Sustainable Development Policy Institute

Storming the textbooks
The Daily Times
April 03, 2004
By Abbas Rashid

There is little doubt that our curricula and textbooks have helped to create a mindset that is a part of the problem rather than a part of the solution. Our schools and universities should be a defence gainst dissension within, and not locations where our children learn to internalise a discriminatory framework.

The controversy generated by the SDPI report, The Subtle Subversion, on curricula and state of textbooks in Pakistan is not entirely unexpected. It is par for the course when it comes to almost any attempt at reforming Pakistan's education system that resembles nothing as much as complete shambles at this stage.

One could differ on the details, but it is difficult to argue with the essential thrust of the report regarding the need to provide material to children that promotes tolerance, harmony and peace rather than hate, militarism and exclusivity. The report highlights historical distortions contained in textbooks, the systemic flaws in the procedures and structures governing their production and the manner in which they reinforce negative stereotypes rather than encouraging critical thinking.

They are unimaginatively written and the content is presented in ways that is not easily intelligible to children - in short they are glaring examples of poor workmanship. And yes, as the report emphasises, our textbooks are often entirely insensitive to the fact that citizens of Pakistan subscribing to faiths other than Islam have a right to be represented in our texts so that their children in schools are not made to feel as if they are strangers in their own land even if they are a minority.

The compilers of the report, A H Nayyar and Ahmed Salim, have built on, and credited, the work of other scholars such as the eminent historian K K Aziz. Of course Dr Nayyar himself wrote on the subject as far back as 1985 in a book published by the Zed Press.

Anyhow, as is often the case when such issues are raised in Pakistan, the debate over the report has been deftly narrowed by the detractors to a contest over who is the better Muslim and who the greater patriot. So, it should come as no great surprise that instead of debating the pros and cons of the report in academic terms while conceding the obvious need for much better textbooks, the issue has been turned into a battle for safeguarding Islam and the ideology of Pakistan.

In the haze that has come to surround the controversy over the report it is useful to remind ourselves that the argument is not about excluding religion from the curriculum but for providing a balanced perspective. The Munir Report based on the enquiry into the anti-Ahmadi riots of 1953, brilliantly analysed the phenomenon of the instrumentalist use of Islam by vested interests for self- serving and political ends.

More than half a century later the practice continues unabated. The SDPI report's suggestions have been termed by some critics as being pro-India and anti-Pakistan. Sustainable peace does require that we take a more balanced view of our neighbours and review the element of demonising the people, rather than criticising the governments, that has become part of our textbooks. Indeed, many in India too continue to protest vociferously against the saffronisation of texts under the BJP government. But, as in their case, so in ours, encouraging intolerance and exclusion has far more profound implications for the kind of society that we create for ourselves than the admittedly important issue of our relationship with key neighbours.

There are all kinds of reasons why sectarianism and an extremist ethos has developed in Pakistan over recent years. But, there is little doubt that our curricula and textbooks have helped to create a mindset that is a part of the problem rather than a part of the solution. Our schools and universities should be a defence against dissension within, and not locations where our children learn to internalise a discriminatory framework that encourages them to relegate minorities to the category of second-class citizens, denotes women as inferior beings or treats a growing number of sects even among Muslims as being outside the pale of Islam. Clearly, this serves neither Islam nor, by any stretch of imagination, does it make Pakistan stronger.

Those opposing change, whether in textbooks or otherwise, have picked on the US government's focus on madrassa education in Pakistan. Clearly, reform is needed here as elsewhere but the reason is that it is our society that cannot afford further fracturing and not because premium is to be placed on some US agenda.

Nevertheless, the connection has been made and will be exploited by lobbies determined to block change. The momentum is already being built up against what appears to be the next major target in the area of education reform i.e., The Aga Khan University Examination Board.

An alliance called the 'Tuhaffaz-Taleemi Nisab Mahaz' (Preservation of the Educational Curriculum Front) while declaring its intent to launch a movement against any change in the curriculum also charged that the AKU Board was part of the US-led conspiracy to change the curriculum. Again, whatever support the Aga Khan University gets from various sources for this effort, a few facts need to be kept in mind.

The University has over the years managed to establish a medical college and hospital, a school for nursing and an institute for educational development. Their high standards are recognised both at home and abroad. It serves crucially to provide an option for quality education within Pakistan along with a handful of other institutions such as the Lahore University of Management Sciences or the Quaid-e-Azam University.

