Facts O-level and facts low level

AD# 44
Dear AD,

You Said ``, when the present contradicts ``history`` then don`t you think its time to reconsider?``

When the present contradicts past the only thing that can be changed is future. History tells us where we are coming from and present tells us where we are going or where we should go; re-writing history is a bad idea as discussed, period.

The judge`s decision in the Shah Bano case was unconstitutional. The Constitution of India inherited the Muslim Personal Law from the British. I am glad that Indians have upheld at least this part of the constitution. This is really commendable. On a side note, referring to your earlier post, the Muslims living in West do have a problem with the ``non-Muslim`` laws that effect their social values. I am aware of the efforts that are being made in England to separate the Muslim family law; whereas in North America geographical dispersion is a problem that has prevented such efforts or at least I am not aware of them if such efforts are being done.

We have already discussed that the cause of nationalism is promised but undelivered Social Justice, whereas your contention that it is because of culture and language is also correct. The later, however, are a subset or just one of many aspects of the Social Justice. Social Justice is a very comprehensive subject which include not only law but also economics, distribution of resources, education and employment opportunities, business, trade, bureaucracy, and almost everything that a welfare state stands for along with individual cultures and languages. It is naïve to suggest that TNT would have made people ignore their rights- even suggesting such a thing is ridiculous.

I didn’t understand your argument about Germany, whereas I was mentioning the allies` sanctions that were imposed on Germany after its defeat in WWI. Anyway, I hope you are aware of the presence of a parallel history that is being written even today that plainly denies the occurrence of Holocaust. Just check any of KKK, white pride, or The Invisible Empire websites to get a list of such books whereas I have also come across several books by so-called ``Nazi Sympathizers`` who are not categorized as ``racist`` per se.

``Water World``

I really appreciate your analysis of the books that are teaching our youth in Pakistan and indeed anywhere in South Asia.

Is India mentioned once in these texts?--you didn`t say.

I don`t know what students in other parts of South Asia are learning about our region. My sense is that the focus in on nation, not region.

Thanks -- I learned a lot

from your piece.

ussa

NYC

Reply #: 42

Urstruly

``

The kind of Social Justice that Muslim leadership and people believed at that time was not possible with Hindu majority.

``

-- I can even agree with your contention, that history is different for different people. However, when the present contradicts ``history`` then don`t you think its time to reconsider ?

TNT was based on 2 nations... Hindu nation and muslim nation. The contention was that Hindus and muslims cannot live together. The seperation of Bangladesh exposed the first fault. You are wrong when you say that Sindhism, Punjabism etc are off shoots of the TNT. As Bangladesh shows, its the culture/langauge that is more important than religon. SO Jinnah`s theory goes down the dump on that account. Much as you would like to believe in the muslim Ummah... its not as strong as the cultural/language bonds.

Secondly, you need to come to INdia, and see wether muslims get social justice or not. As far as citizens of India are concerned there are 2 categories.... Muslims and the rest.

If you are a muslim, you are dictated by the muslim laws and those laws cannot be disputed in any court. The Supreme Court of India tried that in the Shah Bano alimony case, and the govt of India came out with a new law... which in effect nullified the judgement of the court.

So there again... the speculation that muslims in India would not get fair treatment... social justice... falls flat on its face.

Why go further from home... in your own backyard see how one sect of muslims treat the others... the Punjabis don`t get alongwith the Sindhis who in turn fight with the Ahmadis etc.

The point I am trying to make by citing the above is that you are being faced with a reality which is mocking your version of history. Given that... don`t you think its foolish to still cling to that history ?

Finally, not all nations color their past, to glorify themselves. In Germany it is a federal offense if a German denies the existence of the Holocaust. It takes a big heart of accept the fault of ones ancestors and learn from their mistakes instead of blindly following in their foot steps.

AD

AD# 41

Dear AD,

I hope my response#42 to Cheema will answer most of your questions. Please feel free to drop in a couple of lines to let me know if it didnt.

