Jump to content

Talk:Pakistani textbooks controversy

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

Historical revisionism (negationism)

[edit]

I have split this this article from the main article Historical revisionism (negationism). I do not know if any part of it is true or even relevant. I do not think the that it needs inclusion on the Historical revisionism article if the subject does not even have its own article. I you do not like this you are free to propose it for deletion or what ever. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sections

[edit]

I did my best to split the article into section which was definitely required. But I didn't alter the text because of my lack of familiarity with the subject and the sources. The last section I named "Current situtation" unfortunately seems to be more of a "Miscellaneous" section while some parts of the history section are better off elsewhere (that is to say, not really about the past but more of a general statement). I believe however, that by adding the sections, the article already looks much more attractive to read and to edit, which can only be a good thing. GizzaTalk © 10:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Studies Curriculum

[edit]

The following text belongs to this article but was placed on Pakistan Studies Curriculum. I'm putting it here so that some one can add this without duplications to this article (I guess its already added here):

Curriculum issues

[edit]

The variable political history of Pakistan shows the country being ruled alternately by the civilian and military leaderships. This lack of political succession has had its effects on the way the history was depicted in the curricula of Pakistan Studies until 2006, which increasingly portrayed what Rubina Saigol termed as 'glorification of military'.[1] However, the occasional attempts to alter the historical texts did not escape criticisms from the academics and scholars in Pakistan and abroad.[2] Historian Ayesha Jalal in her 1995 article also raised concerns over the trends of official historiography in Pakistan's history textbooks. [3] Yvette Rosser, in an article based on her PhD thesis,[4] regards such curriculum as a composite of patriotic discourses. She identifies significant defects, inherent contradictions and inaccurate information within educational syllabus in general and the Pakistan Studies textbooks in particular.[5] In 2003, Sustainable Development Policy Institute in Pakistan published a report that had emerged from a survey of text books of Urdu, English, Social Studies and Civics subjects being taught at the secondary and higher secondary school levels.[6] The survey identified inaccuracies of fact and omissions that appeared to distort the significance of actual events in the country's history. Some of the prominent issues included the lack of understanding towards the civil society, religious diversity, and gender relations. The report recommended for major structural reforms and establishment of a National Education Advisory Board to centralise the curriculum development and carry out regular revisions.[7] About the international perception of the subject, Burzine Waghmar of the School of Oriental and African Studies argues that Pakistan Studies is increasingly perceived with sonorous sessions on weapons control, civil unrest, bonded labour, gender inequality and the like.[8] These issues are considered among major hurdles to the wider international interest in the subject. Waghmar concludes that Pakistan and India, among other oriental societies, are plagued by visceral nationalism and post-imperial neurosis where state-sanctioned dogmas suppress eclectic historical readings.[8]

According to the Sustainable Development Policy Institute report 'Associated with the insistence on the Ideology of Pakistan has been an essential component of hate against India and the Hindus. For the upholders of the Ideology of Pakistan, the existence of Pakistan is defined only in relation to Hindus, and hence the Hindus have to be painted as negatively as possible'[6] A 2005 report by the National Commission for Justice and Peace a non profit organization in Pakistan, found that Pakistan Studies textbooks in Pakistan have been used to articulate the hatred that Pakistani policy-makers have attempted to inculcate towards the Hindus. 'Vituperative animosities legitimise military and autocratic rule, nurturing a siege mentality. Pakistan Studies textbooks are an active site to represent India as a hostile neighbour' the report stated. 'The story of Pakistan’s past is intentionally written to be distinct from, and often in direct contrast with, interpretations of history found in India. From the government-issued textbooks, students are taught that Hindus are backward and superstitious.' Further the report stated 'Textbooks reflect intentional obfuscation. Today’s students, citizens of Pakistan and its future leaders are the victims of these partial truths'.[9][10][11][12]