More such institutions are badly needed for obviously the alternative of getting a good education abroad is open only to a miniscule minority in Pakistan. Similarly, only a very small number of our students can afford to sit for examinations conducted by foreign institutions such as the Oxford and Cambridge Examination Board.

It is crucial, therefore, that an Examination Board set up by a credible and internationally recognised institution such as the AKU emerge as an alternative within Pakistan for our schools to associate with. This will enable a far larger number of our students to get an education that is worthwhile and certification that is widely recognised. In any case, association with the AKU Board is voluntary and schools that do not want to join have absolutely no need to do so.

In the education sector, reform is crucially needed in the areas of teacher education and training, textbooks and examinations. Reform is a process and even in the best of educational systems its specifics can and should be continually discussed, debated and refined. Insistence on preserving without change an education system that has all but collapsed is hardly a serious option for us.
------------------------------------------------------
Abbas Rashid is a freelance journalist and political analyst whose career has included editorial positions in various Pakistani newspapers

Schoolbooks reinforce stereotypes of women: SDPI
The Daily Times
April 02, 2004
By Waqar Gillani

LAHORE: Pakistani textbooks contain gender-biased stereotypes that portray women as subordinate to men, according to a report by the Sustainable Development Policy Institute.

According to a brief of the report – The Subtle Subversion – The State of Curricula and Textbooks in Pakistan – compiled by AH Nayyar and Ahmed Salim, apart from sustaining gender stereotypes, the school curriculum has a surprising lack of human rights and peace education.

The report says that despite state rhetoric regarding women’s rights and the need to provide them with equal educational and job opportunities, state sponsored textbooks reinforce gender-biased stereotypes. Women are not mentioned in language exercises dealing with sports, while others highlight their subordinate or referential position. According to the report, the curriculum contains “the consistent articulation of a single unified message that women have a subsidiary status in society, and that their only legitimate role or function is to do with household tasks associated with nurturing and caring for the family”.

The authors of the report say the way women are presented needs to be changed by portraying them in roles other than as housekeepers, as doctors, engineers or lawyers.

About human rights, the report says there is scope to teach these in Social Studies, Pakistan Studies, Islamiyat and Literature classes, but there seems to have been no conscious decision to do this.

“In the textbooks of various subjects, one hardly finds the development of the concept of human rights over different levels of education. The references to human rights are too brief to make an impact on the minds of the children. Since human rights are not taught in a structured manner, no special educational manuals on human rights education are prepared and published either by the government or the private publishers,” the report says.

It notes that Social Studies and Pakistan Studies books contain no references to actual facts of gender inequalities, bonded labour in Sindh and the Punjab, karo kari (honour killing) in Sindh, watta satta (exchange marriage) in the Punjab and other customs practiced in the tribal areas of Balochistan and the Frontier.

“The evils of child labour and discrimination against minorities, as found in the political system and social attitudes, are not addressed in the courses of studies ... textbooks at the school level do not even refer to the constitution of the country, or select from the constitution themes to be projected in the syllabi.”

The report says that successive governments over the last few years have taken initiatives to raise awareness about human rights, mainly because of international pressure.

The report says public school textbooks are “highly propagandist”, encouraging students to hate Hindus and be chauvinistic and militaristic. “They also contain material glorifying war, which tends to make the young value war and violent rather than peaceful solutions to problems. Islam too has been used to sanctify this policy of creating an anti-Hindu, anti-India, pro-war and chauvinistic mentality.”

It proposes a programme of peace studies in schools. “Resolving conflicts, be they between individuals, groups or nations, peacefully by interaction and dialogue, is something that does not come to humans naturally and requires training,” it says.

The authors say private school students studying for O and A Level exams, particularly in Social Studies, have an “exceedingly interesting and enlightening” curriculum, while public school students following the Social Studies curriculum and textbooks designed by the Ministry of Education and the Textbook Boards get material which contains strong religious and national prejudice, historical omissions, ill-reasoned analysis, and a narrow focus on Pakistan and the Muslim world.

Overview: In its final overview of Pakistan’s education system, the report says education in the last 53 years has remained “an arena of experiments and implementation of divergent and often contradictory policies. It has also been a history of high ideals and promises and a dismal record of poor achievement.”

