I have a very little knowledge about Pakistan’s history only the one we read in Pakistani schools “Mutalaaya Pakistan”
And that is indeed sad but since I have Indian friends here too but their version is little bit different of course they know their side of story and we know our side of story.But have you ever thought about how to differentiate between India’s history and Pakistan’s history.
I would love to hear some views on it and see how indian and Pakistani people think?
Re: How much of Indo Pak history is right and how much is mixed?
My opinion: History writing is an important tool in the hands of the Elite by which they create the national Identity. In India's case, the Leadership was mostly secular-socialist. So we find the dominant historical narrative to be Marxist/Socialist. We also have a large diverse country, so the provocative parts of history regarding the conflicts between different communities are often glossed over. Example: You would find very little description of the persecution of Sikhs by successive Mughal rulers. This is to encourage National Unity in the Post-Independence era.
Regarding Pakistan's history, I would rather keep quiet lest it rubs people the wrong way :)
Re: How much of Indo Pak history is right and how much is mixed?
Lotsa stuff is exaggerated. Lotsa stuff is diminished.
Suffice it to say, both versions have egregious phantasms.
I have two dialectical dynamics on this: on the one hand, with the emergence of the religious right in India during the 1990's, history took a decidedly nationalistic turn. Everything from the freedom struggle to local folklore was written to reflect greater nationalist fervour. It wasn't so much misrepresentation per se, as it was selective bias.
On the other hand, with Pakistan's emergence as a nation-state, and the imperative of nation building, history was skewed to inordinate proportions to distance themselves from the 'other'. The distorted narrative of 'one pakistani for ten hindus' for example, was actually perpetrated. It was used to galvanize the nation against a much larger opponent. The 1971 war, I think, proved that better tactics and the logistical advantage win wars.
That sort of 'propaganda' also exists in India. Nevertheless, the fact that we have a large muslim population, who are also courted at elections, means that we cannot distort the other culture in the same way. We may distort Pakistanis, but I think most Indians are aware of the fact that Pakistanis are very similar to North Indians- which incidentally, ironically, and quite plainly, make up the vast bulk of India's population.
As a young boy growing up in Mumbai, I recall how my 8th grade syllabus took a vividly nationalist turn when the BJP took power (the Sena, their ideological primate and political (buffoon) ally was at the helm of the state). My 6th grade syllabus, which provided an introduction to Shivaji's exploits was fairly balanced. The 8th grade syllabus, which went further in depth, took a decidedly selective bias for Shivaji's valorous victories over his nemeses, and tended to make excuses for his defeats. Fortunately, teachers were not so easily fooled and often gave us supplementary information to 'broaden' our horizons.
I think the scope of this topic is so large as to not be able to get anything more than generic answers. Is there any particular topic in history you're interested in, and on which we may contrast Pakistani and Indian positions ?
Cheers,
Ruz
Re: How much of Indo Pak history is right and how much is mixed?
I don't want to comment on Indian history teachings. I do hope that "out of India" theory is not taught in Indian schools!
About Pakistan. I don't like our complete disregard to pre-Islamic era. Most history books start from arrival of Muslims in India, as if all Pakistanis are originally from outside of South Asia.
Another problem I see is that history books put over-emphasis on military jihad over non-Muslims. They make it look very romantic. And these books usually don't give reasons of why those attacks happened. This gives impression that attacking non-Muslims without reason is ok.
One interesting omission from our history books is about Khilafat Movement. Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar is obviously shown as the hero of this movement. But an important fact is ignored that Quaide Azam was a big critic of this movement. Another ignored fact about this movement is that Gandhi was actually a supporter of it, and when Jauhar was jailed then he continued this movement by renaming it to Tehreek e Khilaf (from Tehreek e Khilafat).
So we can see why these two facts are ignored. Ideally, QA should have supported it and Gandhi should have opposed it. But in reality exactly the opposite happened. :)
Re: How much of Indo Pak history is right and how much is mixed?
simple: the Pakistani version is the correct one.
The weaker opinion is always correct
Re: How much of Indo Pak history is right and how much is mixed?
@Ruz
Do you think text books under BJP rule vilified Muslims per se ? Or the Invaders ? Have you read this report about state of Pakistan’s education. Finally, in your opinion the distortions in the two histories are even comparable ?
Re: How much of Indo Pak history is right and how much is mixed?