Dear Cheema!

The idea of re-writing history or putting a ``right`` perspective in it is fundamentally flawed. It has happened many times in the history and each and every time it bred more contempt than before. Consider, e.g. Marshal Tito`s efforts to re-write a new version of history that resulted in mayhem and catastrophe in Balkans. It proves that it does not matter much what version of history you teach in schools. One must keep in mind that there is always a parallel history that is engraved in the psyche of a nation. It is conveyed from one generation to other regardless of what is taught in schools. Anybody who thinks that he can resolve historic issues by re-writing history lives in a fool`s paradise.

Consider for example the contemporary history of Kashmir that is being written everyday. A future historian, who will try to write a history of Kashmir will find two conflicting versions. The Kashmiri version will tell him a story of murder, rape, oppression, genocide, and denial of basic human rights on part of India; whereas there will be an Indian version too that will tell him the intrigue, terrorism, and intrusion from other side of the border. What would you do if you were that future historian? Wouldn`t you rather present both versions of this history to your audience or would you make a decision for them and spoon-feed them with your one sided theories.

This argument then rightly brings up a counter-argument that then why shouldn’t Pakistani schools teach their students both versions of the history? Here lies the fundamental concept that makes the idea of re-writing history flawed. The reason is that that we the Pakistanis are NOT that future historian. We ARE a party in this double version of the history. Now doesn’t it seem logical that we should support our version?

There is another version of history that is called the Apologists Version. Now apologist versions of history are always there but they stay on the fringe. Whenever someone tried to bring that into mainstream it brings chaos, discontent, and ultimately destruction. That has happened in Balkans and that is what caused the WWII when Allies tried to re-write German history.

If one accepts your argument that the TNT is hollow then by the same logic one should accept that the off-shoot of this theory that`s Pujabism, or Sindhism, or Bengali Nationalism are hollow as well. But you and me both know it that they are not. Especially the creation of Bangladesh should be an eye opener. There is again a fundamental flaw in this argument. Usually TNT is interpreted as a theory that differentiates between the religions and thus teaches us hate. It elaborates on the (petty) differences like the different calendars, different marriage and burial rituals and an invisible God versus a god with nine hands. That is what our friends from across the border, powers-that-be in Pakistan, Globalizers, and apologists like yourself would like us to believe. But this is absurd. The TNT was not a tool to create a rift between two parallel and coexisting civilizations; it was a PROMISE of Social Justice. The kind of Social Justice that Muslim leadership and people believed at that time was not possible with Hindu majority. Especially, the behavior of elected governments of Congress prior to partition strengthened their belief. So the TNT is not hollow. It was as real as the Sindi, Bengali, and Punjabi nationalisms are today.

These nationalisms couldn’t become so strong if Pakistani leadership had delivered the promise of Social Justice right after the Partition. Today, the same people who denied us the Social Justice play games with us sometimes in the name of National security and sometimes in the name of religion. Pakistan would have very well been a Secular state if that promise was delivered to the people right after partition. Now, Pakistani people equate an Islamic state with a state that would deliver them the Social Justice; and they do it rightly so. They believe that Islam has once delivered them an Egalitarian society so it can do so again. That is where the Invaders come in as Heroes.

Although I disagree with yours or Dr. Dani`s version of Ghaznavid invasions but for arguments sake let us suppose that your version is ``true``. I don’t understand why we should judge Ghaznavi`s actions according to today`s standards? It is grossly unfair. According to your post he was following the standard procedures that were a norm in those times. So what, if Hindus suffered more in the ``collateral damage``; so what if he destroyed Somnath if Hindu`s power base was established there. Muslims of subcontinent, however, think more in the terms of the ``fringe`` benefits that his invasions brought in. Whether he converted indigenous people by force or it was voluntary, does it matter now? But at that time it sure did. The new converts were looking at a strange system that they had never imagined in their wildest dreams. That they could actually have a social status that was literally equal to their conquerors. They were experiencing an unprecedented egalitarian society that their mind couldn`t possibly conceive. A society that was free of castes and tyranny of Brahmin. The invasions came as a blessing and that was engraved in their minds permanently. Now it is a part of our national psyche.