It says most problems have their origin in the curriculum documents and the instructions to textbooks authors issued from the Curriculum Wing of the Ministry of Education. “As long as the same institutions continue to be asked to devise curricula, the problems will persist. Repeated interventions from the post-1988 civilian governments failed to overcome the institutional resilience.”

The report recommends major reforms in the Ministry of Education. It calls for the establishment of a National Education Board and the abolition of the Curriculum Wing and Textbook Boards.

The report, an outcome of the SDPI’s A Civil Society Initiative in Curricula and Textbooks Reform project, has been widely discussed in the Curriculum Wing, though what action will be taken remains unclear.

The study was started in May 2002 by a group of academics examining the curricula and textbooks presently being used in public schools. The SDPI researchers were: Prof Syed Qamar Abbas and Dr Anis Alam (Punjab University, Lahore); Hajra Ahmad (Principal, Khaldunia High School, Islamabad); Dr Syed Jaffar Ahmed (University of Karachi); Dr Khalil Ahmed (Government College of Education, Lahore); Mohsin Babbar, Ayesha Inayat, Aamna Mattu, Dr AH Nayyar and Ahmed Salim (SDPI); Kalpana Devi (a lawyer from Larkana), Sibte Hasan (formerly with the Punjab Textbook Board, Lahore), Dr Tariq Rahman, Dr Khurshid Hasanain, Dr Seema Pervez and Dr M Pervez (Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad), Neelam Hussain (Simorgh, Lahore), Nadeem Omar Tarar (National College of Arts, Lahore), Dr Sarfraz Khan (University of Peshawar), Arfana Mallah (ASR, Hyderabad), Fatima Mujtaba and Tahira Naqvi (Beaconhouse School, Islamabad), Mahboob Sada and Haroon Nasir (Christian Study Centre, Rawalpindi), Prof Bahadur Khan Rodani (Balochistan University, Quetta); and Dr Zarina Salamat, Dr Rubina Saigol, Prem Shevani and Prof Sabir Afaqi.

Should textbooks be purged of hatred?
Daily Times
April 02, 2004
Khaled Ahmed’s Urdu Press Review

Is a textbook transformed into a scripture by reason of the revealed text carried by it? What if tomorrow a theocratic government wants to alter the textbook? Textbooks are written with child psychology in mind. An overdose of a good thing may be counter-productive. Why should “foreign hand” be always invoked?

The Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI) Islamabad has kicked off a very bitter debate about the content of the school and college textbooks in Pakistan. It says in a report that the federal government gives guidelines to the provincial textbook boards to prepare books that contain derogatory remarks against other religions and force non-Muslims in Pakistan to forcibly read texts meant only for Muslims. It accuses the ministry of compelling the provinces to present history in a one-sided way to paint India in a negative hue. It also questions the propagation of two-nation theory.

Writer Zubair Ahmad Gondal in “Jang” (26 March 2004) criticised the SDPI report on the matter of injecting Islamic content in textbooks and said that no foreigner had the right to force Pakistan to remove Arabic verses on jihad from school textbooks. He said the scandal of SDPI report came in the wake of another scandal, that of the Government’s removal of Quranic verses about water from the biology course book of classes 9 and 10. The writer praised Dr Shirin Mazari for defending the Islamic content of textbooks. He praised the editorial written on 16 March 21004 in “Jang” against the SDPI report, but said it was wrong on the part of the government to form a committee to scrutinise the SDPI report while some members of the committee were the very same people who had helped write the report. He quoted a publication “Afkar-e-Muallam” and praised it for saying that “our textbooks have been attacked by the West” (yalghar). He quoted an “expert” of Punjab University as saying that a certain lobby was targeting our textbooks on behalf of foreign elements.

The newspaper carried the above article without clarifying that the writer was a leader of Islami Jamiyat Tulaba. The SDPI report has fallen in a period of time when no one wants to touch it with a barge pole. The Musharraf-Jamali government will not take up even a minimally controversial subject because it knows that the opposition will go to town with it. The opposition is in no mood to listen to even a good policy; it simply wants to attack even if it violates its past commitments. The above article does not focus on the logic of what the report says. Since the removal of divine text is involved, it is appropriate to say goodbye to logic. Why should science subjects be obfuscated through revealed text? Can’t the revealed text be set in the religious syllabus? Is a textbook transformed into a scripture by reason of the revealed text carried by it? What if tomorrow a theocratic government wants to alter the textbook? Textbooks are written with child psychology in mind. An overdose of a good thing may be counter-productive. Why should “foreign hand” be always invoked? Why can’t a Pakistani institution suggest reforms? The fact that SDPI accepts funds from foreign countries, it is suspected of carrying out a foreign agenda. It so happens that purging of the textbooks of hatred and falsehood will be regarded with appreciation by the entire world, including the donors of SDPI.

