Do Pak textbooks build a hate culture against India?

[robincrusoe]

Originally Posted by AgNoStIc MuSliM

Nonetheless, there is plenty of evidence that 'hate' towards Pakistan exists amongst some Indians, as does 'hate' towards India amongst some Pakistanis. So if India's textbooks are indeed completely 'objective', then the textbooks alone are not the primary cause of this animosity.

There is no doubt plenty of hate on both sides but you need to differentiate where this hate coming from.

In Pakistan, from an early age students are taught hatred against ethnic minorities and other nations and distorted history, not according to me but according to SDPI of your own country. An intercept from that analysis posted by sha123:

Our analysis found that some of the most significant problems in the current curricula and textbooks

*Inaccuracies of fact and omissions that serve to substantially distort the nature and significance of actual events in our history.
* Insensitivity to the existing religious diversity of the nation
*Incitement to militancy and violence, including encouragement of Jehad and
Shahadat
* Perspectives that encourage prejudice, bigotry and discrimination towards fellow citizens, especially women and religious minorities, and other towards nations.
* A glorification of war and the use of force
* Omission of concepts, events and material that could encourage critical selfawareness among students

Apart from this, hatred towards India also stems from the fact that India has liberated Bangladesh from Pakistan and kashmir issue.

On the other hand, hatred in India against Pakistan stems more from the fact that Pakistan is working against the Indian interests such as Kashmiri militancy, 1993 bomb blasts, Kargil etc. But you will never see any teachings in the text books against any religion (which we are taught as all religions and gods are equal) and hardly any mention of Pakistan apart from Independence related events.

So it is for you to see this differences between the hatred towards each other and underlying reasons.

[must7]

There is no doubt plenty of hate on both sides but you need to differentiate where this hate coming from.

In Pakistan, from an early age students are taught hatred against ethnic minorities and other nations and distorted history, not according to me but according to SDPI of your own country. An intercept from that analysis posted by sha123:

That's the point which all Indian posters seem to be blined by .. refer to my earlier post # 46 :-

That’s where I am coming up to .. That if really what you claim was there in our text books than why we have much less hate ? Why again I question, when USA is bombing us .. we are not having anti-conversion laws, we are not having nuns being raped, we are not having daily killing of our Christians ?

Why if you claim that hate is not preached in your text book than why you have this much of hatred & we even after being bombed daily don’t have.

Also you claim that Pakistan is teaching hatred, but neither myself who has studied from Pakistan nor our children who still study in Pakistan ever having this hatred.

In fact to put you correctly, we believe that Christians are our co-believers and we can marry amongst themselves including they called “Ahlay Kitab”.

I also realize that you have no reply to your anti-conversion laws nor rape & killings of Christian minority due to hatred towards their religion ?

& the crux of the issue lies in the following which Anogstic Muslim has also picked up :-

Quote:

Also you claim that Pakistan is teaching hatred, but neither myself who has studied from Pakistan nor our children who still study in Pakistan ever having this hatred.

Exactly my experience as well.

The 'intolerance' (if it can be called that) is more along the lines of a sense of superiority of faith. By that I mean that Muslims believe their faith is the 'one true faith', and that only through Islam is salvation possible. But that view is one that almost all religions push, and what many religious parents (of any faith) would teach - so to argue that by pushing the primacy of Islam one is 'inculcating hate' is a disingenuous argument in the context of a 'State brainwashing its children to hate'.

[roopesh]

Sorry folks to divert the topic..but lot of things discussed upon BJP and RSS ideology on histry here. So my comments..... Congress wanted to promote a Indian histry which really starts after Independence. All the histry work before independence are not done by indians, instead its done by british media. BJP or HSS doesnt accept that India is a nation which started in 1947. Becouse we have lot of histry before that and much before british too. We have built the tradition and culture over centuries that we didnt want to forget. Even there was a opposition to call Gandhi as FATHER OF THE NATION. RSS demanded to call him as GREAT SON OF THE NATION. He cant be father of the nation as the nation didnt start with him. But no doubt his contributions are great great. No doubt in that. So what ever histry done is doenst have facts. The nationlist patriactics who didnt had good relation with congress are supressed as congress ruled all these years. Subhash Chandra Bose, Bhagath Singh, Sangolli Rayanna kind of leaders are sidelined in histry. Congress started projecting Ambedkar name after his death to get dalit votes..He got bharat award recently..many years after his death. ..so goes on....

