Freedom comes by unveiling the historical truths with an open mind and not by sticking to myths or by subverting history. Pakistan was founded on the basis of nationalism advocated by the two nation theory. Nationalism is a European idea of the 18th century. It had already outlived its life, as Pakistan came into being just two years after end of World War-II.
Hatred promoted under the influence of nationalism in Europe devastated Europe in the World War-II. The end result was misery and economic depression. The world in general and Europe in particular had a bitter lesson to learn that Nationalism promotes hatred. The world has since moved forward towards regional integration by creating borderless economic unions or common markets as we see in Europe, the Americas, Middle East, Africa, Far East, Central Asia and Former Soviet Union. Germany which was divided in the World War-II, has since been reunited after symbolic demolition of the Berlin wall. In present era of globalisation the idea of Nationalism is out of fashion. Those who stick to it, are destined to end up in isolation within, what we call, the global village.
In the background of successive institutional failures in Pakistan over time, the two nation theory attracted attention of the intellectuals, scholars and politicians. It has been subjected to debate in the media and is shrouded in controversy ever since creation of Bangladesh. The Muslim League, took birth in Bengal, but sadly, the majority now living in Bangladesh voted out Pakistan in 1971.
While the world has moved on, South Asian countries had not been so lucky. Despite the SAARC initiative that they took long ago and laid the foundation for regional integration as a means to bring about prosperity for the people in the region; there had hardly been any progress. SAARC has so far failed to achieve its goal of becoming an effective regional co-operation organisation due mainly to the impending Indo-Pak disputes and lack of mutual trust. There are host of issues and disputes pending settlement between the two neighbours, Kashmir is the most significant. The state of Indo-Pak relations has been the main stumbling block in the way of much desired regional integration.
In the last 65 years, political leadership of both India and Pakistan have attempted bold initiatives to restore confidence, settle disputes and to normalise relations for the cause of global peace in general and for overall welfare and prosperity of the people in the region in particular. Unfortunately these initiatives have met setbacks, successively, for one or the other reason. One of the major reasons for the failures is the lack of confidence. No doubt political leaderships on both sides are conscious and sincere in moving forward. Old myths and deep rooted bias at the working level and within certain lobbies of intelligencia persists, not to speak of fundamentalist and fanatic groups on either side of the border. While a strong desire for peace and harmonious relations is there, a deep rooted bias embedded in the general public perception about each other, presents a formidable challenge.
There may be many reasons for the bias and hatred that matter in the Indo-Pak relations but a major one for sure is the way the history is presented and portrayed, in the educational curriculum as well as at intellectual level. This is an area that deserves attention of the policy maker, scholars, historians and educationists, if the ongoing dialogue at the official level and institutional initiatives such as Aman-ki-Asha, on Indo-Pak relations has to succeed.
Historians have described India as ethnological museum where Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Parsi's, Buddhists, Jews and people of so many other beliefs coexisted in harmony. Muslims ruled India almost 1000 years as opposed to the British rule which could not last more than one and a half century. This would have not been possible without winning hearts and minds of the people whom Muslims ruled.
Basic merit on which Muslims could win loyalty of the people was the justice and security that they provided to public at large without any discrimination on the basis of religion, cast, race, creed and belief. Secondly they established a chain of Madrassah's (Schools) to provide education free of cost. According to historian's, Hindus and other non -Muslims took pride in sending their children to these madrassahs's so that they could learn good manners and excel in morality. Dr V.K. Maheshwari, Former Principal K.L.D.A.V (P.G) College, Roorkee, India, in his paper on 'History of Education in India' writes:
"In the modern civilisation nature of relationship between the teacher and the taught does not count. But in Islamic scheme of education it holds a very crucial position. It considers the teacher as guide (murshid), and the student as seeker (Taalib). Both are to be sincere in their attitude towards each other. The relationship between the two is to be governed by certain Qur'anic principles.
The social status of teacher was high and they were men of character, though their emoluments were small they commanded universal respect and confidence. A teacher was never confronted with any serious problem of discipline. Pupils were humble, submissive and obedient owing to the high honour and prestige of teachers in society.
Teachers took to teaching for love of learning. They were held in high esteem. Professor S.N. Mukerji has observed, 'Learning was prized for its own sake and as a mark of the highest human development and teaching was never handicapped by examination requirements'.
