders continued to denounce such movements and
exhorted their followers not to take part in them.
Myth 7
The Muslim League was the only representative body of the Muslims.
It is an incontrovertible fact that it was only after 1940 that the
Muslim League established itself as a popular party among the
Muslims. Prior to that, as evident in the 1937 elections, the Muslim
League did not succeed in forming the government in any of the
Muslim majority provinces. In those elections, out of the total of
482 Muslim seats, the Muslim League won only 103 (less than one-
fourth of the total). Other seats went either to Congress Muslims or
to nationalist parties such as the Punjab Unionist Party, the Sind
Unionist Party and the Krishak Proja Party of Bengal.
Myth 8
Allama Iqbal was the first person to come up with the idea of a
separate Muslim state.
This is one of the most deeply embedded myths in our country and the
one which has been propagated by all governments. In fact, the idea
that Muslim majority provinces of the north-west formed a natural
group and should be considered a single bloc had been mooted by the
British as far back as 1858 and freely discussed in various
newspaper articles and on political platforms. Several variations of
the idea had come from important public personalities, including
British, Muslims and some Hindus. By the time Allama Iqbal gave his
famous speech in 1930, the idea had been put forward at least 64
times. So, Iqbal voiced something which was already there, and was
not an original dream. After his speech at Allahbad was
reported,
Allama Iqbal published a retraction in a British newspaper that
he
had not been talking of a separate Muslim sate, but only of a Muslim
bloc within the Indian federation.
Myth 9
The Pakistan Resolution envisaged a single Muslim state.
The fact is that none of the proposals regarding the Muslim bloc
mooted by different individuals or parties had included East Bengal
in it. The emphasis had always been on north-western provinces,
which shared common frontiers, while other Muslim majority states,
such as Bengal and Hyderabad, were envisaged as separate blocs. So,
it was in the Pakistan Resolution. The resolution reads: The areas
in which the Muslims are numerically in a 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.
Leaving aside the poor and ambiguous drafting of the entire
resolution, the part about states (in plural) is very clear. It was
only in 1946, at a convention of the Muslim League legislators in
Delhi, that the original resolution was amended, which was adopted
at a general Muslim League session and the objective became a single
state.
Myth 10
March 23, 1940 is celebrated because the Pakistan Resolution was
adopted on that day. The fact of the matter is that the Pakistan
Resolution was only introduced on March 23 and was finally adopted
on March 24 (the second and final day of the session).
As to why we celebrate March 23 is another story altogether. The day
was never celebrated before 1956. It was first celebrated that year
as the Republic Day to mark the passage of the first constitution
and Pakistans emergence as a truly independent republic. It had the
same importance for us as January 26 for India. But when Gen Ayub
abrogated the constitution and established martial law in 1958, he
was faced with a dilemma. He could not let the country celebrate a
day commemorating the constitution that he had himself torn apart,
nor could he cancel the celebration altogether. A way-out was found
by keeping the celebration, but giving it another name: the Pakistan
Resolution Day.
Myth 11
It was Ghulam Muhammad who created imbalance of power between the
prime minister and head of state, and it was he who sought to
establish the supremacy of the governor-general over the prime
minister and parliament.
When Pakistan came into being, the British governments India Act of
1935 was adopted as the working constitution. And it was the Quaid-i-
Azam himself who introduced certain amendments to the act to make
the governor-general the supreme authority. It was under these
powers that the Quaid-i-Azam dismissed the government of Dr Khan
Sahib in the NWFP in August 1947 and that of Mr Ayub Khuhro in Sindh
in 1948.
Besides being governor-general, the Quaid-i-Azam also continued as
president of the Muslim League and president of the Constituent
Assembly.
It was these same powers under which Mr Daultanas government was
dismissed in Punjab in 1949 by Khawaja Nazimuddin, who himself was
dismissed as prime minister in 1953 by Ghulam Mohammad.
However, in 1954, a move was started by members of the then
Constituent Assembly to table an amendment to the act, taking away
excessive powers of the governor-general. It was this move which
provoked the governor-general, Ghulam Mohammad, to dismiss the
Constituent Assembly in 1954, and thereby change the course of
Pakistans history.