Murder of History in Pakistan.

PAKISTAN is a part of India and P.V. Narasimha Rao is the prime minister of the country. This is being taught to school students in some Indian states, according to a member of parliament. S. Semmalai, of the Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (ADMK), highlighted these monstrosities in Lok Sabha on Wednesday while referring to the controversy over an Ambedkar cartoon in textbooks during a discussion on an amendment bill concerning educational institutions. Dr B.R. Ambedkar, born into a lower caste family, was a crusader for Dalit rights who headed the body that drafted India’s post-independence constitution. “In the textbooks of Karnataka, it is mentioned even now that Pakistan is a part of India. It went on to state that American constitution is based on capitalism. Class-III students of Urdu medium in Andhra Pradesh are taught that P.V. Narasimha Rao is the prime minister of the country,” Semmalai said, evoking laughter all around the house. Finding further fault with the textbooks, he said: “In some textbooks a forest is defined as a group of trees and heavy industry is defined as one where heavy type of raw materials are used.” The member said that only 15 per cent of graduates were suitable for employment. It reflects the poor quality of education at all levels, from primary to higher levels. He lamented: “If this is the quality and stuff that we provide to our students, one can imagine what will be the standard of our students. “Unless we make concerted efforts to allocate six per cent of the GDP to education, our goal will remain unreachable,” he added. REFERENCE: Karnataka textbook says Pakistan part of India http://dawn.com/2012/05/17/karnataka-textbook-says-pakistan-part-of-india/

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad predicting Pakistan


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q7p3_fZCKw

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad: The Man Who Knew The Future Of Pakistan Before Its Creation by Shorish Kashmiri, Matbooat Chattan, Lahore http://www.newageislam.com/books-and-documents/maulana-abul-kalam-azad--the-man-who-knew-the-future-of-pakistan-before-its-creation/d/2139