India is a country with 1 billion ppl. There will be rapes, thefts etc basic level of crimes around the clock. One who rapes does he care is that gal is muslim or hindu or whoever....Pakistan ppl shouldnt worry or care of these individual cases as long govt is taking action.

But I appriciate your feedback on Indian govt policies. Not the common man /group attitude. Just google it Hindu situation in pakistan. BBC has big reports ...So what it matters is whats govt action on those. Not the case itself.

[Communist]

Originally Posted by linkinpark

Pak textbooks build hate culture against India

27 Dec 2008, 0239 hrs IST, ARIF MOHAMMED KHAN


The empowerment of terror in Pakistan has not happened overnight. This is the logical culmination of the politics and policies pursued by Pakistan for years now.

Terrorism in Pakistan has its roots in the culture of hate and the ethos of inequality on the ground of religious faith, leading to their being deeply ingrained in the Pakistani psyche and mindset.

One factor that has played a crucial role in creating this culture of hate is the educational policy of the government of Pakistan pursued since 1977. The officially prescribed textbooks, especially for school students, are full of references that promote hate against India in general, and Hindus in particular.

A cursory glance at Pakistani school textbooks - especially the compulsory subjects like Pakistan studies and social studies - gives an idea of how history has been distorted and a garbled version prescribed to build this mindset and attitude.

The objective of Pakistan's education policy has been defined thus in the preface to a Class 6 book: "Social studies have been given special importance in educational policy so that Pakistan's basic ideology assumes the shape of a way of life, its practical enforcement is assured, the concept of social uniformity adopts a practical form and the whole personality of the individual is developed." This statement leaves no doubt that "social uniformity", not national unity, is a part of Pakistan's basic ideology.

The Class 5 book has this original discovery about Hindu help to bring British rule to India: "The British had the objective to take over India and to achieve this, they made Hindus join them and Hindus were very glad to side with the British. After capturing the subcontinent, the British began on the one hand the loot of all things produced in this area, and on the other, in conjunction with Hindus, to greatly suppress the Muslims."

The Std VIII book says, "Their (Muslim saints) teachings dispelled many superstitions of the Hindus and reformed their bad practices. Thereby Hindu religion of the olden times came to an end."

On Indo-Pak wars, the books give detailed descriptions and openly eulogize ‘jihad' and ‘shahadat' and urge students to become ‘mujahids' and martyrs and leave no room for future friendship and cordial relations with India.

According to a Class 5 book, "In 1965, the Pakistani army conquered several areas of India, and when India was on the point of being defeated, she requested the United Nations to arrange a ceasefire. After 1965, India, with the help of Hindus living in East Pakistan, instigated the people living there against the people of West Pakistan, and finally invaded East Pakistan in December 1971. The conspiracy resulted in the separation of East Pakistan from us. All of us should receive military training and be prepared to fight the enemy."

The book prescribed for higher secondary students makes no mention of the uprising in East Pakistan in 1971 or the surrender by more than 90,000 Pakistani soldiers. Instead, it claims, "In the 1971 India-Pakistan war, the Pakistan armed forces created new records of bravery and the Indian forces were defeated everywhere."

The students of Class 3 are taught that "Muhammad Ali (Jinnah) felt that Hindus wanted to make Muslims their slaves and since he hated slavery, he left the Congress". At another place it says, "The Congress was actually a party of Hindus. Muslims felt that after getting freedom, Hindus would make them their slaves."

And this great historic discovery is taught to Std V students, "Previously, India was part of Pakistan."

Commenting on this literature that spreads hate, leading Pakistani educationist Tariq Rahman wrote, "It is a fact that the textbooks cannot mention Hindus without calling them cunning, scheming, deceptive or something equally insulting. Students are taught and made to believe that Pakistan needs strong and aggressive policies against India or else Pakistan will be annihilated by it."

"The British had the objective to take over India and to achieve this, they made Hindus join them and Hindus were very glad to side with the British. After capturing the subcontinent, the British began on the one hand the loot of all things produced in this area, and on the other, in conjunction with Hindus, to greatly suppress the Muslims."

