Reporting Pakistan

by Meena Menon

  You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or creed—that has nothing to do with the fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one state . . . Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.

  The 2006 National Curriculum itself commits a serious mistake in killing the true meaning of that speech, says Professor Nayyar after studying some textbooks of Balochistan.17

  That is to say, the curriculum relegates Jinnah’s speech to a mere call for freedom of faith. Accordingly, the textbook writers have depicted the Quaid’s words to only mean that in the new state, religious minorities will enjoy the same rights as the majority, not telling young students that the Quaid did not want religion to have anything to do with the business of the state. It is known that people of a particular school of thought have been very uncomfortable with this vision of the Quaid. They have now found a very ingenious but deceitful way of killing the true meaning of his words.18

  There is a clear attempt, both in the National Curriculum of 2006 and all the textbooks that have appeared so far, at giving a twist to the meaning of the famous words of the Quaid. The Quaid was clearly separating religion from the state. But the curriculum wants it to only mean that the Quaid was merely asking for protecting the rights of religious minorities. According to them, the Quaid was saying that the religion of a citizen would not affect the affairs of the state, and was not advocating the separation of the state and religion. Professor Nayyar points out, ‘This reminds us of another notorious distortion in the words of the Quaid for ideological reasons: Unity, Discipline and Faith were changed to Faith, Unity and Discipline.’

  The study criticizes the new curriculum of 2006 for three very serious flaws: it contains instructions that lead to a violation of constitutional protection available to the country’s non-Muslim citizens; it demands a narration of the ideological basis of the country and the history woven around it, which leads to several serious problems like distortion of history, creation of irrational hate and blinding prejudice against non-Muslim groups, and takes away from students any capacity to rationally analyse and understand historical events, seek and face realities, and determine their relation with other nations in an unprejudiced manner; and it adds contents to the learning material that is contrary to the facts.

  Article 22(1) of the Pakistan Constitution says: ‘No person attending any educational institution shall be required to receive religious instructions, or take part in any religious ceremony, or attend religious worship, if such instruction, ceremony or worship relates to a religion other than his own.’ The 2006 National Curriculum contravenes this constitutional provision in two ways, the study says, as it makes basic teachings of Islam an integral part of the grade one and two courses called General Knowledge, and it requires inclusion of religious lessons in Urdu textbooks from grade one to grade eight.

  In addition, all the prophets are of Abrahamic religions. The lessons exclude non-Abrahamic religions like Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism and Zoroastrianism, and violate the constitutional right of children of non-Abrahamic religions. The curricular recommendation of respecting all the faiths gets translated into a one-liner: ‘We should respect all faiths,’ and no more. This amounts to respecting only the Abrahamic faiths. It is clear that non-Muslim children of grade two are being forced into reciting Islamic ways of greetings and connotations, and to talk of God as Allah.

  The study finds that the 2006 National Curriculum is also flawed in its insistence on the narration of Pakistan’s identity and history on the basis of the so-called Ideology of Pakistan. Excerpts from the curriculum for classes nine and ten have statements like ‘The demand of Pakistan was raised by the entire Muslim nation after a careful deliberation.’ This statement fails to inform students that a majority of Muslims did not support this demand until 1946, and that very prominent Islamic scholars, including the leaders of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind of Deoband, Abul Kalam Azad, Mufti Mahmood, Abul Ala Maudoodi and Majlis-e-Ahrar remained opposed to the demand for Pakistan. ‘There were false statements, for example in the Punjab textbook, p 20: Background of Pakistan Resolution: “. . . Hinduism was constantly trying to merge Islam, like other faiths, into itself.”’

  There are wilful omissions too in the textbooks. For example, in describing the Indian government’s reluctance to pay the due amount to Pakistan out of the joint assets after Partition, no textbook mentions that Mahatma Gandhi went on a hunger strike to press the Indian government to release Pakistan’s share. Similarly, while the textbooks describe the Khilafat Movement in a positive light as a movement of the ‘Islamic Ummah’, they fail to mention that the Quaid-i-Azam was never in its favour, and that Mahatma Gandhi had strongly supported the movement.