Most significantly, Allama Iqbal favoured, in his Sixth Lecture, the concept of real ‘ijtihad’ (reinterpretation) on the ‘nas’ (clear edict) of the Quran. That is the only ‘ijtihad’ useful to the Muslims. Nothing has gone right with Islamisation, starting from ‘zakat’ to ‘diyat’ (blood money) and the ‘hudood’. When the Muslims have done ‘ijtihad’ on the ‘nas’ they have done ‘ijtihad-e-ma’akoos’ (retrogressive reinterpretation) as in the case of the Quranic ‘nas’ on the law of divorce . Few will disagree that Allama Iqbal was a great poet. But there is a reaction against him in some circles after the state of Pakistan adopted him as its founding philosopher and selectively hyped up his message. One has to be careful not to lose objectivity over Allama Iqbal. Self-serving politicians and ulema quote him to advance their dubious causes. Finally the greatness of the poet will rest neither in the hype nor in the angry reaction against him. GEO (November 3, 2004) had Ghazi Salahuddin discussing Allama Iqbal with Dr Mubarak Ali on his Main Nahin Manta programme. Dr Mubarak Ali said that Allama Iqbal had no message for the world of today. He wrote poetry for the middle class Muslims and his objective was Muslim ummah which did not exist. He was not a supporter of democracy and it was an exaggeration to call him a national poet. One scholar present in the programme said that Allama Iqbal had defended democracy in his Lectures. Jinnah was finally to take the cue from Iqbal’s address of 1930. Dr Mubarak Ali said that Iqbal was a great poet but it was not fair to call him a national poet. He said his main aim was to create pride among Muslims whom he thought downtrodden at the time. Dr Mubarak Ali’s rather intemperate opinion (to which he was entitled) was rebutted by the audience effectively. If he wanted to win over the audience he failed because he was so extreme in posture as to be inaccurate. In his famous Lectures, Allama Iqbal favoured democracy. Most significantly, he favoured, in his Sixth Lecture, the concept of real ijtihad (reinterpretation) on the nas (clear edict) of the Quran. Those who hold him up as the thinker of the fundamentalist state should be chastened by this. His 1930 speech in Allahabad has been completely misinterpreted through selective reading by the state. His diatribe against the fundamentalist ulema has also been ignored by the state, while his anti-West verse has been exploited by politicians and the ulema to create xenophobia in Pakistan. Allama Iqbal cannot be rejected out of hand. When the ayatollahs of Iran did it, Dr Ali Shariati arose to his defence and told them they were wrong. GEO (November 3, 2004) programme Chchoti Khabar Bari Baat discussed the situation in Lyari saying the criminal mafias had taken over there and the police had become their informers. Lyari Town in Karachi had become impossible to control because of the fight between two rival mafias: Pappu Dakait and Rehman Dakait. In two and a half months 24 people had lost their lives there. The fight was over bhatta (protection money). The town had no water and no law and order. PPP MNA Gabol said that Lyari had fallen on bad times because it was traditionally a PPP constituency. The governments in the past were not interested in allowing any development there because of this factor. He said in 1996 when the PPP was in power there was no crime in Lyari. He said the police was on the payroll of the dacoits. He also said that ministers in Balochistan were backing the dacoits. When pressured he named chief minister of Balochistan, Jam Yusuf. He said many ministers in Sindh government, too, were taking money from the dacoits of Lyari. Police officer Imran Shaukat admitted police weakness but claimed that he was making headway. He said Lyari had only 100 criminals who could be taken care of. He said the dacoits had started ‘gate politics’ which was cutting off localities with no-go gates. He said every street had its small dacoits. He said he had brought 350 commandos and had deployed 240 policemen in the area. But Gabol said mukhbari (informers) was still going on by police and thana officers were changed on the orders of the mafia. And policemen also ran away. Police officer said Lyari could be normalised in one month. Lyari is the microcosm of a state which has gradually surrendered its writ. The involvement of the feudal and tribal politicians in crime through patronage of dacoits is well known in Sindh and Balochistan. This is the alternative state in existence. Their alternative state is opposed by another class which has been empowered by the state through jihad and the consequent surrender of internal sovereignty: the religious parties and their militias. This is armageddon, the big war in which everyone is a satan. GEO (November 5, 2004) had Aniq Ahmad in his Alif programme discussing dialogue among religions with Prof Manzur Ahmad, and clerics from sects plus a Christian priest. One cleric said that the Quran had said the Jews were firm enemies and so were the pagans (India) but the Christians were soft on Islam and there could be dialogue with them. Christians were not proud and were educated too. Prof Manzur said dialogue was not tabligh (proselytising) and Muslims should not approach a dialogue with other faiths in order to convince them to leave their religion and join Islam. Christian Father said that first one will have to decide what kind of minds had been developed in Pakistan. If the mind was inflexible then it will not dialogue with anyone. The Shia cleric said there was no ban on dialoguing with the Jews in the Quran. He said Quran was negative only about the Jews of Madina. Sunni cleric insisted that Quranic verse was daemi (eternal) therefore Jews were enemies even today. Aniq said the Quran ordained that both Christians and Jews were enemies of Islam; how could the Christians be good then? Christian Father said Muslims could do ijtihad whereupon Aniq asked could there be ijtihad on the verse of the Quran? This was a most absurd discussion with Dr Manzur Ahmed alone talking sense. The clerics were unfit for any human dialogue (even with Muslims) because of their intellectual rigidity. The Sunni was divided with Shia over whether to talk to other faiths. If Islam is to talk to other faiths the ulema will have to be kept out of it. Finally, the discussion made shipwreck on the issue of ijtihad: whether a Muslim could reinterpret a clear verse of the Quran. One fallacy among Muslims is that they allow reinterpretation of faith. The truth is that they live in taqleed (imitation) of the fiqh (jurists) of later times. The only ijtihad useful to Muslims would be ijtihad on the nas of the Quran, as proposed by Allama Iqbal in his Sixth Lecture and rejected by General Zia and the clergy. That is why nothing has gone right with Islamisation, starting from zakat to diyat (blood money) and the hudood. When the Muslims have done ijtihad on the nas they have done ijtihad-e-ma’akoos (retrogressive reinterpretation) as in the case of the Quranic nas on the law of divorce. * REFERENCE: SECOND OPINION: The persistent greatness of Allama Iqbal —Khaled Ahmed’s TV Review uesday, December 14, 2004 http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_14-12-2004_pg3_5

Sethi - Murder of History in Pakistan - 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUKr3bCaNJY