Daily “Nawa-e-Waqt” (24 March 2004) quoted Justice (Retd) Javid Iqbal as saying that a report on curriculum and textbooks prepared in 2003 by SDPI’s Dr Nayyar was against the ideology of Pakistan because it opposed the concept of “umma” as unrealistic and rejected the ideology pf Pakistan, in particular the two-nation doctrine. He criticised the government for not reacting against the report as it deprived Pakistan of its grounds for existence. He also said that jihad was the strength of the state and this should be known to children.

The concept of the “umma” is unrealistic as is proved by the functioning of the OIC. It is dangerous because it undermines the concept of the nation state. Jihad in particular is dangerous in Pakistan today because it gets caught up with the argument of “amr” and “nahi”. Already the claim on the part of the state that jihad could only be waged by the government in power is being challenged by the non-state actors who have enjoyed the fruits of “unofficial” jihad for a decade while the nation has had to digest its bitter harvest. Why was the ideology of Pakistan not endangered before 1979 when the books were without their poison? Dr Javid Iqbal has fought against the legacy of General Zia but has now decided to embrace it for reasons of convenience.

Columnist Ataul Haq Qasimi in “Jang” (27 April 2004) parodied the SDPI critique of school textbooks in Pakistan by writing that the Quaid-e-Azam was once sucking a mango (choop) while Allama Iqbal was sitting on a cot clad in his dhoti and banyan pulling on his hookah. After having sucked the mango the Quaid washed his hands in the tub containing the mangoes, drank a large glass of “lassi” and then addressed Allama Iqbal: “Allama Sahib, you are really astounding, you haven’t even looked at the mangoes”. To this Allama Iqbal replied, “I was actually lost in a very rare bit of fancy. That’s why I did not think of he mangoes. I was thinking why not create Pakistan?” Hearing this the Quaid jumped up in joy. He got up from his chair and embraced Allama Iqbal and said, “Subhan Allah, dil khush kar diya, you have gladdened my heart. I will from today try to put the vestment of action (amli jama) on this idea of yours”.

The idea here is to show how the SDPI report belittles the ideology of Pakistan. Was Pakistan created merely because Jinnah and Iqbal one day just thought of creating it? Qasimi’s point is that they created it to imbue it with jihad and two-nation theory.

Reported in Nawa-e-Waqt (24 February 2004), textbook publishers of Lahore criticised federal minister of education Zubaida Jalal for listening to an NGO criticising the textbooks for teaching bias against Hindus while the said textbooks were prepared in light of the guiding curriculum issued by her ministry. The NGO accused the textbooks of teaching prejudice against Hindus and Sikhs and distorting history to make Muslims superior to the followers of other religions. The NGO accused the textbooks of lying when they said that India attacked Pakistan in 1965 unawares without saying that the provocation was offered by Pakistan. The publishers appealed that the minister should consult them before planning textbooks and not the NGO.

Here are the vested interests. The way the textbooks are made by the printers any message would fall by the wayside. Distortion of history, if sought to be put in the books, should be packaged beautifully. At least let us brainwash our children efficiently. *

IRIN on SDPI report
(IRIN)
April 1, 2004

PAKISTAN: Educational material insensitive to religious minorities, says report

ISLAMABAD, 1 April (IRIN) - A decades-long drive to Islamise Pakistani society has resulted in educational material becoming insensitive to religious minorities, says a report compiled by a leading think-tank, the Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI).

“The Subtle Subversion - The State of Curricula and Textbooks in Pakistan” points out that, in the process of Islamisation, text-book writers have re-written the history of Pakistan, Dr A Nayyer, one of the report’s two authors, told IRIN in the capital, Islamabad on Thursday.

“And they have re-written it in a manner which has basically impoverished history and taken away from students the material that could be enriching their perspectives, their national perspectives,” he stressed.

The first thing the report focused on was that, in the drive on Islamisation of the society, educational material had become insensitive to the feelings of religious minorities and ran the risk of alienating them from society, Nayyer explained.