  There are also statements like ‘Because of Akbar’s pro-Hindu policies, Hindus became so fearless that they started demolishing tombs and mosques, and constructed temples in their place. Muslims were facing hard times in Hindu majority areas. Muslims were not able to observe their religious obligations freely. Persistence of (sic) their faith could cost them their lives.’ The study says this is historically wrong and is aimed at creating hatred against Hindus.

  Some of the historical distortions that existed in old textbooks continue to persist in the new ones.19 The most glaring of these relate to the recent history of Pakistan in the Punjab class nine textbook, especially on the events around 1965 and 1971. The reasons for the 1965 war are given as: ‘India committed an open aggression against Pakistan to materialize its expansionist intentions and attacked Pakistan on the night of 6th September.’ ‘Pakistan was established against the wishes of Hindus, so they never accepted Pakistan from the bottom of their hearts. Wonderful progress and stability of Pakistan constituted a major concern for them. So, they started launching aggressive actions against Pakistan.’ ‘As punishment for supporting Kashmiri people morally and raising Kashmir issue all over the world, India imposed war on Pakistan in 1965.’

  The study said the causes of separation of East Pakistan do not include two crucial things: (a) the refusal of Yahya Khan to transfer power to the majority party as per the Constitution; and (b) the army crackdown on the civilian population and the mass murder, rape and loot the military men committed.

  Instead, the reasons the textbook gives include: ‘Poor economic condition: East Pakistan had always suffered poor economic conditions. The cause of this economic suffering even before the partition was the Hindu industrialist and Hindu landlord of West Bengal. And now too Hindus dominated East Pakistan’s economy.’

  Then, ‘Negative role of Hindu teachers: Unfortunately, [the]Bengali Muslim was always inferior to the Hindu in education, for which reason a majority of school and college teachers were Hindu, who poisoned the young minds with Bengali nationalism, and instigated it for a rebellion against the Ideology of Pakistan. This is what paved the way for separation of East Pakistan from West Pakistan.’ The separation of East Pakistan was also blamed on the big powers like the US, and Soviet Union which signed a treaty with India. The textbook fails to inform students that Pakistan suffered a military defeat at the hands of India in 1971, and India took 90,000 prisoners of war, Professor Nayyar says.

  In the Pakistan Studies for classes nine and ten in Balochistan, the 1965 Indo-Pak war is blamed on India.

  In the beginning of 1965, the freedom movement in Kashmir became so intense that India deployed troops on Pakistan’s border with the intent to attack. After facing setbacks in initial clashes, Indian army attacked Lahore from three sides on the night of 6 September 1965. It had hoped to occupy Lahore by the morning. . . . Due to help from Allah, and the bravery of Pakistan’s army, India could no
t sustain the war for even a few days, and its representatives started to request United Nations for cease-fire. Finally the Security Council through a resolution on 20th September called for cease-fire in two days. In order to ensure a safe retreat of its forces, India asked for one more day. Cease-fire became effective on 23rd September.

  On the separation of East Pakistan, the text spoke of ‘The role of Hindu teachers, and control of Hindus over economy [nearly the same narrative as in the Punjab textbook], and Hindus were already bent upon breaking Pakistan since its creation. The Indian Ambassador in East Pakistan had always been conspiring against Pakistan with the support of local Hindus.’

  Extracts from the class ten Pakistan Studies textbooks for the Punjab for the year 2013–14 say, ‘In Pakistan, ideology and foreign policy are intertwined. Pakistan is an ideological state, and is based on Islamic ideology. The important objective of Pakistan’s Foreign Policy is the defence of ideological frontiers. Pakistan’s stability is also implicit in the protection of the Ideology of Pakistan. It can protect its ideology by establishing good relations with Islamic countries.’

  The textbooks of compulsory subjects that are to be learnt by students of all faiths include Islamic teachings in two different ways: one, by integrating Islamic studies into the General Knowledge course for classes one and two; and, two, by including Islamic religious lessons in the Urdu course books for classes one to eight. The General Knowledge textbook for class one in the Punjab mentions only four holy books—Zabur, Torah, Bible and Koran. Though 5 per cent of Pakistan’s minorities are Hindu, Christian, Sikh and Buddhist, none of their religious teachings or non-Muslim festivals find a place in textbooks. For the General Knowledge subject for Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the children have to memorize religious incantations and the questions too have a religious touch; for instance, how many prayers do Muslims offer in a day? Also, students of grades one to three should be able to recognize that Almighty Allah has created them and that everything in the world is created by Allah. Since it’s part of the General Knowledge studies, non-Muslim students have to learn all this. And they also have to know all the names of the Prophet, narrate his biography and recite from the Koran.