About 60 years ago, if someone in Europe had said something about an entity like EU he would have been put in a strait jacket right away. But someone did conceive the idea and it did turn into reality. The pre-WWII history of Europe is full of murder, mayhem, war, and human suffering. Did someone re-write the history to resolve those differences? I don’t think so. Their own versions of history are still alive and well, however, they worked on their prejudices instead. If you are familiar with contemporary Irish history then you might know that it is not the Catholic`s or Protestant`s heroes that start a riot (war) it is the insistence of one group to slap their past victories in others` face. So again what needs to be done here is to work on the prejudices, instead of re-writing Irish history.

I rest my case with the statement that ``PEACE IS NOT ABSENCE OF CONFLICT, PEACE IS THE PRESENCE OF JUSTICE.

EST Reply #: 39

Urstruly

``

I don’t understand the dichotomy in your argument. At one place you said that Muslims were killing Hindus mercilessly and now you say they were living peacefully. I suggest you make up your mind before presenting any of your arguments.``

-- Hindus, were killed and their temples were desecrated by various Mughal rulers, amongst whom, Aurangzeb stands out. Inspite of that, regular Hindus and muslims got along just fine.

The things that happened were more political than personal.

A hindu would not eat at a muslims house, even though they might be good friends. And that was just fine. The muslim did not get offended becuase he knew that his Hindu friend had his own beliefs. They both had mutual respect for each other.

This apparent contradiction, is a fact of life in the sub continet. Hindus and muslims have on the whole had a peaceful existence based upon mutual respect. Hindu-muslim riots were unheard of before, or at least were never to the same scale as they happened today. Before when Hindus were slaughtered, it was mainly because of some ``Hukum`` by the king etc. Regular muslims did not ``hate`` Hindus, just because they were Kafirs.

In recent times, the divisions between Hindus and muslims happened more becuase of political patronage than anything else (at least in india).

And it has become a personal thing. Which is why, small incidents provoke massive responses from muslims. The Shah Bano case is a prime example, where the muslims acted the way they did, simply becuase that would not be appreciated by the Hindus.(And don`t even tell me that muslim law dictates otherwise.... cause muslims do not have any problems accepting those ``non-muslim`` laws in the US and UK).

``

Your paragraph about ``absolute truth`` is a ``Chicken or Egg`` argument. This argument is based on your implication that your books are more accurate and more truthful than ours.

``

-- Could you elaborate ? All I said was the Islam itself preaches respect for people, even if they are non-muslims, right ? And did Ghaznavi do so ?

By killing Hindus mercilessley did he not disobey the Koran ? Please answer my qs ..... I want to understand why Ghaznavi is considered a hero... I want to know the underlying morals/values, which make him a hero to you.

AD

You are welcome Jay.

urstruly#31 (also ad)

Its true that history is a subjective thing and people tend to view it according to their prejudices and biases. But with the passage of time as more and more new evidences and sources come to the surface it becomes increasingly difficult to cheat in history. As far as debate about US textbooks is concerned, an American scholar last year was doing research in Pakistan and India on our social sciences textbooks and she told in a seminar that some time back American textbooks didn`t even mention the name of Hellen Keller (becuse of her leftist views, she even said that she wont like to be born in an unjust and capitalist country like USA) and feminism, but now due to pressure from different sectors, they are forced to include their references. Although there are conservative/ obscurantist forces trying to meddle not even in subjects like history but also sciense (and you thought it was free from human biases; in US biology textbooks conservative Christians are trying their best to include Biblical account of genesis along with theory of evolution), but it doesn`t mean we should be complacent about the situation, we should try to counter any such attempt and try to give as unbiased knowledge to children as possible.