Text of Prof. Karrar Memorial Lecture on 2 November 2002 in Karachi delivered by Prof. Hamza Alavi On Religion and Secularism in the making of Pakistan by Prof. Hamza Alavi http://www.sacw.net/2002/HamzaAlaviNov02.html

On Religion and Secularism in the Making of Pakistan SACW 2002 Hamza Alavi Nov 2002

Sethi - Murder of History in Pakistan - 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0Wu9vrqOD8

Rewriting the History of Pakistan by Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy and Abdul Hameed Nayyar [Source: Islam, Politics and the State: The Pakistan Experience, Asghar Khan (ed.) Zed Books, London, 1985, pp. 164-177.] www.sacw.net | February 6, 2005 http://www.sacw.net/HateEducation/1985HoodbhoyNayyar06022005.html

Rewriting the History of Pakistan by Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy and Abdul Hameed Nayyar

Sethi - Murder of History in Pakistan - 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wj92twKzps

Pakistan: Curriculum of hatred in schools Saturday 5 May 2012 Policy Brief - The Continuing Biases in Our Textbooks By Zubeida Mustafa Policy Brief - Jinnah Institute http://www.sacw.net/article2666.html

Pakistan Curriculum of Hatred in Schools by Zubeida Mustafa

Sethi - Murder of History in Pakistan - 4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3AhD8KO1L0

History and interpretation: Communalism and problems of historiography in India by Irfan Habib http://www.sacw.net/India_History/IHabibCommunalHistory.html

Communal Ism and Problems of Historiography in India SACW Irfan Habib

Sethi - Murder of History in Pakistan - 5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyZNawOgi1M

Radicalization of State and Society in Pakistan by Rubina Saigol http://www.boell-pakistan.org/downloads/Chapter_Rubina_Final.pdf

Radicalization of State and Society in Pakistan by Rubina Saigol

Sethi - Murder of History in Pakistan - 6


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMTtBq-t2ew

ISLAM is a great and good religion, as are the other major faiths of the world, when interpreted and put into practice by true men of God learned, balanced, fair-minded, sensible, compassionate and benevolent. I am a Zarathushti, a follower of the prophet Zarathushtra. I am not a Parsi by religion, but by race. The origin of the word ‘Parsi’ goes back 1,368 years when a group of Zarathushtis from the province of Pars in Iran arrived to settle on the west coast of Hindustan, then ruled by the benign king, Jadav Rana. It was the Hindustanis who bestowed upon the community the name ‘Parsis’ the men from Pars. Zarathushtra taught his followers that life was a gift of God to be lived to the full, and that they should do unto others as others and they would be done by. He taught them that religion is a matter that rests entirely between man and his God, that intolerance, bigotry and dogmatism are the bitterest enemies of religion as they render it a tyranny and a form of persecution. Bigotry stifles reason, is blind and savage, sectarian bigotry and inter-religious bigotry being equally evil. Man has no right to demand that his neighbour shall address his God as does he, nor that he shall pray, worship, and sacrifice to God in the manner that he does. No thinking man’s idea of God and religion can ever be the same at all times and in all places on earth. True men of religion know that they have no right to impose their way of thinking upon others, that they must remain free from the spirit of sectarianism and fanatic zeal. Zarathushtra’s teachings, as do the teachings of all the great prophets, define cleanly and clearly the difference between religion and religiosity.

The Parsis living in the four provinces of Pakistan inherited this country. They chose to remain in Jinnah’s Pakistan, and with relief and happiness accepted his creed as proclaimed on August 11, 1947, in the Constituent Assembly. He was clear and concise when he told the members that all men are equal, that religion is not the business of the state. Jinnah’s Pakistan died with him. Zarathushti blood was not shed in the making of Pakistan, though Zarathushti support was given unstintingly. Now to Nawaz Sharif. To gain the two-thirds majority necessary for the smooth passage of the Fifteenth Amendment through the National Assembly and (particularly) the Senate, he will have to buy men. He has done it before, and will do it again. The process has already started. This week, Chaudhry Shujaat was sent off to Balochistan. Closely followed by trusted briefcase carrier, Saifur Rahman, to meet my friend Nawab Mohammad Akbar Shahbaz Khan, Tumandar of all the Bugtis, who owns and controls five vital Senate votes. The Nawab has his own perception of Islam, as is his right, which may not necessarily tally with the concept as followed in Raiwind. Towards the end of last year, inspired by the incompetence of Nawaz Sharif’s government, I had a bet with him that Nawaz Sharif would not survive as PM beyond July 31. I lost. When I asked Akbar where I should send my cheque, he told me he did not want it. Being a good Muslim, he cannot accept a Kafir’s money. One must wonder if, had he lost the bet, would he have held, as a good Muslim, that he cannot pay a Kafir?