The teacher has to interact with his students in the way their biological fathers treat them. A father loves his children and is always concerned about their welfare; he wants to see them developing from all angles, physically, emotionally, morally, and intellectually. The teacher has also to feel concerned about how to ensure his student's growth, mentally as well as morally. It is clear that the secret of the Holy Prophet's success, among other things, was his gentle and kind approach to his disciples. A teacher who has the mission of imparting knowledge to his students has to act in the same manner so as to ensure success in his task.
A Muslim teacher's conduct, whether in public or in privacy, should correspond to his assertions. If the teacher's person does not reflect Islamic character, students may not be expected to be sincere to him in learning from him." The point is that our youth know very little of our history, particularly the welfare oriented education Islamic system. We promoted good moral values to the larger benefit of the society through our system that enabled us to rule India for about ten centuries.
For the lack of knowledge in history there is hardly any appreciation of the education system, on our part, that we implemented in the sub-continent. We have produced a breed of confused generation who neither have the taste of the western culture nor do they have retained best of their culture. A large gap exists in the knowledge of Indo-Pak history on our side, which has not only deprived us of the pride of our glorious past but has also raised a barrier in understanding the sensitivities, constraints and origins of biases relating to Indo-Pak relations.
Professor Jane Smith at Yale University, in a lecture to class of the summer of 2002, on "Essentials of Christian-Muslim Relations", while stressing on the need for historical perspective said:
"It has been wisely said that if you don't know where you have been, then you don't know where you are; and if you don't know where you are, then it is not possible to know where you're going. Finally, if you don't know where you're going, then you will never know when you get there! This is specifically relevant to the population of Pakistan, a diverse group of people that have been lumped together on the basis of a religious ideology that has yet to establish itself as a stable and viable system of life. For example, in 1835 Lord Macaulay stated that,
The British needed to create an elite group of Indians who would be like the British in their tastes, morals and intellect and who would in turn help rule the natives on behalf of the white man. Lord Macaulay was then a member of the Supreme Council of India and was responsible for carrying out sweeping educational reforms. The questions that such a statement elicits are many, and one can imagine a complex set of problems that would arise as a consequence of such a policy. Sadly, these consequences are before our eyes as we look at the situation in Pakistan today."
"One often tends to look at the realities of the Muslim world today in some sort of historical vacuum. Today, I would like to challenge us to make an effort to go beyond looking at the history of the "other" in such a vacuum, and to be a little bit more self- critical, with the full understanding that we are very much active participants in the shaping of this history and, therefore, share responsibility for some of the contemporary horrors that it is making us confront."
The purpose behind creation of Pakistan was to minimise the chances of Hindu-Muslim conflict and to create a more stable and peaceful environment on either side of the borders and not to ferment hate and to promote conflict. Unfortunately, the purpose of independence has been grossly misunderstood.
Elaborating this point, one of Pakistan's most acclaimed historians, Dr Ayesha Jalal, professor of History at the Tufts University, USA; argues in her book: The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the Demand for Pakistan (1985). "The Muslim nation that Jinnah championed was a state of mind more than a nation state. Separation from India was a bargaining ploy more than it was a demand in principle. What Jinnah wanted was a power-sharing arrangement at the all-India level, between his own Muslim League and the mostly Hindu Congress Party. He wanted equal standing, that is, in a pluralistic Union of India, but never a bordered nation, and still less an arbitrary dismemberment of the Muslims' two great regional powerbases: the Punjab in the north-west of India and Bengal in the East."
On January 23, 2012, while speaking at the Jaipur Literature Festival, Aysha Jalal said: "History as an academic discipline has failed to grow in her country, a deficiency that needs to be addressed to spawn a new breed of scholars in the subject." She has chosen to return to Pakistan as a visiting scholar, at LUMS, to help address the gap in her own way. She said that the academic growth of history in India had contributed to the development of a worthy scholarship in that country. She further said:
"Of course, there are biases and political agendas too, but India has continued to teach history, as a result of which you have historical scholarship coming from India. I was bemoaning the fact that in Pakistan history has suffered as an academic discipline, and is not taught as is the way in India. In my own modest way, I am trying to address this issue by teaching history in Pakistan."
In the above background, the need to promote scholarship and education in factual history was never as much as it is now, in determining our national destiny. Therefore, it is, important that we make appropriate changes in the curriculum of history that we teach at the school level; introduce comparative study in history at graduate level and critical study in history at the post graduate level. History teachers and student exchange programmes, and closer interaction between the historians, intellectuals, journalists of the two countries should help overcome the prevailing knowledge gap. This, in turn, should help in guiding the thought towards confidence building, so necessary to diffuse tensions and to resolve disputes.
(The writer is a Management Professional)
Comments
Comments are closed for this article.