First of all, you gotta understand: that “Textbooks under BJP rule” are not a monlithic entity. Textbooks varied with the school board, and under the Maharashtra State Board for Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, the Shiv Sena definitely went more gung-ho on historical nationalism when the BJP took the reins.
To your questions, no they did not vilify muslims- as I’ve said is not possible in India because of electoral politics- but they did vilify muslim leaders. Even if they were not invaders.
I’ve already asserted that the kind of debasing that takes place in Pakistan’s history is of a higher level altogether. This is due, in part, due to Pakistan’s ‘nation-creating’ imperative.
Consequently, the ‘distortions’ in history are not comparable. As this line from my previous para will demonstrate: "with Pakistan’s emergence as a nation-state, and the imperative of nation building, history was skewed to inordinate proportions to distance themselves from the ‘other’.
However, let’s not put blinkers on our eyes and say that distortions in India history, as pertains religious nationalism, have never existed. Here is an excerpt from ‘History Textbooks in India: narratives of Religious Nationalism’ by K.N. Panikar:
*“The introduction of new textbooks by the NCERT (under BJP) was inspired by the political purpose of seeking rationale from history for constructing India as a Hindu nation. The textbooks were, therefore, recast as narratives of Hindu religious nationalism. Claimed as an effort to retrieve the true nationalist history from the motivated distortions of colonial historiography they attribute to Indian nation an exclusively Hindu character.”
“During this period the political climate in the country turned in favour of the Hindu fundamentalist forces, which enabled them in 1998 to lead a coalition government in which the Ministry of Human Resource Development which dealt with education was headed by a long standing cadre of the Hindu fundamentalist organization, Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh( RSS). Under his stewardship the government spared no effort to change the content and character of education, of which the introduction of new textbooks, was perhaps the most prominent and indeed controversial.”
“The idea of India being a Hindu civilisational state runs through all the texts, either directly expressed or indirectly suggested. The question of the indigenous origin of Aryans and the identity of Harappan civilization with the Vedic society has some bearing on this issue. The former is quite central to the fundamentalist agenda of claiming the nation as Hindu, as the migration theory would deprive the Hindus of indigenous lineage. Therefore, against the widely held scholarly opinion Aryans are credited with indigenous origins, subscribing in the bargain to the colonial view of Aryan race. In the former case the textbooks put forward the view that the Aryans were indigenous to India and that the opinion widely held by scholars about their migration dismissed as inconsequential. In defense of indigenous origin no substantial evidence is adduced, except negative reasoning. It is asserted that the ‘the oldest surviving records of the Aryans, the Rig Veda, does not give even an inkling of any migration. It does not have any knowledge even of the geography beyond the known boundaries of Ancient India.’ It further says: ‘Many scholars think that the Aryans were originally inhabitants of India and did not come from outside. It has been argued by such scholars that there is no archeological or biological evidence, which could establish the arrival of any new people from outside between 5000 B.C and 800 B.C. This means that if at all there was any migration of Aryans or for that matter of any other people in India, it may have taken place at least eight or nine thousand years ago or after 800 B.C. to both of which there is no evidence. Further, the skeletal remains found from various Harappan sites resemble the skeletons of the modern population of the same geographical area.'”*
Re: How much of Indo Pak history is right and how much is mixed?
Ruz,
It is obvious from the fact that you have referenced from Panikar who is a card carrying member of Marxist historiography that in your view the Marxist narrative of history is "authentic" and "without distortions". IMHO I believe that historiography can't exist without distortions. Each ideology tries to distort history to suit its own ends. In Pakistan the Pan-Islamist Hinduphobic narrative won a long time back and we can find ample evidence of this fact even on this relatively moderate and tolerant board. In India the struggle between of opposing Marxist narrative of jholawallas and RSS narrative of chaddiwallas is still going on( with Marxists being far ahead). Personally I find both the narrative equally despicable.
You referred to the "vilification of Muslim leaders". Are you referring to Mr. Jinnah ? While I can understand the rise of "Muslim leaders" , "Caste leaders",etc . I find the phenomenon of Identity based politics obnoxious and hope (naively) that it withers away in future. Identity politics has been India's bane.
Re: How much of Indo Pak history is right and how much is mixed?
