hen nations go to war, they usually plead disputes relating to boundaries, but the real cause of war is always in the mind, and the mind is prepared over time through messages buried in the textbooks. National wars can’t be executed without a uniform national mind and national mind can’t be created without first artificially creating a national psyche. This job is done through textbooks made to serve as cruel injections of falsehood into the nation’s children. Education can enrich nations economically through skills; education can also poison them and retard them.
Defining the ‘other’ through a ‘master narrative’: This evil function of education is called the creation of the ‘other’. This ‘other’ can be an enemy without or an enemy within. Who can stop a state that designates enemy states beyond the national frontier from designating the enemy within? The external enemy can be created through a concocted national memory, but most often it is easily created through religion. And religion cuts two ways. It cuts into the internal fabric of the state much more cruelly because ‘exclusion’ of communities living within the state can be accomplished more easily. In other words, the master narrative that permeates the official textbooks tends to act as a mithridatic against the violence emanating from within rebuking the state for being quiescent. The official textbook may excite to exclusion and violence by two methods: first is to define the ‘other’ and second is to redefine the self so stringently that certain communities become automatically excluded before becoming victims of violence.
Pakistan has been cruelly undermined by what is called the Curriculum Wing in the federal Ministry of Education where nationalism is defined through prescriptions thought up by those entrusted with the ‘identity’ of the state. Pakistan has been on the back-step defending its half-literate mind-developers of the Curriculum. It has insincerely signed agreements about purging its books of hatred of India and religions other than Islam, but it has not been able to correct its ‘hate problem’. In 2010, Pakistan is more narrow-minded when its literacy rate is over 60 percent than in 1947 when its literacy rate was 20 percent. John Dewey said if education is packaged wrong it is better to remain illiterate. Because of the ideological content of its textbooks, the more literacy there is in Pakistan the more narrow-minded it will become, threatening the world with its ‘non state actors’. In other words, Pakistan is endangered by literacy.
Musharraf backed off from textbooks: Musharraf knew what he was facing in the realm of writing textbooks. He wanted the hate-manufacturing aspects of the Curriculum Wing removed but could do nothing mainly because the material needed to be purged related to the status of the army in Pakistan and was considered pivotal to the shaping of Pakistani nationalism. When hate-books caused the Northern Areas to go up in flames – instead of India – his education minister actually asserted that no change was even intended by the government in the realm of textbook-writing.
Daily Nawa-e-Waqt (24 Dec 2006) quoted federal education minister General (Retd) Javed Ashraf Qazi as saying that there was no move to remove Islamic content from textbooks, but the case of style of namaz in one textbook had to be changed for fear of violence in the Northern Areas. He said instructions for the saying of namaz were not acceptable to the people of Northern Areas who had reacted to the textbook and killed 60 people and burned five schools to the ground while for 9 months there was total closure of all schools. He said the textbook had to be changed for that reason. (And not because it was wrong in principle to sow hatred among the people.)
Hate textbooks discussed and approved: In 2002, an NGO in Islamabad called SDPI got together a group of scholars to examine class one-to-twelve textbooks in the subjects of social sciences/Pakistan Studies, Urdu and English. The books were prepared on the basis of the curriculum set by the Federal Education Ministry in its Curriculum Wing. The Wing had been manned by a certain kind of officers who had served governments of all stripes without any minister challenging their modus operandi. The guidelines were all fashioned in the name of Islamisation, but if a minister had ever to look at the vocabulary used and the direction given by the Wing to provincial textbook boards, he would have tried to reform the Wing, change the civil servants working there and replace them with more enlightened individuals. By and large, education as a subject has not appealed to any intellectual politician, most probably because he feared clash with the country’s ideology.
Dr AH Nayyar who had penned the report on textbook was soon taught a lesson on a TV channel through a carefully orchestrated discussion. GEO TV’s host Hamid Mir (25 March 2004) led the discussion with Dr AH Nayyar and his three conservative opponents, Urdu columnist Mr Ataul Haq Qasimi, academic Ms Dushka Syed, and federal education minister Ms Zubaida Jalal. Dr AH Nayyar said that when there was no argument against the truth it was usual in Pakistan to make accusations and level charges. He said that there was no doubt that history was being twisted around in the textbooks. He gave the example of one primary school textbook which declared that the Muslims were massacred and their women raped by Hindus and Sikhs as they crossed over to Pakistan from India. He said the book declared that Sikhs and Hindus were allowed to go to India in safety by Muslims. He gave another example of brainwashing when he said that a textbook declared that in the 1965 war, which started with an invasion by India, Pakistan had conquered Indian territory but when India felt that it was about to be vanquished it went to the Soviet Union and begged for help. The upshot was that Pakistan returned the captured Indian territory.
Ms Dushka Syed said that SDPI and its scholars had been given a certain line (from outside) and they were pushing it. She said there was nothing wrong with teaching jihad to children; after all, Islam was not the religion of Christ who taught its followers to turn the other cheek. Why should jihad be wrong when the Americans feel that it is against them? What was required of Pakistan now? Are we supposed to become prostrate in front of India (lait na jayen)? She said our history was full of jihad and the Holy Prophet PBUH himself did jihad. But the SDPI was obstinately against our history. ‘What are we supposed to do? Should we do namastay-namastay ?’ There was injustice being done in Palestine and Israel was crushing the Muslims with impunity. Should Pakistan become Switzerland in these conditions? The SDPI Report was given the same kind of treatment a day earlier, on 24 March 2004, when ARY TV had its host Dr Shahid Masood take up the subject. Musharraf had to back down.
