Answers :-
Opinion 1:-
Pakistani school curriculum witnessed some major changes during the General Zia-ul-haq regime. I belong to the generation that studied in the schools designed by Zia-ul-haq. The curriculum has not changed much at all.
Pakistani curriculum teaches history in Urdu, Islamic Studies, Pakistan Studies, English, and even in Physics, Mathematics and Chemistry.
The emphasis on the Islamic history which is taught in every other subject. There are chapters dedicated to the life of prophet Muhammed and his companions in English, Urdu, and Islamiat (Islamic Studies). In the science subjects, there are chapters about the contributions of Muslim scientists in the development of modern science.
The emphasis of curriculum is not to mention much about Pakistan's cultural heritage. Instead it attempts to pretend that Pakistan's cultural association is with the Arab world.
This curriculum totally ignores the fact that Pakistan has many non-muslim minorities living in the country. Hence students are not introduced to other cultures and there is no concept of cultural harmony, tolerance and other social factors. In fact, even the muslim history is taught from a Sunni point of view.
The curriculum is designed to teach about two nation theory and Pakistan's ideological existence. It shows Muslim invaders of Indian subcontinent as heroes that brought Islam to India. It ignores Mughal Emperor Akbar because he had secular views and promoted harmonious living between Hindus and Muslims of India.
In the history of British colonization of Indian sub-continent, it is taught that Hindus betrayed Muslims during the uprising of 1857.
The Fall of Dacca and independence of Bangladesh is completely ignored until 10th grade and even then it is mentioned like a non-significant consequence of Indian aggression on Pakistani borders which Pakistani armed forces stopped heroically.
As an outsider you will be surprised as to how much history is taught at Pakistani schools and how beautifully it is distorted to promote an engineered ideology promoted by Zia-ul-Haq's regime. Studying the distortion and the design of curriculum will also help one understand Pakistan's interests in Afghanistan and Pakistan's relation with other countries and cultures. It will also help you understand the ideological conflicts with in the country.
Opinion 2:-
I did study Pakistan studies in school, which is a government mandated subject all students in Pakistan have to study. However, I went to a english speaking high school in Karachi, so I studied from english textbooks - I don't know the ratios, but most Pakistani's would have studied Pakistan history from a urdu textbook, and they are quite different.
Pakistan Studies is a mixture of history, geography sociology, and other bits of all the social sciences stirred together to make up this class intended to teach you about Pakistan, it's history, land and people.
The Pakistan studies english textbooks, first of all, are mind-numbingly boring. So depending on the school and their teachers, what you end up learning will vary a lot depending on your school and even your teacher - since no one, the teacher or the students will pay too much attention to the textbook.
Some of the things which have stuck with me from the Pakistan studies class:
1) History starts in Arabia, just before Islam, where really bad people lived - until Mohammed came along and united them under Islam and made everything much better. One thing which is emphasized a lot is that before Mohammed the arabs were so bad they would bury their girl childs alive. By emphasized, I mean really emphasized - a good chunk of time is spent covering the various ways Arabs were bad, evil and even more evil before Mhd came along. As an aside, I wonder what an Arab would think if she read this description of her society from a Pakistani viewpoint.
Now, this is a bit strange as the mandatory Islamic studies class starts history from Adam and Eve, with Abraham, Jesus, Moses, just about every famous character from the Bible and the Koran are covered, all of which happened before the Mohammedan Islamic period.
This is basically ignored in Pakistan studies class - i.e there is no agricultural revolution, or Chinese civilization, or whatever else was happening before Islam. Ashoka is covered though, and the Rajputs.
2) There is a lot of emphasis on the Muslim figures - Pakistan history starts from Mhd Bin Qasim's invasion of Sindh, bringing Islam to the subcontinent.
3) Between 3 and 4, Mhd Ghauri conducts his famous 17 expeditions into Hindu India, raiding temples and bringing the loot back home. It's not clear what he has to do with Pakistan.
4) Stuff happens, then the Moghuls are drilled into your skull, with every battle and double cross covered in great detail. You don't learn much as after a while all the battles blur into one big mess. I can tell you eons about the three battles of Panipat, though I don't remember any of the context as context is not a part of Pakistan studies.
5) Ah, the British arrive and take over. This period has a lot of hand wringing of how the British did badly by the Muslims and favoured the Hindu's.