An editorial in Pakistan's oldest newspaper Dawn commenting on a report in The Guardian on Pakistani Textbooks noted 'By propagating concepts such as jihad, the inferiority of non-Muslims, India’s ingrained enmity with Pakistan, etc., the textbook board publications used by all government schools promote a mindset that is bigoted and obscurantist. Since there are more children studying in these schools than in madrassahs the damage done is greater. '[13][14] According to the historian Professor Mubarak Ali, textbook reform in Pakistan began with the introduction of Pakistan Studies and Islamic studies by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in 1971 into the national curriculum as compulsory subject. Former military dictator Gen Zia-ul-Haq under a general drive towards Islamization, started the process of historical revisionism in earnest and exploited this initiative. 'The Pakistani establishment taught their children right from the beginning that this state was built on the basis of religion – that's why they don't have tolerance for other religions and want to wipe-out all of them.'[14][15]

According to Pervez Hoodbhoy, a physics professor at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad, the "Islamizing" of Pakistan's schools began in 1976 when an act of parliament required all government and private schools (except those teaching the British O-levels from Grade 9) to follow a curriculum that includes learning outcomes for the federally approved Grade 5 social studies class such as: 'Acknowledge and identify forces that may be working against Pakistan,' 'Make speeches on Jihad,' 'Collect pictures of policemen, soldiers, and national guards,' and 'India's evil designs against Pakistan.'[16]

Referring to NCERT's extensive review of textbooks in India in 2004, Verghese considered the erosion of plural and democratic values in textbooks in India, and the distortion of history in Pakistan to imply the need for coordination between Bangladeshi, Indian, and Pakistani historians to produce a composite history of the Subcontinent as a common South Asian reader.[17]

However, international scholars also warn that any attempt for educational reforms under international pressure or market demands should not overlook the specific expectations of the people at local levels.[18]

00:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Saigol, R. (1995). Knowledge and Identity – Articulation of Gender in Educational Discourse in Pakistan. ASR. Lahore.
  2. ^ Hoodbhoy, P.A. and Nayyar, A.H. (1985). Rewriting the History of Pakistan. In A. Khan (ed.) Islam, Politics and the State: The Pakistan Experience. Zed Books. London. pp. 164–177.
  3. ^ Jalal, A. (1995). Conjuring Pakistan: History as Official Imagining. International Journal of Middle East Studies. 27(1). pp. 73–89.
  4. ^ Rosser, Y.C. (2003). Curriculum as Destiny: Forging National Identity in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. PhD dissertation. The University of Texas at Austin. August. Retrieved on 6 June 2008.
  5. ^ Rosser, Y.C. (2005). Cognitive Dissonance in Pakistan Studies Textbooks: Educational Practices of an Islamic State. Journal of Islamic State Practices in International Law. 1(2). pp. 4–15
  6. ^ a b Nayyar, A.H. and Salim, A. (eds.)(2003). The subtle Subversion: A report on Curricula and Textbooks in Pakistan. Report of the project A Civil Society Initiative in Curricula and Textbooks Reform. Sustainable Development Policy Institute, Islamabad.
  7. ^ Nayyar and Salim (2003). pp. ix–xi
  8. ^ a b Waghmar, B. (2005). Pakistan Studies: The State of the Craft. Dawn. 27 February. p. 5. Retrieved on 9 June 2008.
  9. ^ Hate mongering worries minorities, Daily Times (Pakistan), 2006-04-25
  10. ^ In Pakistan's Public Schools, Jihad Still Part of Lesson Plan – The Muslim nation's public school texts still promote hatred and jihad, reformers say. By Paul Watson, Times Staff Writer; August 18, 2005; Los Angeles Times. 4 Page article online Retrieved on 02 January 2010
  11. ^ Primers Of Hate – History or biology, Pakistani students get anti-India lessons in all their textbooks; 'Hindu, Enemy Of Islam' – These are extracts from government-sponsored textbooks approved by the National Curriculum Wing of the Federal Ministry of Education. By AMIR MIR; Oct 10, 2005; Outlook India Magazine Retrieved on 02 January 2010
  12. ^ Noor's cure: A contrast in views; by Arindam Banerji; July 16, 2003; Rediff India Abroad Retrieved on 02 January 2010
  13. ^ Curriculum of hatred, Dawn (newspaper), 2009-05-20
  14. ^ a b ‘School texts spreading more extremism than seminaries’ By Our Special Correspondent; Tuesday, 19 May 2009; Dawn Newspaper. Retrieved 01 January 2010
  15. ^ The threat of Pakistan's revisionist texts, The Guardian, 2009-05-18
  16. ^ Pakistan: Do school texts fuel bias?, Christian Science Monitor, 2009-01-21
  17. ^ Verghese, B.G. (2004). Myth and hate as history. The Hindu. 23 June. Retrieved on 7 June 2008.
  18. ^ Nelson, M.J. (2006). Muslims, Markets, and the Meaning of ‘A Good Education’ in Pakistan. Asian Survey. 46(5). pp. 699–720.

