Jump to content

Talk:A Short History of Pakistan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pakistani Ethnocentrism?

[edit]

The refs cited to "Pacific Affairs have" no article nos, or volume nos. The information needs to be verified as the cited sentences look extremely unscholarly and full of intensely racist and derogatory statements, typical to Pakistani Ethnocentrism, which I would not expect out of the scholars. If they are attributed to living people then admin action will be necessary. For now, I ask User:Islescape to provide detailed citations for my checking. Rumpelstiltskin223 23:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation links added.--IsleScapeTalk 11:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what I meant. I meant provide article no and volume no. The links only work with people who have jstor subscription. I do not and have to use other means to get the articles. I can get them from the local library bu more information is needed. I request you to at least provide detailed information here in the talk page. Thaa Rumpelstiltskin223 11:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OKay, I managed to find the Lehmann paper through my neighbor's subscription. The paper is titled:

"Reviewed Work(s): A Short History of Pakistan. Book Three: The Mughul Empire. by Sh. A. Rashid; I. H. Qureshi Fritz Lehmann Pacific Affairs, Vol. 41, No. 4. (Winter, 1968-1969), pp. 644-645."

Your statement "Assessent of the Marathas, for example, while unsympathetic is fair to the facts", using Lehmann as the citation, is false. The word "Maratha" is not even mentioned in the entire papercorrection I found it, apologies. I will get the other papers and comment on them shortly. Rumpelstiltskin223 11:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, your statement: "It needs further analysis whether the Hindu officials of the Bengal Nawwabs conspired with the East India Company because they were Hindus or because, like Muslim officials, they were simply greedy" is claimed to be supported by the following source:

Ahmed, A., Pacific Affairs, University of British Columbia, pp. 645-647, 1968

Presumably you mean this paper:


Reviewed Work(s): A Short History of Pakistan. Book Four: Alien Rule and the Rise of Muslim Nationalism. by A. Rahim; M. D. Chughtai; W. Zaman; A. Hamid; I. H. Qureshi Aziz Ahmad Pacific Affairs, Vol. 41, No. 4. (Winter, 1968-1969), pp. 645-647.

I am afraid you have mis-cited this one. This paper is highly critical of Rahim's analysis and points to clear-cut anti-Hindu biases in the book, confirming my suspicions. For instance, an excerpt clearly reads: "This is merely the lesser weakness of Rahim's historical presentation. The historical narrative consists of two sets of characters, villains and victims, with the villains invariable being the British and Hindus and Muslims being the victims". It goes on further to criticize this entire volume as extremely biased, so we have a clear case of mis-citation. Rumpelstiltskin223 12:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


It is also necessary to change the language to attributive rather then assertive for the sake of accuracy.

Criticism

[edit]

Based on the paper by Aziz Ahmed reviewing the book, I have placed a criticism section. I will add more as I read these refs of yours. Thaa. Rumpelstiltskin223 12:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the heat of argument, you managed to remove Calkins citation. I must add that this critcism is your personal opinion mixed with handbpicked phrases from citation. There is no mention of Anti-Hindu bias there. In fact what Aziz refers in the quotations you mentioned above is more national bias than relgious. --IsleScapeTalk 12:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He portrays Hindus as implacably bad, and the peer-reviewer's criticism mentions this trend. That is obviously anti-Hindu on the part of the volume's author. The tone of the peer-reviewer's criticism is reflected quite adequately in this article, plus the nationalistic stuff is also mentioned. Rumpelstiltskin223 12:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for mistakenly removing the citation. I have restored it. Rumpelstiltskin223 13:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, i totally agree with you about nationalist rather than religious. This is why I have not written that the book is Islamic Fundamentalist but Pakistani nationalism (which is mentioned in the reviews verbatim) and "Hindus" and "Muslims" here are referred to as "communities" rather then adherents of religions (in the same way that Jinnah interpreted the terms). Rumpelstiltskin223 13:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your understanding Rumpelstiltskin223. I have merged the crticisms into the analyses becasue they are both from the same sources. Also removed some of apparently personal comments not relevant to the book.--IsleScapeTalk 20:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Whitewash'?

[edit]

Please note that I made several changes that removed red-flag opinion adjectives and brought phrasing more closely in line with the direct quotes. This is not, by any definition, a whitewash. Hornplease 22:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Short_History_of_Pakistan&oldid=1204401820"