6) 1857 - the war of Independence! Oh glorious day, where the Muslims refused to bite down on cartridges cooked up in pig fat and revolted, and were brutally put down by the evil white man. Indian soldiers, hindu and muslim alike, were stuffed down into wells 10x to a 100x for every Britisher they had stuffed down a well themselves.
After this point the British made sure to keep the Muslims out of high level government posts, and this is one of the key reasons why Muslims and Hindus needed partition, as the British installed this great divide by favoring the Hindu's after 1857, besides the fact that the Muslims were the more martial race and so the British feared them more.
There is a bunch of details of how the British retaliated against the Indians, united for once as they suffer the wrath of their rulers. Once again, as they do everywhere, the textbook authors forget they are attempting to speak to teenagers and go into boring, boring detail and miss the forest for the trees. If they really wanted to paint the British as evil they could point to the occasional preventable famines the British presided over which killed millions, but it's the personal stories they like.
7) World War II is here and independence must happen! Now we have excruciating detail about every little thing Jinnah and the Congress did. Gandhi makes many a appearance but it's all legalese about his visits to England.
8) The bastard Mountbatten and Nehru - they plotted together to take Kashmir and a bunch of other lands too, which no in Pakistan even knows the name of anymore! Damn Mountbatten and Nehru and that bastard Radcliffee who drew the lines on the map giving Jinnah his 'moth eaten country'. There isn't much about Jinnah actually, besides being a brilliant lawyer who convinced the British to make him a country.
9) Jinnah dies, 1948. Pakistan is lost.
10) India and Pakistan went to a few wars, but, er, ah, we won, and thats all you need to know. What, you child, you there, you are asking about your aunt who used to be Pakistani but is now Bangladeshi? Child, if you don't shut up you will be made to stand outside in the hot sun!
11) Ayub Khan did wonders for the country, built dams and what not, and Zial Haque brought the country once more to the right path by bringing back the Islam.
You might be wondering, what about all the propaganda about the evil Hindus? At least in english schools, catering to the elite and parts of the middle class, it's really not there. There is definitely this embarrassed coverup of all the wars and loosing over half the country in '71, but back in 1992-96 the english Pakistan Studies were no where as close to bad as the article I've linked to above talks about.
What does happen, is that an education in Pakistan completely ignores the fact that there is a very large country right next door. India is literally not mentioned except for the fact that Pakistan sorta went to war and beat them, and Mountbatten awarded Kashmir to the Indians and the super duper pathan tribes took back a third of it. There is nothing about the Indian people, land, culture or any common inheritance.
What I found really strange is that about 60% of Pakistani's are Punjabis, and a good chunk of Punjab is in India, sharing a common language, food, culture and traditions, and most Pakistani's have family in India - but the history books act like that is not possible. People literally grow up thinking their Indian relatives are 'lost' - like they sailed across the wide seas back in the 1600's, never to be seen ever again.
Of course a lot of Indians and Pakistani's do keep in touch with their cross border relatives - but those are the well off. The poor are indoctrinated to forget they exist. The visa issue means that strategy works out. For example, my grandmothers sister stayed back in India, and in the 2000's when she was dying (at 91), my grandmother (87) in Pakistan was denied on a visa on the grounds that there is no occasion for her to visit, and if there was a real reason, like a funeral to attend she should reapply for a visa then.
There are a lot of these stories which reaffirm the impression thought in schools that Indians don't want to see or mix with Pakistani's. Of course, Pakistan does exactly the same thing regarding Indian visa's.
Take of this what you may, Pakistan history varies widely across provinces, schools and income level.
Above aside, about half of Pakistan studies concentrates on teaching you about the actual land - which now, after a decade and a half of reading other books, I can summarize a few years of classes into: Pakistan has different soils in different regions, the rainfall varies, and there be mountains in the north and deserts to the west and east!
Really, you might scoff, but in years of learning Pakistan studies, more than half of the total subject time was spent teaching teenagers the difference between alluvial and some other types of soil, how rainfall aids in growing crops and deserts are bad for living in. And the very important point that you have variation in rainfall and soil quality. Pakistan studies textbook writers are literally obsessed with the land and boring the crap out of anyone stupid enough to actually read the textbooks.