"Their (Muslim saints) teachings dispelled many superstitions of the Hindus and reformed their bad practices....."

"....After 1965, India, with the help of Hindus living in East Pakistan, instigated the people living there against the people of West Pakistan, and finally invaded East Pakistan in December 1971. The conspiracy resulted in the separation of East Pakistan from us. All of us should receive military training and be prepared to fight the enemy."

"Muhammad Ali (Jinnah) felt that Hindus wanted to make Muslims their slaves and since he hated slavery, he left the Congress". At another place it says, "The Congress was actually a party of Hindus. Muslims felt that after getting freedom, Hindus would make them their slaves."


These points are historically true and none, whether a Pakistani or an indian, can deny them. By the way, in indian text books a lot of offensive myths are written. Muslim rulers right from the Sultanate period up to the end of the Mughaliya Hukumat are called foreign barbaric invaders who are untouchable or mlechchas and also this period is falsely branded as dark barbaric medieval Islamic period. Mughal emperor Akbar is the only exception, other Sultani or Mughal rulers are falsely accused as torturers, hindu killers and temple destroyers. But as a matter of fact, if had they really wanted to do that, today no temple would have been there in india and also hindus would have never been a majority population. Yes, many people were converted to Islam, but they were so-called low caste shudras and other ethnic minorities and they went for conversion to escape from the brahmin-rajput combined hindu repression. Hindus are really so cunning that they use a good public relation (bollywood is one of the instruments) to convince people and falsely project a masked good image.

[AgNoStIc MuSliM]

On the other hand, hatred in India against Pakistan stems more from the fact that Pakistan is working against the Indian interests such as Kashmiri militancy, 1993 bomb blasts, Kargil etc. But you will never see any teachings in the text books against any religion (which we are taught as all religions and gods are equal) and hardly any mention of Pakistan apart from Independence related events.

So it is for you to see this differences between the hatred towards each other and underlying reasons.

Pakistan is a Muslim state, and has moved towards being a moderate Islamic state, so the emphasis on Islam is always going to be there. I would argue that the points mentioned by Communist are relevant in that what he states is an implicit denigration of Muslims in how the history of Muslim rule is presented.

Second, while to you the part in bold about Kashmir, bomb blasts etc may seem innocuous, to me it comes across as blatantly feeding the Indian people propaganda and lies. That so many Indians parrot the lie that 'Kashmir is an integral part of India' when the UNSC resolutions clearly indicate its disputed status, and outline the means of the resolution of the dispute, the peoples will, is indicative of the 'brainwashing' to facilitate a crime that has gone on in India.

To try and connect every evil in India to Pakistan is merely a continuation of lies and distortions to malign Pakistan and inculcate hate for her. So I do not see how promoting disrespect for the UN charter and glorifying India's violations of her commitments under the Instrument of accession (Plebiscite) and the UNSC resolutions, is imbuing young Indians with positive and peaceful attributes.

Both nations have their skeletons, and both have their flaws, but this gratuitous and sanctimonious rhetoric from Indians that somehow (of course) the Pakistani flaws are 'the worst', and the root of the problem is (of course, as always) in Pakistan, is sickening.

This attitude is in fact a continuation, and another example, of the mind warp successive Indian governments have programmed into the heads of Indians - just blame Pakistan, everythign is her fault.

We have our flaws, you have yours - the attitudes of many on both sides could do with a change, so stick to fixing that which is broken in your own house instead of barging into ours with accusations.

[Vinod2070]

Originally Posted by Communist

"The British had the objective to take over India and to achieve this, they made Hindus join them and Hindus were very glad to side with the British. After capturing the subcontinent, the British began on the one hand the loot of all things produced in this area, and on the other, in conjunction with Hindus, to greatly suppress the Muslims."

"Their (Muslim saints) teachings dispelled many superstitions of the Hindus and reformed their bad practices....."

"....After 1965, India, with the help of Hindus living in East Pakistan, instigated the people living there against the people of West Pakistan, and finally invaded East Pakistan in December 1971. The conspiracy resulted in the separation of East Pakistan from us. All of us should receive military training and be prepared to fight the enemy."