Coming to British source of idea of two nation theory (TNT), well this is not surprising. You can see increasing number of historians on both sides of the border exposing the role of British in distorting the history and causing animosity between Hindus and Muslims - divide and rule was after all secret dehind their success.

An Indian historian Dr. Om Parkash Parshad of Partna University has done research on Mughal emperor Aurengzeb. Muslims and esp Pakistanis revere Aurengzeb as a great Mughal emperor, while Indians do the same to Akbar and Hindu Rajas Ashok and Shiva Jee. Dr. Om has found that although Aurangzeb was more religiously orthodox than Akbar but relgious persecution happened in almost both Hindu and Muslim reins. Akbar demolished as many or even more temples than Aurangzeb, Aurangzeb even demolished a mosque, these all acts were not religious but were to counter rebellion and insurgency. You will be surprised to hear that Hindu Rajas routinely looted and desecrated the temples, there was even a govt institution to account all the lootings from temples during the rein of some Hindu Rajas. Aurangzeb on the contrary banned this practice and used force only to quell rebellion. In Aurangzeb`s army many Hindu Rajputs served as commanders (in Akbar`s rein there were 46 Hindus on higher posts and in Aurengzeb`s 104!). When Marhattas rebelled against Aurangzeb they were joined by certain Muslim rajas and nawabs too. All this shows that much of previous events were driven by political or economic expediency rather than religious idealogy.

If thats so then how come so much biased and parochial history we are studying in schools. Actully it was in the interest of English rulers to divide the two communities and prevent chances of united coalition against the British Raj.( And now it is in the interest of our rulers to continuously alarm against Hindu threat to legitimize their exploitation). Two English historians, Eliot and Dawson ( History of India as told by its historians, published 1887) wrote the history of India according to the accounts of Mislim historians. They made it certain to include only those accounts which would increase religious, political, social differences between Hindus and Muslims.( The above information and Dr, Om`s observation are quoted from Dr. Mubarik Ali`s recent issue of quarterly ``Tareekh`` published by Fiction House).

Just today Dr. A H Dani read an article in conference on Sultan Mahmood Ghaznavi conducted by Society of Asian Civilization in Islamabad. Contrary to stereotypic ``Hindu Kush`` image of Sultan Ghaznvi protrayed by British writers, Dr. Dani told that rise and development of the Ghaznavid State is more political and military than religious. (Of course there was barbarity, looting and slave traficking in his expeditions, Aitzaz Ahsan in his book ``The Indus Saga`` says that Ghaznavi`s yearly invasions were so fearsome that Hindu people in upper Punjab region of present Pakistan started naming their children in Muslim names because Ghaznavi alongwith looting and plundering took chilren with him as slaves, Muslims of course had an amnesty). On his part Ghaznavi was not concerned with the spread of Islam, and Muslim rulers in his route to Somnat also became his victims, e.g. in Multan the ruler Abul Fateh Daud coalitioned with Hindu rajas to counter Ghaznavi (but they in the end were defeated). Its about time we see history in its right perspective and it is possible only by looking at other side of the picture too. Dr. Mabarik Ali, K K Aziz, Irfan Habib, A H Dani are doing a commendable job in doing just that.

In my opinion TNT is a half baked theory. Just because Hindus have different life style, leaders, calendars, it doesn`ty mean we can`t live together. At the creation of Pakistan Maulana Abul Kalam Azad told an Indian Muslim procession about to migrate to Pakistan that although Pakistan had been created on the basis of TNT but a time would come when there will be a Punjabi nation, Sindhi nation, Balochi nation and Pathan nation. How true an observation. It seems we have been trapped into the same politics of hatred used against Hindus. The real issue is of economy, we should find economic factors in the making of Pakistan if there were any. After all it was economic injustice that separated East Pakistan from us, recall they belonged to Muslim nation too.