“For example, ‘Islamic Studies’ are not confined to the subject ‘Islamic Studies’ which is a compulsory subject for all Muslims. It has been spread out into other parts of the curriculum, in Social Studies, in Urdu Language, in English Language, everywhere - and those are compulsory for students of all religions. Hence, it basically hurts their sensibilities,” he maintained.

In some classes, the curriculum forced non-Muslims to learn passages from the Koran by heart, to learn some of the other Koranic passages, to learn Islamic modes of prayer and ablutions and rituals through a text-book which is called the Integrated Curriculum for Classes 1-3, Nayyer said.

“This we’ve pointed out as contravening the rights that the constitution provides to the minorities. We’ve said that it contravenes the constitution and constitutional protection and hence these things should be taken off,” he said.

“They have not only defined the origin of Pakistan in a very, very distorted and exclusionist manner but they have defined Pakistan as a country of Muslims alone. And in the process of doing this, the identity of Pakistan is defined in relation to India and to Hindus. And therefore, a lot of hate material exists for Hindus in textbooks, and curriculum documents ask people - textbook writers - to actually include such material,” he said.

The government’s reaction to the report was the formation of a special committee, Nayyer said.

“The committee sat for one week and agreed with our report and made its recommendations. But the education minister has chosen to declare that the committee has rejected the report and therefore the government has rejected the report,” he said.

In a televised debate where he was also a participant last week, Nayyer said, the education minister gave the assurance that the government intends to take out hate material and that which forces non-Muslims to read Islamic studies.

“So, at least, on these two things, she has declared that she will do this in text-books and curricula. So, there is a commitment on her part to, at least, do these two things,” he said.

“On the other hand, on issues like militancy that is inculcated in the educational curriculum, she has not promised anything. In fact, she has gone the other way around in trying to defend herself and her government from attacks from the religious political parties in the parliament and told them that if she has made any more changes, it is in order to include more jehad into the curriculum,” Nayyer said.

Jehad and the curriculum
She Magazine
March 31, 2004
By Beena Sarwar

Education Minister Zubeida Jalal is on the defensive. The so-called religious parties are baying for blood at the rumour that references to Jehad are to be removed from Pakistani textbooks. "I am a fundamentalist," declared Ms Jalal in a TV talk show, meaning that she believes in the fundamentals of Islam. "But I am not a terrorist." Good for her. However, the point is not what her personal beliefs are, but what kind of beliefs the Pakistani education system is inculcating.

Those who blew themselves up at the Quetta Imambargah, taking dozens of innocent lives with them, would also undoubtedly affirm that they are devout Muslims, and deny that they are terrorists. But actions speak louder than words, and those who think that by killing others they are participating in a jehad, obviously have a very narrow and distorted view of Jehad, its principles and its true spirit. Where does this view come from?

The idea of Jehad was incorporated into the Curriculum after the Afghan war. At that point it suited Washington and their most allied of allies, Pakistan, to encourage and glorify the "Mujahideen", or holy warriors, in the war against the Soviets - and a US university was asked to formulate textbooks for Pakistani schools accordingly, says educationist Dr A.H. Nayyar. Since the Soviets are no more, the "Mujahideen" have not only mutated into "Taliban" but have also outlived their usefulness. So the same American university has been given the task of removing such references.

Ms Jalal was vehement in her denial that the curriculum is being changed at the behest of either Washington, or because of a recent study titled The Subtle Subversion: The State of Curricula and Textbooks in Pakistan, co-authored by Dr Nayyar and Ahmed Salim (text available at www.sdpi.org). The point is not who is behind the changes being discussed, but the urgent need for such changes, which the government of Pakistan itself is cognizant of.

In the same TV talk show, columnist Ataul Haq Qasmi argued that if references to Jehad were removed from textbooks, then all Islamic references might as well be discarded. But no one is advocating the removal of all Islamic references from our curriculum. But it is clear that what has been propagated since 1979 is a very narrow view of Islam, taught with the specific aim of getting the youth to follow a certain path. The result, says the Subtle Subversion study, is that our children have been "educated into ways of thinking that makes them susceptible to a violent and exclusionary worldview open" to the "sectarianism and religious intolerance" that President Musharraf identified as a major crisis facing Pakistan even before the attempts on his life.

Opponents of the report have taken issue with its focus and tried to divert attention from its findings by questioning the 'agenda' of its authors. But there is no arguing with the facts and findings it presents in great detail, including textbook references and their page numbers. Going through the study, it becomes clear that it is not just some madrassahs that are spreading hatred, sectarianism and religious bigotry, but also the prescribed government textbooks.