Opinion 3:-
Well if we talk 'only' about the history books which are taught in schools,there is a difference.Indian history include colonial and post colonial situations and the struggle of Indians for the independence.You can say it 'decolonization'
Pakistani history books differ,It usually includes the imperialism era,then all the struggle Mohammad Ali Jinnah did for Pakistan.
Talking about context,Pakistani history books include the details of all the conferences,the people involved in them and the outcome of those efforts.But yes none of the book includes negativity about Nehru or Gandhi.
Look,when we are in school we are taught just the course books and as there are Indians in Pakistan too so you can't open up the 'real' history.And I kinda found that in your book too.Apart from the fact that obviously Indian history books emphasis on Gandhi and justify Indians actions and Pakistani history books emphasis on Mohammad Ali Jinnah and justify Muslims actions.Otherwise all those dates,the results,the words of leaders etc are almost the same.
I must say that I am just considering the books,Pakistani books do not include a hint of hatred because school going children are just too young to digest the history 'WE' know being adult.I hope my answer helps you and if you want to know the content of the books then those include Pakistan's ideology,historical perspective of ideology,Muslim's political struggle,Pakistan movement,the role of ladies,students etc in the movement of Pakistan,establishment of Pakistan,and other chapters about the Islamic system,foreign policy,geographic unity of Pakistan.
Opinion 4:-
Ummm I also studied in Pakistan and yes India is shown as a villain some times but the fact is that Pakistan has faught with india four times so we can not leave this outside of history.
About Jinnah being secular or islamic fundamentalist, whole books can be and have been written on this very subject.
And about the pakistani people not knowing history of french revolution, we would have taught about it if it was Pakistan revolution. But its a shame that world war one or two is never mentioned.
History as a subject in Pakistan is called Pak studies which is short for Pakistan studies. Although you can choose history as a main subject later on. But untill 10 th grade pakistan studies is the only history taught.
It contains mostly useless statistic information about temprature climate and geographical conditions in Pakistan.
There are chapters on the constitution, political system and yes there are chapters on the struggle of Pakistani people for independence. But India does not comes out as a villain in them.
And yes Pakistan Studies focuses on the two nation theory but just in passing. One chapter I think it was five or six pages maximum.
Opinion 1:-
Pakistani school curriculum witnessed some major changes during the General Zia-ul-haq regime. I belong to the generation that studied in the schools designed by Zia-ul-haq. The curriculum has not changed much at all.
Pakistani curriculum teaches history in Urdu, Islamic Studies, Pakistan Studies, English, and even in Physics, Mathematics and Chemistry.
The emphasis on the Islamic history which is taught in every other subject. There are chapters dedicated to the life of prophet Muhammed and his companions in English, Urdu, and Islamiat (Islamic Studies). In the science subjects, there are chapters about the contributions of Muslim scientists in the development of modern science.
The emphasis of curriculum is not to mention much about Pakistan's cultural heritage. Instead it attempts to pretend that Pakistan's cultural association is with the Arab world.
This curriculum totally ignores the fact that Pakistan has many non-muslim minorities living in the country. Hence students are not introduced to other cultures and there is no concept of cultural harmony, tolerance and other social factors. In fact, even the muslim history is taught from a Sunni point of view.
The curriculum is designed to teach about two nation theory and Pakistan's ideological existence. It shows Muslim invaders of Indian subcontinent as heroes that brought Islam to India. It ignores Mughal Emperor Akbar because he had secular views and promoted harmonious living between Hindus and Muslims of India.
In the history of British colonization of Indian sub-continent, it is taught that Hindus betrayed Muslims during the uprising of 1857.
The Fall of Dacca and independence of Bangladesh is completely ignored until 10th grade and even then it is mentioned like a non-significant consequence of Indian aggression on Pakistani borders which Pakistani armed forces stopped heroically.
As an outsider you will be surprised as to how much history is taught at Pakistani schools and how beautifully it is distorted to promote an engineered ideology promoted by Zia-ul-Haq's regime. Studying the distortion and the design of curriculum will also help one understand Pakistan's interests in Afghanistan and Pakistan's relation with other countries and cultures. It will also help you understand the ideological conflicts with in the country.
Opinion 2:-
I did study Pakistan studies in school, which is a government mandated subject all students in Pakistan have to study. However, I went to a english speaking high school in Karachi, so I studied from english textbooks - I don't know the ratios, but most Pakistani's would have studied Pakistan history from a urdu textbook, and they are quite different.