The day before yesterday, I read in Dawn that the Nawab had acknowledged that he has received a cheque from a Kafir, but since Islam prohibits a Muslim to use money won on a bet he must pass it on. He has done so, to the Quetta Press Club. This is typical, and enjoyable, Akbar Bugti logic. His Islam did not prohibit him from making a bet with a Kafir, only from accepting a Kafir’s money. He has his own views on Zardosht as he calls him, and why not? He must have had fun with Saifur Rahman (I would have loved to have been with them at their meeting). Nawaz Sharif sits within three cabinets. Firstly, in the Raiwind cabinet, headed by Abbaji who is advised by his cardiologist Dr Shahryar, Judge Afzal Lone, Son Shahbaz, and Child Prodigy Hussain. Second is the kitchen cabinet he himself heads, made up of his Mians and Chaudhrys ( ‘Lahore Lahore hai’). The third, in order of importance, is the official cabinet at Islamabad.

Crisis or no crisis, the third cabinet probably meets formally twice or so in a hundred days. It can broadly be divided into three groups. One comprises the gung-ho table-thumpers, who hang on Nawaz Sharif’s every utterance, echoing each one with a ‘Wah-wah, Mian Sahib’ before he has even completed his sentence, pride of performance going to ‘Mushahidsaab’. Then there is the group made up of the sour-faced, grim and silent lot, whose lips remain sealed unless they are specifically urged to speak up on their own specific subjects. To this second group belongs Khalid Anwer, an intelligent man who has proved to be a bitter disappointment. He cannot match his predecessor in office, law champion of all governments, Jadoogar Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, who at least is honest enough to laugh and say. ‘Accept me as I am, with warts, blemishes, briefcases and all. If it were not for all the weak and corrupt governments of Pakistan, I would not be where I am today.’ Sharifuddin never places himself on a pedestal, seldom looks down on a lesser mortal, Khalid Anwar would do well to re-read paragraph 301 of his written statement, filed in the Supreme Court in response to Benazir Bhutto’s petition against her 1996 dismissal:

"The doctrine of collective responsibility has different facets and aspects. At its most basic, the doctrine means that the ministers are collectively, and as a body, known as the cabinet, responsible to the National Assembly. Individual ministers do not have the choice or luxury of agreeing only with some government decisions and not others. However much a minister may disagree with a policy or decision taken by the cabinet, he must in public and in particular before the National Assembly give it his full and unstinting support. If he finds it impossible to accept or abide by the decision or to support it, he must then resign from office. A minister’s choice to remain in the cabinet is tantamount to his accepting responsibility for all cabinet decisions and government policy."

The third cabinet group is headed by those of practical pragmatic minds, such as Ghous Ali Shah, whose decisions are based on the fear of where they would be should Nawaz Sharif fall. Dogged by the misfortunes that have beset them since the death of Jinnah, the people of Pakistan now face the daunting prospect of Nawaz Sharif manipulating his Fifteenth Amendment through Parliament and then declaring himself, Amirul Momineen and Commander of the Faithful for life. His duties, as he presumably sees them, would enable him, inter alia, to:

Pass an Act whereby a constitutional amendment can go through Parliament by a simple majority (at present the Constitution provides for a two-thirds majority).

Declare the Quran and Sunnah to be the constitution and nominate a body of ‘pious’ Muslims to interpret it.

Declare that all state functionaries, including judges, must strictly follow government directives whether they consider them to be right or wrong.

Dissolve the provinces as being contrary to the concept of Millat.

Abolish Parliament, or just the senate, and nominate a Shoora of ‘pious’ Muslims.

Declare opposition to be un-Islamic, hence banned.

Declare that public offices be restricted to ‘pious’ Muslims.