About culture of conformation and disparity in education system I agree with you, will surely write about it next time.

RE: Various

FAIRDINKUM:

Polarity is a blessing as long as there is a common goal. It keeps a check on each other. A wise man thus said, ``Difference of opinion is a blessing for this nation``. Regarding your comment on the phasing out of the O-level system- one of the rules of Machivilian bureaucracy is ``when heat is on, delay the decision``. It is their modus operandi to delay the decisions until they come up with a solution that favors them. So I still suggest that the pressure on them should be relentless.

AD:

Sir your comments on:
- `` A-bomb`` still supports the point that we as human beings try to conform our actions according to our moral values and vice versa-there is no exception to this rule be it Hindus, Americans, Pakistanis or Muslims (or Ghaznavis or Ghauris or Indira Gandhi in Golden Temple, or Indian Army in Kashmir).
- ``Occupation of Iraq`` supports my assertion that everybody has a different perception based on their prejudices.
- `` The fact is that before the Bristish came about, hindus and muslims used to coexist peacefully for centuries, under the Mughals``. I don’t understand the dichotomy in your argument. At one place you said that Muslims were killing Hindus mercilessly and now you say they were living peacefully. I suggest you make up your mind before presenting any of your arguments.
- Your paragraph about ``absolute truth`` is a ``Chicken or Egg`` argument. This argument is based on your implication that your books are more accurate and more truthful than ours. Circular reasoning. If everyone else`s book is correct so is ours then.

VICKY:
I have no intention of opening an Anaath Aashram yet. If I ever do I assure you that you will be the first to be admitted.

KRASHID and FAIRDINKUM: Throughout the discussion we have been forgetting about another ``aadha titter aadha batair``. I am referring to the English medium version of Matric. Man! we are chin deep in this s—t.

Urstruly # 36
“The O-level must be abandoned at once and not phased out slowly. Each and everyday of the presence of this system will cost this nation dearly.”
Well, you know as well as I do that it would neither be practical nor wise to do that. There would be 1000s of students currently enrolled and studying under this system… A gradual phase out would ensure a smooth change over. What you are suggesting would lead to chaos and uncertainty, which is not warranted.
Mayana rawi, my friend, is the best policy!

If I can put another twist by a news story which reads like this.

A girl getting very good marks in her education in school, when appeared for board exam, got very little marks. I don`t know she pursued a proper channel and was rejected or not.

But she wrote a letter to a judge. Who opened up the enquiry herself and it was found that she was given 200+ marks less in board exam after tabulation.

If this a practice to give less marks to a few hundreds poor, to get some IMPORTANT People in the upper merit in highly competitive enviornment, this is highly deplorable and gives an insight into the mind of our corrupt society. Where money is CHANNELED to poor as a bribe to pave the path of rich and their cronies.

So why abandon O-level and not Matric? There are a number of reasons that favor Matric system over O-level but first we should establish that superiority of O-level is a myth. Is it superior because the course outline is suggested by our former colonial masters who still have vested interests in this region? Does it give more objective education? If it does why it contradicts most of our cultural norms? Does the value system imparted by this system of education match our society’s cultural norms? Does it reflect the will of the majority? If not, then how is it democratic? Unfortunately the answer to all these questions is negative. So this narrows down the question of superiority or inferiority to right or wrong. This system of education is not fit for the MAJORITY of Pakistan because:

1. It has divided our nation into classes.

2. It has produced a corrupt ruling class that lacks in all moral values (by any standard).

3. This corrupt class has brought our nation close to bankruptcy (moral and financial both).

4. The cost of keeping this system is immense-and I am not talking just in terms of finances. It is breaking the nation apart. It is responsible for not delivering even the basic human rights to the people of Pakistan. This ruling class is responsible for causing frustration in smaller provinces by not giving them their basic rights.