How textbooks support militarism: Now we are in the year 2010. The hate content in the textbooks is the same and India continues to be the bugbear with which to arouse the nation to war. The real cause of the crisis of Pakistan is the Pakistani mind, and this mind is created through the textbook curriculum that underpins national education. It has been spelled out in ‘Shaping a nation: An Examination of Education in Pakistan’ (OUP 2010), Edited by Stephen Lyon and Iain Edgar, under Series Editor Ali Khan of LUMS. Ayaz Naseem, who teaches in Canada, has contributed an important paper on what may be at the root of Pakistan’s status of a weak state. His study shows that the Pakistani mind is shaped by textbook militarism which mixes lethally with the Islamic concept of free-wheeling jihad.
Of the school textbooks, he writes: ‘The battles and wars of early Muslim adventurers in India such as Mohammad bin Qasim, Mahmood Ghaznavi, Ahmad Shah Abdali, and Sultan Tughlaq are used to normalise war and militarism as cherished activities’ (p151). Recipients of Nishan-e-Haider in wars against India are lionised; Abdus Sattar Edhi and Abdus Salam are ignored. Islamabad controls the textbook content through the Curriculum Division of the Federal Ministry of Education. The author tells us: ‘The curriculum seeks developing an understanding of Hindu-Muslim differences; enhancing the understanding of the forces working against Pakistan; promoting realisation about the Kashmir issue; evaluating of the role of India with reference to aggression’ (p31). The curriculum directives seek to designate India (and by association Hindus) as the ‘other’, develop a siege mentality by learning that there are a number of outside forces working Pakistan, Israel and Jews among them (p152).
Ayaz Waseem defines militarism thus: An uncritical and unquestioning acceptance of the ways of the military by the general population of a society (p150). More significantly: ‘The normalcy of war and violence also normalised violence against the domestic ‘other’. Thus, we see in Pakistan how the military and militarism of all shades and hues, whether in the form of religious fanaticism, violence against women, children and minorities, or support for jihadi organisations domestically and internationally has come to be seen as normal’ (p157).
Hate textbooks are pan-Islamic: Shahid Javed Burki in his book Changing Perceptions, Altered Reality: Pakistan’s Economy under Musharraf 1999-2006 (OUP 2007) says education is a Muslim problem because the sector is backward in the entire Islamic world, and that ‘the study of Islam was introduced as a compulsory part of the curriculum in Pakistan in the 1970s and the 1980s…in order to placate a small but influential segment of society’ (p.177). The truth is that Pakistan is located in the middle of multiple concentric ideological circles: the circle closest to it is India-centric; the outer circle joins it with the backwardness of the Islamic world. After the Erdogan government has finished with it, Turkey too will be included in this ‘area of darkness’ called the Islamic world.
Is the Islamic state doomed? A interesting book Teaching Islam: Textbooks and Religion in the Middle East ; Edited by Eleanor Abdella Doumato & Gregory Starrett (Viva Books 2008) looks at the textbooks in the Muslim world. It takes account of the function of exclusion the state performs to purify itself and make itself more homogeneous. The Muslim obsession with national monism is intense because of low level of expertise of the state in education and its tendency to lean blindly on religion. Usually the invitation to violence against the excluded communities is only implied whereas in some cases, as in Saudi Arabia and Syria, it is quite plain. Invitation to violence against external foes is reactive in nature, relying on the holy edict allowing war in the defensive or resistant mode.
Hating the ‘other’ becomes hating oneself: In Egypt, the textbook competes with the extremist unofficial literature and loses out, leading to the conclusion that good textbooks are ineffective when social environment rejects moderation. Saudi textbooks talk of an enemies’ list at the high school level: among the deviants who have assaulted Islam are the Sabaeans (a Saudi reference to Shias in Yemen?), Kharijites, Qarmatians, Zanj, and Ismailis; tribal group spirit (asabiya) of the age of ignorance (jahiliya): the Shu’ubiya controversy during the age of the Umayyads; atheism (zandaqa); and heretical Sufism’ (p.158).
The Saudi books easily apostatise those who negate the Wahhabi worldview, implying the punishment of death to those who deviate, relying on the hadith that says, ‘Whoever changes his religion, kill him’. Saying Eid Mubarak to a Christian is like worshipping the Cross, meaning conversion to apostasy and therefore death (p.161). The Saudi textbook also outlaws saying assalam aleikam to a Christian or a non-Muslim, but if a non-Muslim offers the greeting in the Muslim mode it should be answered with wa alaik and not the full salutation (p.166). The Saudi government has removed certain even more primitive contents of the textbooks, only to be attacked by the radical ulema on Al Jazeera, saying the government was taking the Kingdom on the path of infidels (p.173).
No comments:
Post a Comment