Declare restrictions on the rights of women, thus banning them from holding public office (bye-bye BB).

Declare any sect of Muslims to be non-Muslim and thus minorities.

Declare that minorities have no rights other than the practice of their religion, of their personal laws, traditions and customs, thus depriving them of their right to vote and other fundamental rights. Subject them to payment of Jazya.

Introduce flogging, amputation, lapidation, the death penalty, and public executions for various major and minor offences.

prohibit western education and declare Islamic education to be compulsory.

Restrict communications with the outside world, such as the Taliban -style banning of television.

Declare interest to be haram and thus not payable on international debts.

All this will be done in the name of a good religion as interpreted at Raiwind.

REFERENCE: Not the business of the state Ardeshir Cowasjee DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending : 12 September 1998 Issue : 04/36 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1998/12Sep98.html#nott

Tribute to K.K. Aziz: A Great historian of Pakistan.

Khurshid Kamal Aziz 1927-2009

LAHORE: Renowned historian K.K. Aziz passed away in a Lahore hospital on Wednesday at the age of 81. Khurshid Kamal Aziz was an outstanding historian and a prolific writer. He authored a large number of books that opened up angles on history and culture sought to be concealed by official chroniclers. Quite aptly, one of his famous works is titled ‘The Murder of History’. K.K. Aziz’s was an expansive canvas and while he has to his credit books such as ‘History of the Partition of India’, ‘The Meaning of Islamic Art: An annotated bibliography’ and ‘Public Life in Muslim India: 1850-1947’, he also came up with volumes on some important individuals who helped shape history in the subcontinent at critical junctures – among them Sir Agha Khan III and Chaudhry Rehmat Ali. Historian K.K. Aziz dead Thursday, 16 Jul, 2009 06:03 AM PST

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/12-historian+kk+aziz+dead--bi-17

FOR K. K. AZIZ by F S Aijazuddin

I would like to thank you all for being here today to honour one of our most distinguished historians, K.K. Aziz sahib. On 11 December, yesterday, Mr Aziz completed his first eighty years. God grant him a multiple of those eighty years, but may they be peaceful and healthy for him. When I approached Shamim Khan sahib over a month ago to host this function, he generously agreed to do so without a murmur, for he recognized, as many of you today must do, the enormous contribution K.K. has made to our lives, and more significantly to the minds of our children. KK’s books have become text-books in our schools and colleges. As all of you know, they provide an invisible, invaluable and entirely beneficial influence in the impressionable minds of those who need to recognize the gridlines of history. KK’s life has been a labour of love – love of the written word, a love of literature, a love for history, and a premature love for an anonymous readership that is yet to be born. For who else but someone with an eye to the future would have authored more than thirty-five books, and yet have unfinished manuscripts queuing for his attention? For those of you who have not read KK’s autobiography of his first twenty-one years from his birth in 1927 until 1948, I earnestly advise you to do so. It is more than 700 pages of prose. It is an extended sonnet to love. The first is the love that his parents had for this seventh son – the only one to survive beyond the first three years. No wonder they doted on him. The second is the love his father had for history and literature. His father Abdul Aziz himself fell in love with Heer after hearing a rendition of Waris Shah’s lyrical poem. He remained devoted to her for the next thirty years, collecting every known manuscript and version he could find. He spent three days of a week on Heer and the other three days researching on the other love of his life – the Mughals. As a student myself, I searched for his books on the Mughal Court, its Arms and Armour, and Jewellery, without realizing that I would meet him years later through his son. Who does not love their own mother? Few sons can express that filial love as tenderly as KK does in his autobiography: “Her face is so vivid in my memory as if it was painted on the inside of my eyelids.” Another enduring love that has stayed with KK has been his love for the town of Batala. Only he knows why he cares so deeply for it, which is why he went there last year to relive old memories. I could continue and talk about KK’s years at FC College or the thirteen years he spent at Government College between 1944 and 1957. However, what is much more important and symbolic of that relationship is the presence here today of persons from both those institutions. When I was arranging this function, I asked myself: “What could one give as a birthday present to someone who has given so much of himself to others for the past eighty years?” I found a clue in his autobiography. “Next to Sirajuddin,” KK writes, “the most inspiring teacher whose class I attended was Sufi Ghulam Mustafa Tabassum.” So here today, KK, is a Persian Lughat that once belonged to Soofi sahib. I found it on the footpath in Anarkali one Sunday morning. I opened it and saw Soofi sahib’s signature, dated April 1930. So, with your permission, may I on behalf of all of us present this book that once belonged to your favorite teacher to your favourite alma mater, to the Library of Government College University in your honour? It is an inadequate expression of the love that all of us have for you, and an insufficient symbol of the contribution you yourself have made to enrich our lives by your presence amongst us. SPEECH FOR K.K. AZIZ, [AITCHISON COLLEGE, LAHORE, 12DECEMBER 2007] http://www.fsaijazuddin.pk/SpeechesDetailsFull.aspx?op=E&NewsID=7