It is not just on issues of communal and religious intolerance that one can fault these textbooks - they fare no better on gender issues. The Subtle Subversion's chapter 'Gender Biases and Stereotypes in School Texts' finds that the producers of Pakistani textbooks "are actively resistant to the idea of women's rights and believe in the preservation of the status quo". It cites the 1959 Report of the Commission on National Education, in which women are viewed not as individuals and equal citizens in their own right, but as wives and mothers only, disregarding all other categories.

Do later textbooks reflect the increasing participation of women in the public and professional spheres over the years? The Gender Biases chapter says not. A 1985 study found that girls were shown most often in passive roles, enforcing traditional stereotypes. Matters have not improved over the years - a "gender biased division of roles is woven into almost all the exercises and stories in these books, thus we have constant references to men performing active and/or heroic roles and women engaged in passive, often frippery activities".

This mindset is obvious in the Federal Curriculum Wing's recent refusal to incorporate the late journalist Najma Babar's article 'Madam Chairman, Sir', in a proposed Class Ten English textbook submitted by the Sindh Textbook Board. The article is about the young Najma going to work, while her husband got the children ready for school and looked after them, since she had a job and he didn't. The reason given for censoring this article from the proposed textbook, was that it goes against the values of Pakistani society!

Obviously, the Curriculum Wing officials don't believe in moving with the times, or allowing texts to include views that do not reflect the dominant ideologies and traditions. But how else are our children to learn that there are other ways of thinking and seeing?

The English course has not changed in over forty years. Many children struggle with English as a second language, which they know is still the language of power in this country. Accordingly, the senior English language teaching (ELT) experts, who were commissioned by Sindh Education Minister Prof. Anita Ghulam Ali to formulate new English language textbooks for Classes 8-12, tried to include material in these new textbooks that would make English learning more interesting, accessible and student-friendly.

However, the Federal Curriculum Wing rejected much of the new material and provided a list of topics that the new English textbooks should include -- like drug abuse, traffic rules, festivals of Pakistan and so on. Topics that are hardly likely to excite the imagination of most students.

But it is the material that was removed from these proposed English textbooks that is of particular concern. Besides Najma Babar's article, a poem by Khalil Jibran was also censored, apparently on the grounds that he is Jewish. Even if he was, should the religion of a great poet and philosopher be reason enough to remove his work?

Similarly, an essay by Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah's daughter Dina Wadia about her father was removed. The reason given was that he had disowned her, and in any case she is not a Muslim. Are these reasons valid? Dina Wadia was recently given the status of a State Guest when she visited Pakistan for the first time since her father's death. She has stayed away all these years because, as she has said, she didn't want to be didn't want to be appropriated by anybody for political purposes. One wonders how she would feel about being censored for political purposes.

Textbooks incite violence and hatred, says SDPI
Daily Times
March 30, 2004
By Waqar Gillani

* Institute report recommends extensive changes to school curriculum
* Says religious minorities made to study Islamiyat in Urdu classes

LAHORE: The Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI) has recommended the government correct inaccuracies about religion and history in school textbooks, saying these incite hatred of India, encourage militancy and violence through jihad, and are unfair on Pakistan’s minorities.

According to a report titled ‘The subtle subversion - the state of curricula and textbooks in Pakistan’ compiled by AH Nayyar and Ahmed Salim, there is an urgent need to revise class I to XII textbooks and curricula.

The report, part of the SDPI’s Civil Society Initiative for Curricula and Textbook Reforms project, has been discussed widely by the Curriculum Wing of the Education Ministry, but it is not clear what action will be taken.

The report deals specifically with three subjects: social studies or Pakistan studies, Urdu and English, which are compulsory for all students. It notes that though Islamiyat is not compulsory for non-Muslim students, they are taught it through other subjects. Many non-Muslim students end up taking Islamiyat anyway because they have the incentive of 25 percent extra marks.

“One may get an impression from these textbooks that Pakistan is for Muslims alone because Islamiyat is taught to all students whatever their faith, including a compulsory reading of the Holy Quran,” says the report.

It also says that the indoctrination of Pakistan’s ‘ideology’ creates hatred against Hindus and India and that students are urged to take part in jihad and die as martyrs.