Pakistan Studies is a mixture of history, geography sociology, and other bits of all the social sciences stirred together to make up this class intended to teach you about Pakistan, it's history, land and people.
The Pakistan studies english textbooks, first of all, are mind-numbingly boring. So depending on the school and their teachers, what you end up learning will vary a lot depending on your school and even your teacher - since no one, the teacher or the students will pay too much attention to the textbook.
Some of the things which have stuck with me from the Pakistan studies class:
1) History starts in Arabia, just before Islam, where really bad people lived - until Mohammed came along and united them under Islam and made everything much better. One thing which is emphasized a lot is that before Mohammed the arabs were so bad they would bury their girl childs alive. By emphasized, I mean really emphasized - a good chunk of time is spent covering the various ways Arabs were bad, evil and even more evil before Mhd came along. As an aside, I wonder what an Arab would think if she read this description of her society from a Pakistani viewpoint.
Now, this is a bit strange as the mandatory Islamic studies class starts history from Adam and Eve, with Abraham, Jesus, Moses, just about every famous character from the Bible and the Koran are covered, all of which happened before the Mohammedan Islamic period.
This is basically ignored in Pakistan studies class - i.e there is no agricultural revolution, or Chinese civilization, or whatever else was happening before Islam. Ashoka is covered though, and the Rajputs.
2) There is a lot of emphasis on the Muslim figures - Pakistan history starts from Mhd Bin Qasim's invasion of Sindh, bringing Islam to the subcontinent.
3) Between 3 and 4, Mhd Ghauri conducts his famous 17 expeditions into Hindu India, raiding temples and bringing the loot back home. It's not clear what he has to do with Pakistan.
4) Stuff happens, then the Moghuls are drilled into your skull, with every battle and double cross covered in great detail. You don't learn much as after a while all the battles blur into one big mess. I can tell you eons about the three battles of Panipat, though I don't remember any of the context as context is not a part of Pakistan studies.
5) Ah, the British arrive and take over. This period has a lot of hand wringing of how the British did badly by the Muslims and favoured the Hindu's.
6) 1857 - the war of Independence! Oh glorious day, where the Muslims refused to bite down on cartridges cooked up in pig fat and revolted, and were brutally put down by the evil white man. Indian soldiers, hindu and muslim alike, were stuffed down into wells 10x to a 100x for every Britisher they had stuffed down a well themselves.
After this point the British made sure to keep the Muslims out of high level government posts, and this is one of the key reasons why Muslims and Hindus needed partition, as the British installed this great divide by favoring the Hindu's after 1857, besides the fact that the Muslims were the more martial race and so the British feared them more.
There is a bunch of details of how the British retaliated against the Indians, united for once as they suffer the wrath of their rulers. Once again, as they do everywhere, the textbook authors forget they are attempting to speak to teenagers and go into boring, boring detail and miss the forest for the trees. If they really wanted to paint the British as evil they could point to the occasional preventable famines the British presided over which killed millions, but it's the personal stories they like.
7) World War II is here and independence must happen! Now we have excruciating detail about every little thing Jinnah and the Congress did. Gandhi makes many a appearance but it's all legalese about his visits to England.
8) The bastard Mountbatten and Nehru - they plotted together to take Kashmir and a bunch of other lands too, which no in Pakistan even knows the name of anymore! Damn Mountbatten and Nehru and that bastard Radcliffee who drew the lines on the map giving Jinnah his 'moth eaten country'. There isn't much about Jinnah actually, besides being a brilliant lawyer who convinced the British to make him a country.
9) Jinnah dies, 1948. Pakistan is lost.
10) India and Pakistan went to a few wars, but, er, ah, we won, and thats all you need to know. What, you child, you there, you are asking about your aunt who used to be Pakistani but is now Bangladeshi? Child, if you don't shut up you will be made to stand outside in the hot sun!
11) Ayub Khan did wonders for the country, built dams and what not, and Zial Haque brought the country once more to the right path by bringing back the Islam.
You might be wondering, what about all the propaganda about the evil Hindus? At least in english schools, catering to the elite and parts of the middle class, it's really not there. There is definitely this embarrassed coverup of all the wars and loosing over half the country in '71, but back in 1992-96 the english Pakistan Studies were no where as close to bad as the article I've linked to above talks about.