=====

Sartaj Aziz, former finance minister, said the research done by K.K. Aziz was an asset of Pakistan. He said regretfully that the writer of 44 books had died in state of misery in Pakistan, adding, in future, the same story would not be repeated and the government would help his family financially and make a committee to publish his half-finished works. Dr Hassan Askari Rizvi said he was introduced to K.K Aziz as a book of civics, which he studied in Intermediate, was written by the great historian. He said that K.K. Aziz was an isolationist and used to talk with reference and confidence. He added that he emphasized on the research and that was why most of his life passed in the India Office Library. Khalid Ahmed, consulting editor of a daily English language newspaper, said that Dr K.K. Aziz was a born historian. He said they could never find an error in his writings because he was very keen and touchy about his writings. Tribute to Dr Aziz Wednesday, July 22, 2009 By Our Correspondent http://www.thenews.com.pk/print1.asp?id=189347

Journalist Khaled Ahmed said Aziz was a great historian, but he never found a good publisher. In his book ‘Murder of History’ he explained how history had been inaccurately described. He understood the fact that the nation did not have correct historical awareness and wrote this book also “to reprimand his pervious mistakes he committed while writing history”. Khaled Ahmed recalled him as a very practical person. “Aziz returned the Tamgha-i-Imtiaz as he did not compromise on principles. Benazir Bhutto appointed him in the Pakistani High Commission in Britain where he purposely went to complete his books. Later, he was expelled from the commission. He, however, stayed in England and a Ravians Society in London funded him for three years to complete his various writing projects.” He who strove to set record straight Wednesday, 22 Jul, 2009 07:10 AM PST http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/national/he-who-strove-to-set-record-straight-279

History taught in Pakistan challenged

Times Of India Wednesday 3 February 1999

ISLAMABAD: Punjab Education Minister Brigadier (retd) Zulfikar Ahmed Dhillon has challenged the history taught in Pakistan's educational institutions by arguing that no Muslim shed even a drop of blood in the struggle against the British for the creation of Pakistan. Brig Dhillon made this statement during his Presidential address in Lahore at a recent meeting of an organisation comprising those who participated in the Pakistan movement.


``We say we fought for the creation of Pakistan, but I say only one person, Quaid-e-Azam (Mohammad Ali Jinnah), worked for it ... No Muslim shed a drop of his blood for this,'' he said. ``We became Muslims just because of our hatred for Hindus,'' he told his enraged listeners. This is the first observation of its kind at a time when frenzied movements are in progress for the promulgation of the Shariat Law in Pakistan. The Urdu daily Jang, which reported the incident, also carried an article the following day on late Pakhtun leader Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan's sacrifices for India's independence along with Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Scholars in Pakistan have regretted what is being taught in schools and colleges in the name of history. A few years ago a book entitled ``The Murder Of History'' by K K Aziz said, ``in Pakistani schools and colleges what is being taught as history is really national mythology, and the subjects of social studies and Pakistan studies are nothing but vehicles of political indoctrination.''(UNI)

These extracts from the great Prof K.K. Aziz's book, I thought some of you might find them interesting.

Taken from Dr. K.K. Aziz , The Murder of History in Pakistan.

Culture and Inferiority Complex

The double claim that the people of the UP were in the forefront of the struggle for the creation of Pakistan and that their culture is the source or foster-mother of Pakistani culture has produced problems of identity for the indigenous population of Pakistan. Space does not permit a full treament of its impact other various provinces taken sperarately. I will concentrate on the Punjab as a case-study because I am more familiar with it.