"Muhammad Ali (Jinnah) felt that Hindus wanted to make Muslims their slaves and since he hated slavery, he left the Congress". At another place it says, "The Congress was actually a party of Hindus. Muslims felt that after getting freedom, Hindus would make them their slaves."


These points are historically true and none, whether a Pakistani or an indian, can deny them. By the way, in indian text books a lot of offensive myths are written. Muslim rulers right from the Sultanate period up to the end of the Mughaliya Hukumat are called foreign barbaric invaders who are untouchable or mlechchas and also this period is falsely branded as dark barbaric medieval Islamic period. Mughal emperor Akbar is the only exception, other Sultani or Mughal rulers are falsely accused as torturers, hindu killers and temple destroyers. But as a matter of fact, if had they really wanted to do that, today no temple would have been there in india and also hindus would have never been a majority population. Yes, many people were converted to Islam, but they were so-called low caste shudras and other ethnic minorities and they went for conversion to escape from the brahmin-rajput combined hindu repression. Hindus are really so cunning that they use a good public relation (bollywood is one of the instruments) to convince people and falsely project a masked good image.

None of this is a fact. The fact is that it was the Muslim league that never fought or even opposed the British. The Hindus were as much if not more involved in the struggle against the British rule right from the first independence movement in 1857.

Here is a good post written by a Pakistani author to separate the fact from the fiction that you hold so dear.

Originally Posted by Flintlock

The myth of history



By Prof Shahida Kazi


History is a discipline that has never been taken seriously by anyone in Pakistan. As a result, the subject has been distorted in such a way that many a fabricated tale has become part of our collective consciousness

DOES mythology have anything to do with history? Is mythology synonymous with history? Or is history mythology?

Admittedly, the line between the two is a very fine one. From time immemorial, man has always been in search of his roots. He has also been trying to find a real and tangible basis for the legends of ancient days � legends that have become a part of our collective consciousness. As a result, we witness the quest for proving the existence of King Arthur, the search for whereabouts of the city of Troy, and many expeditions organized to locate the exact site of the landing of Noah�s Ark.

During the �60s and the �70s, there was a worldwide movement to prove that the �gods� of ancient mythologies did actually exist; they came from distant galaxies; and that mankind owed all its progress to such alien superheroes. Several books were written on the subject.

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 don�t know, or don�t 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 Farooq�s tenure. A subsequent expedition had come to Makran during Hazrat Usman�s 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�s 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? Let�s 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 Pakistan�s 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 government�s 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 Daultana�s 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 Pakistan�s history.

These are some of the myths that have been drummed into our heads from childhood and have become part of our consciousness. There are scores more, pervading our everyday life. And there are many unanswered questions such as:

� What is Pakistan�s ideology and when was the term first coined? (It was never heard of before 1907.)
� Why was Gandhi murdered? (He was supposedly guarding Pakistan�s interest.)
� What is the truth about the so-called traitors, Shaikh Mujeeb, Wali Khan, and G.M. Syed?
� What caused the break-away of East Pakistan?
� Why was Bhutto put to death?
� Are all our politicians corrupt and self-serving?
� Why does our history repeat itself after every 10 years?

The answers to all these questions require a thorough study of history, not mythology. But history unfortunately is a discipline that has never been taken seriously by anyone in our country. It�s time things changed.

The myth of history -DAWN Magazine; March 27, 2005

[rubyjackass]

Whoa!!!
enlightening...
Thanks

[AgNoStIc MuSliM]

The article posted by Vinod has it own thread and discussion here:Myths of Pakistani History-Dawn

[Vinod2070]

It does. I thought it nicely dispels some myths presented as facts by Communist and is relevant here too.

[rubyjackass]

Originally Posted by must7

I also realize that you have no reply to your anti-conversion laws nor rape & killings of Christian minority due to hatred towards their religion ?

There are no anti-conversion laws in India. The laws are only against forceful conversions done by threatening and luring with incentives.

It is unconstitutional(in India) to have anti-conversion laws.
If there were any discrepancies, somebody would have appealed in courts. There are enough minority representatives and human rights activists.