Can we get back to textbooks?

[edit]

Winged Blades of Godric, This is going in the direction of WP:COATRACK. Can we get back to talking about textbooks? It is still not clear to me, from this article, what textbooks we are talking about and what their problems are. There is a lot of polemic and more polemic. Your addition is making it even worse, I am afraid. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the current version is pathetic (and my rough addition from another article further compounded it). I am writing the article off-wiki. Also, I did not receive the ping. ∯WBGconverse 05:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will though note that the contrast of Zia's regime with Bhutto's is necessary in the background. The extent of differential treatment of the two is one of the primary prisms, through which the ideological distortion in textbook-history is noted by multiple academics. ∯WBGconverse 10:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

List of useful refs

[edit]

Bookku (talk) 12:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion Article doesn’t constitute valid source.

[edit]

User:Bookku reverted a change I made removing an uncited line. The line seems to originate from an opinion piece in the Guardian. I am adding this context back to the line, but I will not remove it entirely. Multienderguy37 (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Multienderguy37, Thanks for discussing on the talk page.
Whether the opinion piece and the information there in is WP:Due or not, can be deliberated separately, no issues.
Please help us understand, When you agree the line is given in the Guardian, how and why you are claiming that line as uncited? Do you mean the Guardian piece is not citing source or who said it or some thing or you mean some thing else. Understanding this will help reduce chances of misunderstanding. (Because I reverted primarily since your edit summary claimed that to be uncited while the line was there in the Guardian)
Bookku (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The quote, the source and due or not?

[edit]

As said in above section your reply above would remain important and helpful to avoid misunderstandings. I agree that quote needs to be attributed. Let us move on to your next point.

In general I would agree that the article deserves update with much available academic and latest reliable media sources. Said that, as explained below in point 'A' and point 'B' the Guardian is a reliable source and usually opinions in reliable sources are considered in Wikipedia on case to case basis. Moreover it is backed up by Maleeha Lodhi's article attributing the said quote to Professor Mubarak Ali. And usually in Wikipedia academic opinions are considered valuable and encyclopedic. And that is how the quote seems to have landed in Wikipedia articles. Still I have taken initiative to confirm the quote @ humanities reference desk (Pl. help confirm author of the quote and source, if different)


A: The quote in question :
A: The quote in question:

The Pakistani establishment taught their children right from the beginning that this state was built on the basis of religion – that's why they don't have tolerance for other religions and want to wipe-out all of them. The logical conclusion of this line of thinking is a very narrow definition of who a real Pakistani and real Muslim is. Once minorities are out of the picture, they turn on other sects.

Up til now above quote seems primarily sourced from this Guardian's article by Afnan Khan. From previous paragraph in the Guardian the quote is most likely to be of Professor Mubarak Ali. To consider so there is one more reason that prominent Pakistani journalist and diplomat Maleeha Lodhi has taken note of the Guardian article by writing a special article in the Dawn and she too attributed the quote to Professor Mubarak Ali.
B: The case of opeds :
B: The case of opeds

Though many Wikipedians are found to be apprehensive of opinion pieces as WP:GREL and WP:NEWSORG indicates; In practice opinions from reliable media sources are considered positively, besides far from expressly banned as per WP:SECONDARY policy

.. A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. ..

.. all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. ..

  • WP:REPUTABLE : Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.

We can wait for responses at Humanities reference desk for couple of days and then take the discussion ahead as required. Bookku (talk) 08:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Content within Sections

[edit]

Some content can be placed in already existing sections without the need to make a new one. Some topics are fairly short and fit in the sections that are already made. Zalewo (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pakistani_textbooks_controversy&oldid=1250473427"