The mind of the largest province of the country has been put to total confusion by the following factors born of the claim:

1: An inferiority complex of the severest kind has struck the Punjabi. he is told that his own role in the freedom movement was marginal and inappreciable. For many years he had supported the Unionist Party, which was an enemy of the Muslim League and an obstacle in the path to leading to independence, he voted for the partition only in 1946. Therefore he was a latecommer to the ranks of the patriots. He was a laggard, and should be made aware of it. His own culture is also inferior, and the better parts of it borrowed from Delhi and United Provinces. He sided with the Urdas in rejecting the Bengali as a national language; when the concession was made with great reluctance, he mourned it loudly in company with them. In doing so, he made bitter enemies of the people of East Pakistan, but he did not care.

2: By accepting Urdu in his schools, literature, journalism and everyday life he let down his own toungue be thrown on the dunghill of history. By supporting the cause of Urdu in Sind he alienated the Sindhis who then bracketed him with the Urda usurpers of their province.

3: By failing to challenge the Urda claim of the superiority of the U.P. culture he made a confession that he had no culture of his own, thus disowning his own past and its contribution to this life.

4: In politics he was very happy to make common cause with the Urda-dominated federal government in (a) creatin the ONE Unit of West Pakistan, thus angering Sind, Balushistan and NWFP. (b) allowing the identity of his own province to be lost, and (c) lending support to the rest of of West Pakistan in opposition to East Pakistan (the raison d'etre of the One Unit scheme). By thus playing into Urda hands, he made two grievous mistakes: he made the Bengalis look at him as their chief enemy, and, as the largest component of the West Pakistan province, dominated the smaler partners and alienated their sympathies. In sum he made himself thoroughly un-popular with every other group in the country to please the tiny 3 percent (1950s' figure) Urda population.

5: By continuing to concentrate on producing Urdu literature, he denied the Punjabi language a chance to revive itself, thus sending a message to the urduas that he was at one with them in rejecting Punjabi as a respectable language and considering Punjabi literature as something unworthy and low.

This self-abnegaion is probably unique in the history of the nations anywhere. but was it self-abnegation? I can see no element of denial or self-sacrifice in it. The Punjabi did what he did with pleasure, confidence, pride, almost glee. He went further than any other Pakistani group in adopting Urdu as his everday spoken tongue, even at his home. There was no compulsion for the change. The pathan student studied through Urdu-medium but spoke Pashto at home. The Sindhi went to Urdu-medium schools but stuck to own language in his domestic and social life. The argument that Urdu-medium schooling results in Urdu speaking home life is a false one. The Punjabi had gone to Urdu-medium schools since 1855 but had not made hismelf Urdu-speaking. The trend started in the 1960's under political pressure from Karachi and Islamabad and because the anti-Bengali feeling in which the Punjabi decided to support the Urdas. Yet his decision was made of his own free will and without demur.

He chose Urdu becasue he was convinced that his own culture was either inferior or non-existent. The proaganda which had its beginnings with M. Hussain Azad and Altaf Hali and others brought to the Punjab by the British to found the province's school system now bore fruit. A century of insidious effort had not gone waste. but by thus flattering the Urdas the Punjabi intelligentsia ensured the demise of their native tongue which their fathers and forefathers had spoken for over a thousand years.

The Punjabi was happy at the thought that, owning Urdu as his language, he added one more weapon to his armory of domination over the rest of Pakistan. he already enjoyed an unalterable majority in the population of the country, an overbearing majority in the national army, and an unchallengable majority in the civil service. With the urdu language in his pocket his victory was complete(though he had put himself in the pokcet of th Urdas; but preferred to shut his eyes to this reality). Now he also became the dominant linguistic and cultural group in the land. Did he realize that his victory was engineered by people who looked at him with overt and deep contempt and, in private conversation, called him a Punjabi Dhagha (ox; a symbol of stupidity)? It did not matter. He had at least been accepted as a civilized person speaking the "national" language. It did not occur to him that he had achieved "respectibility" by alienating himself from his own history and culture. I suggest that he reckons the price he has paid, even if the account is made up in Urdu.