[QUOTE]
your questions, no they did not vilify muslims- as I've said is not possible in India because of electoral politics
[/QUOTE]
Shiv Sena presumably doesn't get any votes from Muslims. So what electoral compulsions force it to continue to not vilify Muslims? After all that would appease the evil fascist Hindus fundamentalists who constitute the core of its electoral base. Wouldn't it ?
Re: How much of Indo Pak history is right and how much is mixed?
Ruz,
It is obvious from the fact that you have referenced from Panikar who is a card carrying member of Marxist historiography that in your view the Marxist narrative of history is "authentic" and "without distortions". IMHO I believe that historiography can't exist without distortions. Each ideology tries to distort history to suit its own ends. In Pakistan the Pan-Islamist Hinduphobic narrative won a long time back and we can find ample evidence of this fact even on this relatively moderate and tolerant board. In India the struggle between of opposing Marxist narrative of jholawallas and RSS narrative of chaddiwallas is still going on( with Marxists being far ahead). Personally I find both the narrative equally despicable.
You referred to the "vilification of Muslim leaders". Are you referring to Mr. Jinnah ? While I can understand the rise of "Muslim leaders" , "Caste leaders",etc . I find the phenomenon of Identity based politics obnoxious and hope (naively) that it withers away in future. Identity politics has been India's bane.
Dronachaarya, I will ask you not to make assumptions about which narrative I subscribe to. I have had the benefit of both a domestic and a foreign education- often on the same subjects - and have been exposed to both analogous and antithetical worldviews.
As for Mr. Pannikar, whatever his ideological leanings, he has played an important role in furthering issues of secularism, democracy and human rights- which are pivotal as founding principles of the Indian Constitution. Besides, it would be a facile ascription to attempt to attribute my conclusion of a religious-based nationalist revival in Indian history to a book. They are based on my experiences.
As well, I think it would be unfair to attirbute the Marxist vs RSS cheddiwala dialectic to all Indian history teaching. History education in Maharashtra, prior to the BJP's taking over, was secular, without the Marxist overtones.
No, I am not referring to Jinnah in my "vilification of Muslim leaders". I am referring to those, that would ordinarily be considered India's "own". Old folks like Akbar for example, who arguably shaped the course of Indian history, over whom the focus skimmed and realigned itself to what his father or son did, often with agitated or immolated undertones. Or even modern stalwarts like Mukhtar Ahmad Ansari, a denizen of the Freeom Movement, who was vilified for his Gandhian leanings. Or Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, who ironically, was chastised for letting his province cede to Pakistan, when he was all in favour of a referendum and subsequent independence.
[QUOTE]
Shiv Sena presumably doesn't get any votes from Muslims. So what electoral compulsions force it to continue to not vilify Muslims? After all that would appease the evil fascist Hindus fundamentalists who constitute the core of its electoral base. Wouldn't it ?
[/QUOTE]
I don't know how much you know of Marathi politics, but the Shiv Sena have several Muslim MLA's. No political party can afford to alienate the Muslim votebank in the bastis, the trading community or the middle class and hope to survive. The Muslims hold the key to how the secular vote si divided, and often in ensuring the victory of the BJP-Shiv Sena alliance. Especially, since they tend to be concentrated in pockets and are the dominant motif in several constituences, particularly in south Mumbai and rural Maharashtra.And are even more important in places like Satara and Aurangabad.
Re: How much of Indo Pak history is right and how much is mixed?
[QUOTE]
Dronachaarya, I will ask you not to make assumptions about which narrative I subscribe to. I have had the benefit of both a domestic and a foreign education- often on the same subjects - and have been exposed to both analogous and antithetical worldviews.
[/QUOTE]
LoL forgive me if I don't share your reverance for Gori universities especially when it comes to matters pertaining to Indian society. Whilst I do respect stalwarts like A L Basham, I have no respect for likes of Thapar, Panikar and their acolytes.
Regarding Indian Muslim leaders, I was unaware of these facts and thank you for enlightening me. But as I pointed out before, I realize the fact that chaddiwaalas *have their own agenda just like *jhollawallas do. I do disagree with your understanding of the term "secular".
[QUOTE]
No political party can afford to alienate the Muslim votebank in the bastis, the trading community or the middle class and hope to survive. The Muslims hold the key to how the secular vote si divided, and often in ensuring the victory of the BJP-Shiv Sena alliance. Especially, since they tend to be concentrated in pockets and are the dominant motif in several constituences, particularly in south Mumbai and rural Maharashtra.And are even more important in places like Satara and Aurangabad.