  The new curriculum persists with some of the flaws identified in an earlier study in 2003 which had pointed to the growth of narrow-mindedness and extremism among the youth of the country. The Subtle Subversion: the State of Curricula and Textbooks in Pakistan, edited by A.H. Nayyar and Ahmed Salim, and published by the Sustainable Development Policy Institute, finds that social studies have misrepresented events in Pakistan’s history, with distortions and omissions, the curricula is insensitive to the religious diversity of the country, and the entire education is loaded with only the teaching of Islam.

  Meanwhile, Kumar’s analysis of school textbooks of both countries for the period of the freedom struggle points out many shocking acts of omission. ‘In the Pakistani representation of Gandhi and the Indian representation of Jinnah, we find serious distortions, but they seem to be rooted more often in the overlooking of certain details than in putative misrepresentation with the help of adjectives.’20

  Pakistani textbooks assert that the ‘Muslims residing in the Indian subcontinent always maintained their distinct cultural identity despite the influential presence of the Hindu religion’ and there is an emphasis on the ‘Congress being an “Overwhelmingly Hindu body”’ and that Sir Syed Ahmad Khan advised Muslims to stay away from it.21 Gandhi does not have the stature of a hero in the Pakistani textbooks. A few textbooks present him as a major Congress leader, but the characterization is inevitably as a ‘Hindu leader’.22 It is not surprising that the Congress and the leaders are identified as Hindu, as the textbooks speak of freedom from the Hindus.23 This despite the fact that ‘Nehru used to proclaim that he will not be Prime Minister of a Hindu India’.24 When Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated, Jinnah’s response was that a Hindu leader had died.25

  Gandhi is not identified as the leader of the non-cooperation movement in one state textbook, and Kumar says, ‘In Pakistani textbooks there is no mention of Gandhi’s personality, the values he upheld and promoted, and the inventive character of his politics. In most textbooks, he is presented as just another Hindu politician. The Indian textbooks, which, do pause for a paragraph to introduce Gandhi to children, also represent his personality and ideas in a sketchy manner.’ 26

  Moreover, ‘No Pakistani textbook lets the young reader know that the Congress was a party with people from a large range of social backgrounds and ideological positions. Pakistani textbook writers talk about Hindu politicians as if they all had the same viewpoint.’27

  After 1947, there is little we learn of independent India and Partition. ‘As the [Indian and Pakistani] narratives enter the early 1940s, they fulfil our expectations of finding a sharp contrast between the national perspectives embedded in them . . . however, both narratives maintain a selective silence on certain events. Disinterestedness in the “other” grows fast as we hurtle towards the decisive mid-40s. Well before reaching the point at which a formal division had taken place, the memory covering the jointly experienced past gets divided.’28

  During his visit to Pakistan in 1972, journalist Kuldip Nayar analysed textbooks he brought from there and found that they played up the wars between Hindus and Muslims, with the latter always emerging victorious.29 He compares textbooks for classes eight and ten, and finds marked differences. The most horrifying distortion is in class eight textbooks which attribute the partition of Bengal to the worship of Goddess Kali. ‘Human sacrifices had become the order of the day—a method of slaughtering the Muslims and presenting them at the altar of the Goddess.’30 The syncretic culture of Hindus and Muslims is not acknowledged in these textbooks though there is evidence that the separation in worship was not so marked. Goddess Kali was invoked by Muslims not so long ago, as M. Mujeeb in The Indian Muslims writes of the faint dividing lines between religious beliefs and practices of lower-class Hindus and Muslims in Purnea district. ‘In every village could be found a Kali asthan, a shrine dedicated to the worship of Goddess Kali and attached in almost every Muslim house was a little shrine called Khudai Ghar or God’s house where prayers were offered in which the names of both Allah and Kali were used.’31