5. The system is undemocratic because it does not reflect the will of the majority.

6. It is next to impossible to develop an infrastructure that will support the change of curriculum to O-level uniformly. Only the training of instructors is a task that is not justified by any cost-benefit analysis.

7. We can direct all our efforts to develop a uniform system that is a combination of both O-level and Matric curriculum. The task is viable, economical, and possible. There is absolutely no reason that the contents of both curriculum should be mutually exclusive.

The O-level must be abandoned at once and not phased out slowly. Each and everyday of the presence of this system will cost this nation dearly.

Urstruly #27:

Anybody who has been on Chowk and wants to be YLH`s elder brother needs to have his head examined.



But if you are looking for relatives to adopt?, get someone from India. Here is an offer - if you take Laloo, you can have Jaya for free!

We might soon consider a package deal on Azhar & Jadeja too...

Vicky

Reply #: 26

Urstruly

``

You wouldn’t be surprised to find out that American curriculum still justifies the dropping of Nuclear bomb over Japan.

``

--OK, there are many things that USA does that are wrong. So does that mean Pakistan should also do the same thing. Why base your morals on a country which changes morals, whenver it is important for ``US interests`` ?

``

What about Western version of occupation of Iraq?

``

-- Well, it seems that you disagree with the action that the West took against Iraq (granted that it had its own interests in mind). Iraq invaded a soverign kingdom of KUwait and the Emir himself asked the US and UK to help. I do not think that there was anything wrong with that.

``

They may be said, indeed, two distinct and separate civilizations”. (The India I Knew by Sir Stanley Reed p. 176)

``

-- The fact is that before the Bristish came about, hindus and muslims used to coexist peacefully for centuries, under the Mughals. Granted that there were leaders like Aurangzeb, who stood for all that was wrong in the Mughal rule, there were also kings like Akbar. In fact that latter Mughals, the last of them being Bahadur Shah Zaffar, were respected by both Hindus and muslims.

Hindu-Muslim riots were unheard of. I can say so, since my family lived in Old dehli, with both Hindu and muslims neighbours. These riots first started with the TNT theory, which basically says that Hindus and mulims cannot stay together.

In fact, during the freedom struggle, the mullahs themselves were against Pakistan, cause they knew that the TNT was hollow.

``

So it shouldn’t come as a surprise when a hero of one nation is considered an antihero of the other. The Hindus’ frustration with Muslim invaders is thus justified according to their perception but is it true in absolute sense too?

``

-- There are some things, that should be ``true in the absolute sense``. Because granted that there is little common between us, we are still humans, and still bound by the basics of humanity. Hindus were mercilessly slaughtered by the likes of Aurangzeb and Ghaznavi. ALL was done in the name of Islam. Are you telling me that you are proud of such people ? Does Islam condone their acts ? Does Islam propogate that Kafirs should be killed ? By being proud of people like Ghaznavi, you are actually accepting that their actions were justified.

AD

to the person who said that i have taken offence at being called a plagiarist, i dont think i said any such thing, it was just a respnse to mr temporal who i think sort of implied that this article followed oe by pervez hoodbhoy, my remark was in reference to that, no offence was taken, mr temporal has a right to his opinion and i the right to clarify ,thats all

My dear Cheema,

Never before has chowk given me a chance to feel humbled by a post, by the sheer spirit behind the words. Thank you.

regards,

jay

It is interesting how even everyone admits that O levels have higher standards and that O level gives a better education - even though every one admits that metric education is mostly brainwashing and propaganda (which Ustruly justifies with the `propaganda` of others) despite that everyone wants O levels to be shelved instead of metric. Why not shelve metric system of education ? aha but that would mean admitting that the ``elite`` bearucrats (sp? sorry I am das jamaat paas) made a faulty education system (metric) and admitting that we have been dishonest with our history and past and admitting that we got short changed and we are academically inferior.
Admitting and then confronting your demons is the first step towards progress denial (like ``our ways and our faith and our books are perfect``) is not.