[/QUOTE]
I am afraid I detect a bit of logical inconsistency of in your argument. As per my understanding, the Minority community in Maharashtra votes en masse to prevent the election of BJP/Shiv Sena candidates. Can you tell me how many Muslim Shiv Sainiks are there in Maharashtra Legislative Assembly? Under such conditions, I really don't understand what prevents Shiv Sena to impose their own agenda ( to vilify Muslims in History text-books). Its not as if they are going to lose any Muslim supporters, because they haven't got any..And why do Hindu fascists still vote for it even after its failure to do so?
Anyways, this is going to be my last post on this thread as I feel we have hijacked it for long enough. Let Pakistanis also discuss thier own history :)
Re: How much of Indo Pak history is right and how much is mixed?
Meri nani mujhe aksar ye kahani sunati hein and mein buhat shok sei sunti hoon:)
Re: How much of Indo Pak history is right and how much is mixed?
Too many long posts in this thread...
anyways i don't know what kind of propaganda they teach in indian schools but as for pakistani schools what irks me is that we were taught that none of the muslim conquerers/kings/rulers had no faults they never did anything wrong and whatever they did was right and according to God's will... where as the reality is quite different.
Re: How much of Indo Pak history is right and how much is mixed?
Dronachaarya, you make several assumptions that underlie your posts. The fact that I have received an education abroad, does not mean that I studied Indian history at ‘Gori universities’, whatever the heck that means.
To put it plainly, my ‘studying in Unis abroad’ has meant that I have had a greater access to literature and books, including on history by Indian authors and foreign authors alike, that I would not necessarily have at a campus in India.
You’re welcome. You may “disagree” with my understanding of the word ‘secular’; but my understanding of the word ‘secular’ is based on what has been practiced in India by-and-large, in the last half-century. The accepted interpretation tends to be more towards ‘respect for all religions’ (Sarva dharma sambhava) rather than the much desired ‘indifference or neutrality to religion’ (Dharma nirpeksha). I am aware of the metaphysical argument this comment makes: that ’ ‘either one religion is true or none of them is true; All cannot be true at the same time.’ In effect however, by the accepted definition of ‘secular’ in the Constitution, it is making an argument that is: value pluralistic, has a Hindu foundation and discourages skepticism.
I am afraid I detect several logical and cognitive fallacies in your thinking. First of all, I never meant that the Muslim community in Maharashtra “votes en masse to prevent the election of BJP/Shiv Sena candidates”. A proper reading of the post will, in fact, tell you that the Muslim community votes in such a manner as to split the secular vote, so that the Congress, which banks high on the minority vote in these areas, can never win or has little chance of winning in several ridings. You do know that the Mumbai district Corporation is currently under the Shiv Sena.
I couldn’t give you a figure as to how many of the 2677 (as of 2009) corporators in the Mumbai Mahanagar Palika are of Muslim origin, other than to say several. My own corporator for the Juhu region is Christian, by the name of Adolf D’Souza. He was independent before, and is now Shiv Sena.
http://mumbaivotes.com/politicians/105/
Of the 46 seats currently occupied by the Shiv Sena in the Vidhan Sabha, none are muslim. However, in the 2009 regional elections, there were three muslim candidates that contested seats for parliamentary constituencies under their banner, and who did not win.
All of this is not to defend the Shiv Sena. It is to demonstrate that, given the preponderance of Muslim votes in several constituencies, the Shiv Sena cannot adopt a categorically anti-Muslim stance in their local or regional elections, as they could for example an anti-Bihari or anti-UP stance, against poor northies that are scattered across several bastis.
However, this is not to say that they cannot adopt an overtly proto-Hindu nationalist or pro-Hindu nationalist agenda, minified to within regional boundaries- as ironic as that may sounds- after coming to power- as indeed they did do with history textbooks, state nomenclature and local politics after the 1995 Municipal elections. Many of their MLAs have got blinkers on, or choose to ignore the party’s communal leanings, for their own personal gain. This offers a typical example:
However the point still remains, that within and after the electoral process and incumbency, engaging in overt communal politics is a NO NO for them, as it is for any other regional or state political party, because of the preponderance of the minority votes. That does not stop them however from pursuing more subtle agendas of religious-based nationalism, as in party politics and school history textbooks.