What does happen, is that an education in Pakistan completely ignores the fact that there is a very large country right next door. India is literally not mentioned except for the fact that Pakistan sorta went to war and beat them, and Mountbatten awarded Kashmir to the Indians and the super duper pathan tribes took back a third of it. There is nothing about the Indian people, land, culture or any common inheritance.
What I found really strange is that about 60% of Pakistani's are Punjabis, and a good chunk of Punjab is in India, sharing a common language, food, culture and traditions, and most Pakistani's have family in India - but the history books act like that is not possible. People literally grow up thinking their Indian relatives are 'lost' - like they sailed across the wide seas back in the 1600's, never to be seen ever again.
Of course a lot of Indians and Pakistani's do keep in touch with their cross border relatives - but those are the well off. The poor are indoctrinated to forget they exist. The visa issue means that strategy works out. For example, my grandmothers sister stayed back in India, and in the 2000's when she was dying (at 91), my grandmother (87) in Pakistan was denied on a visa on the grounds that there is no occasion for her to visit, and if there was a real reason, like a funeral to attend she should reapply for a visa then.
There are a lot of these stories which reaffirm the impression thought in schools that Indians don't want to see or mix with Pakistani's. Of course, Pakistan does exactly the same thing regarding Indian visa's.
Take of this what you may, Pakistan history varies widely across provinces, schools and income level.
Above aside, about half of Pakistan studies concentrates on teaching you about the actual land - which now, after a decade and a half of reading other books, I can summarize a few years of classes into: Pakistan has different soils in different regions, the rainfall varies, and there be mountains in the north and deserts to the west and east!
Really, you might scoff, but in years of learning Pakistan studies, more than half of the total subject time was spent teaching teenagers the difference between alluvial and some other types of soil, how rainfall aids in growing crops and deserts are bad for living in. And the very important point that you have variation in rainfall and soil quality. Pakistan studies textbook writers are literally obsessed with the land and boring the crap out of anyone stupid enough to actually read the textbooks.
Opinion 3:-
Well if we talk 'only' about the history books which are taught in schools,there is a difference.Indian history include colonial and post colonial situations and the struggle of Indians for the independence.You can say it 'decolonization'
Pakistani history books differ,It usually includes the imperialism era,then all the struggle Mohammad Ali Jinnah did for Pakistan.
Talking about context,Pakistani history books include the details of all the conferences,the people involved in them and the outcome of those efforts.But yes none of the book includes negativity about Nehru or Gandhi.
Look,when we are in school we are taught just the course books and as there are Indians in Pakistan too so you can't open up the 'real' history.And I kinda found that in your book too.Apart from the fact that obviously Indian history books emphasis on Gandhi and justify Indians actions and Pakistani history books emphasis on Mohammad Ali Jinnah and justify Muslims actions.Otherwise all those dates,the results,the words of leaders etc are almost the same.
I must say that I am just considering the books,Pakistani books do not include a hint of hatred because school going children are just too young to digest the history 'WE' know being adult.I hope my answer helps you and if you want to know the content of the books then those include Pakistan's ideology,historical perspective of ideology,Muslim's political struggle,Pakistan movement,the role of ladies,students etc in the movement of Pakistan,establishment of Pakistan,and other chapters about the Islamic system,foreign policy,geographic unity of Pakistan.
Opinion 4:-
Ummm I also studied in Pakistan and yes India is shown as a villain some times but the fact is that Pakistan has faught with india four times so we can not leave this outside of history.
About Jinnah being secular or islamic fundamentalist, whole books can be and have been written on this very subject.
And about the pakistani people not knowing history of french revolution, we would have taught about it if it was Pakistan revolution. But its a shame that world war one or two is never mentioned.
History as a subject in Pakistan is called Pak studies which is short for Pakistan studies. Although you can choose history as a main subject later on. But untill 10 th grade pakistan studies is the only history taught.
It contains mostly useless statistic information about temprature climate and geographical conditions in Pakistan.
There are chapters on the constitution, political system and yes there are chapters on the struggle of Pakistani people for independence. But India does not comes out as a villain in them.
And yes Pakistan Studies focuses on the two nation theory but just in passing. One chapter I think it was five or six pages maximum.