  While on the one hand, we have moves for peace and for a comprehensive dialogue, perceptions about each other’s countries are steeped in stereotypes. ‘As a topic of study Pakistan is taboo in Indian schools and the same applies to India in Pakistan.’32

  Propaganda is detrimental to a positive relationship, and textbooks and learning must foster understanding, instead of enmity. If textbooks distort the image of India and Hindus and the wars that India and Pakistan have fought, little can be expected of people fed on this diet. Professor Nayyar and others must be commended for their surgical analysis and consistent campaign to create quality and inclusive education in Pakistan, a country where privatization of education on the one hand, and the madrasas on the other overemphasize religious education, posing alarming contradictions.

  7

  Civilian versus Military

  A trying time for the general

  General Musharraf didn’t look like a tyrant about to be indicted. He walked into court briskly, smart in black kameez and coat teamed with a white salwar. For a man diagnosed with three arterial blocks, he looked in the pink of health, with chubby cheeks and his hair had the trademark centre parting. So this is what military dictators look like, I thought as he made his way confidently to the makeshift witness stand, lifting his hand in greeting. Everyone had been waiting in breathless anticipation since 9 a.m. in the cold, cavernous National Library auditorium which was converted into the special trial court for high treason. He was finally there on 18 February 2014, two months after the trial began, after twenty-five hearings and much fuss and bother. Even on that day, there were some glitches and he arrived a little after 1 p.m.

  There was only one question on everyone’s mind that morning—whether
he would actually turn up, and his lawyers, too, kept us on tenterhooks. In retrospect it was amusing. Musharraf, we learnt, had been sitting in his car since 12 p.m. but the Islamabad Police were not willing to take charge of his security. The nine-kilometre route from the Armed Forces Institute of Cardiology (AFIC) in Rawalpindi was lined with 1100 armed Rangers, and technically he wasn’t under arrest, wailed the prosecution. The AFIC commandant apparently asked for a receipt for Musharraf’s custody but since he wasn’t under arrest, the police couldn’t give one. Finally, the judge had to direct the registrar to call the AFIC commandant to get things moving. Musharraf’s convoy drove right up to the door of the National Library auditorium, surrounded by Rangers and top police officers, and there was applause from his defence team which stood up to welcome him. He was seated when the three judges entered and Justice Faisal Arab asked him to stand up. It was a token appearance and all over in less than twenty minutes. The doors were locked after he left, but some reporters who moved quickly managed to run out with him and asked him how he was feeling. The answer was a cryptic ‘good’, and we didn’t doubt it. That was the first time we saw jammers in court, placed on either side of the three judges. Musharraf wasn’t going to be indicted that day—it was an appearance for form’s sake. The charges would be read out once all the applications on the jurisdiction and other matters were disposed of.

  When the trial began on 24 December 2013, Musharraf sought exemption on the grounds of security. The former dictator had two near-death experiences in December 2003 when his convoy was bombed. His lawyers used security threats as an excuse for him not to appear and there were some instances when explosives were found on the route. He didn’t have a bombproof vehicle which was another reason he couldn’t travel safely—or so his lawyers said. On 2 January 2014, when he was to arrive in court, we waited and waited. The day earlier, he hadn’t appeared due to a bomb scare. TV journalists popped in and out sending breaking news that he hadn’t made it yet. The defence and prosecution squabbled. Musharraf was delayed, we heard. Defence lawyer Anwar Mansoor Khan said he hadn’t slept all night as someone kept banging on his door and ringing the bell. Akram Sheikh, the FIA special public prosecutor, an old associate of Nawaz Sharif, said he was intimidated by the eighteen-member defence team led by Sharifuddin Pirzada. Justice Arab watched from the stage and took a dim view of this squabbling which he said took place in ‘schools and colleges’. The fact that Musharraf hadn’t yet made an appearance didn’t hinder this bickering. Pirzada asked for an adjournment—due to the tense atmosphere. Akram Sheikh quoted Shakespeare—a tale full of sound and fury, and it went on till we finally got some news. Anwar Mansoor Khan suddenly said that Musharraf was on his way to court when he had a heart problem and his convoy was diverted to the AFIC.