As for the violence, the killings were provoked by teachings which show the christian conversions as a threat to religion.

Religion is just another reason for violence like language in Mumbai violence recently and the Assam violenvce against Biharis. In all these cases people are provoked by showing the local culture is in danger. One of the problems of multi-cultural multi-linguistic society. But things will eventually settle down if not for a perfect peace, atleast to a minaimal level.

[AgNoStIc MuSliM]

I have made the argument already, that various opinion polls and the observations of many non-Pakistani analysts, journalists and authors, who have spent time in Pakistan studying the society, have validated the argument that Pakistani society remains largely moderate and peace loving.

The reciprocity in sentiment, when it came to peace between India and Pakistan and support for engagement is another indicator that the curriculum has not had the effect that is implied by some here.

Pew Research Center: Musharraf's Support Shrinks, Even As More Pakistanis Reject Terrorism... and the U.S.

Bin Laden popularity fades in Pakistan - Terrorism- msnbc.com

Pakistanis Support Tougher Stance on Terrorism

Similar opinions on Kashmir as well: Indian and Pakistani Publics Show Flexibility on Kashmir - World Public Opinion

Once again in conclusion, while the curriculum has its flaws, there is no evidence to suggest that attitudes and opinions in Pakistan, towards peace and engagement with India, are significantly different from those in India, and therefore the argument that the Pakistani curriculum has had any sort of 'brainwashing or instilling hatred' effect is incorrect.

[rubyjackass]

New Pakistan Studies Curriculum Unveiled | Pakistan Politics, Current Affairs, Business and Lifestyle | Chowrangi

OMG!!! Really good read...
Pages 14, 18, 19, 27, 35, 36, 37, 38, 50, 69, 75, 76, 77, 78, 81-88, 89-93, 97-101, 135 first para
from
http://www.sdpi.org/whats_new/report...&TextBooks.pdf

This report begs to differ with you.
Somebody must have already mentioned this before.

[rubyjackass]

Originally Posted by AgNoStIc MuSliM

I have made the argument already, that various opinion polls and the observations of many non-Pakistani analysts, journalists and authors, who have spent time in Pakistan studying the society, have validated the argument that Pakistani society remains largely moderate and peace loving.

The reciprocity in sentiment, when it came to peace between India and Pakistan and support for engagement is another indicator that the curriculum has not had the effect that is implied by some here.

Pew Research Center: Musharraf's Support Shrinks, Even As More Pakistanis Reject Terrorism... and the U.S.

Bin Laden popularity fades in Pakistan - Terrorism- msnbc.com

Pakistanis Support Tougher Stance on Terrorism

Similar opinions on Kashmir as well: Indian and Pakistani Publics Show Flexibility on Kashmir - World Public Opinion

Once again in conclusion, while the curriculum has its flaws, there is no evidence to suggest that attitudes and opinions in Pakistan, towards peace and engagement with India, are significantly different from those in India, and therefore the argument that the Pakistani curriculum has had any sort of 'brainwashing or instilling hatred' effect is incorrect.

Whats your point?
Mushy, Laden and terrorism have nothing to do with hatred against India.
And Kashmir flexibility does not mean their ideas about India changed.

[AgNoStIc MuSliM]

Originally Posted by rubyjackass

Whats your point?
Mushy, Laden and terrorism have nothing to do with hatred against India.
And Kashmir flexibility does not mean their ideas about India changed.

My point is pretty clear - as of now no evidence has been provided that Pakistani attitudes towards India are significantly different from Indian attitudes towards Pakistan.

We do know that observations by journalists and visitors from India and elsewhere to Pakistan exposed a very hospitable and friendly Pakistan, one where people were all for peace and engagement.

Opinions surveys on opinions in both countries about each other are not significantly different:

It would seem the unfavorability rating of Pakistan in India is in fact a tad higher.

[rubyjackass]

Please give links to sources.
Atleast when the survey was taken...
ANyway my point stands. You can't search a person's mind and tell how much false stories about another does he believes.
You can only look at what his sources are.
And considering that this happens at such an early stage of life and at such a large scale(with text books) I can't see you point of surveys.
Read the report first.
I bet you share some of the ideas the report calls as inaccurate.
Tell me if you find any...
Seriously...