“The process of equating Muslim and Pakistani identities starts at early stages of school education. For example, the most recent National Early Childhood Education (NECE) curriculum released in March 2002 stressed the need ‘to nurture in children a sense of an Islamic identity and pride in being Pakistanis.’ There is no mention that this is to be done among Muslim students alone. The suggested material under this objective is Islamiyat, that is to be read by students of all religions,” says the report.

The curricula for all the compulsory subjects require every Pakistani, irrespective of his or her faith, to love, respect, be proud of and practice Islamic principles, traditions, customs and rituals, says the report.

The report says the most recent Urdu textbooks in the Punjab and Islamabad have Islamic contents in the following proportion: four out of 25 lessons in Class I, eight out of 33 lessons in Class II, 23 out of 51 lessons in Class III, 10 out of 45 lessons in Class IV, seven out of 34 lessons in Class V, 14 out of 46 lessons in Class VI, 16 out of 53 lessons in Class VII, 15 out of 46 lessons in Class VIII and 10 out of 68 lessons in Class IX-X.

Similarly, Class III social studies textbooks have at least four chapters on personalities, which are invariably Muslim personalities. In Class III, the chapters are on the prophets Adam, Abraham, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon him); in Class IV, there are chapters on the prophet Muhammad (peace), Hazrat Abu Bakr, Hazrat Umar and Hazrat Khadija; and in Class V, there are chapters on Hazrat Fatima, Muhammad Bin Qasim and Shah Waliullah. “Thus all non-Muslim students in the mainstream education system are taught Islamic studies compulsorily,” says the report.

The curriculum also forces non-Muslim students to read the Quran, not in Islamiyat classes, but in Urdu classes. Urdu textbooks for classes I to III contain lessons on reading the Quran, which violates the rights of religious minorities and the Constitution, says the report.

The report says that the phrase ‘Ideology of Pakistan’ had no historical basis in the Pakistan Movement. “It was coined much later by political forces which needed it to sanctify their brand of politics, especially by those who had earlier been against the creation of Pakistan. It is no wonder that the Jamaat-e-Islami and people akin to the politics of the Jamaat use this phrase excessively,” says the report.

The report says textbooks encourage students to take part in jihad and martyrdom. Themes of Jihad and martyrdom clearly distinguished the pre and post-1979 educational curricula. There was no mention of these in the pre-Islamisation period, and the post-1979 curricula and textbooks eulogised jihad and martyrdom and urged students to become militants and martyrs.

The report says Pakistan’s civilian and military government promoted militarism in society, which is now reflected in its textbooks. The curriculum includes material that may create hatred and glorifies war and the use of force, incitement to militancy and violence, insensitivity to the existing religious diversity of the nation and perspectives that encourage prejudice and discrimination towards religious minorities, says the report.

“For 30 years in its 55-year history, Pakistan has had governments that were run by the military or put into office and sustained by the military. It is not a matter of surprise that the government-textbook connection has developed into a military-textbook bond. This started in the 1970s when a former prime minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, introduced a full two-year course on the ‘Fundamentals of War’ and ‘Defence of Pakistan’ for Class XI and XII respectively.

“In the ‘Fundamentals of War’ themes like objects and causes, conduct, nature, modern weapons, operations, ethics, war and modern warfare were thoroughly discussed. The ‘Defence of Pakistan’ dealt with Pakistan’s defence problems, economy and defence, foreign policy, military heritage, the role of its armed forces during peace and the qualities of military leadership. There was a military science group for intermediate students, which consisted of war, military history, economics of war, military geography, defence of Pakistan and special military studies as subjects.”

According to the report, Pakistani textbooks contain hatred for Hindus and India that reflect a sense of insecurity from the ‘enemy’ and an attempt to define one’s national identity. “The first serves the military and the second the political Islamists,” it says.

The textbooks contain military heroes, narrations of battles in which the heroes had fought, narrations of the glorious victories and victors from the Islamic history, as well as poems urging Jihad.

A disappointing debate on the SDPI report
Daily Times
March 29, 2004

A debate on a private television channel on 25th March on the SDPI (Sustainable Development Policy Institute) report on subversion of textbooks was ample proof, if indeed such proof is required, that we have lost the capacity in this country to conduct a structured discussion within the parameters of a topic. It was an unequal battle between Dr AH Nayyar, one of the compilers of the report, and his three opponents, federal education minister Ms Zubaida Jalal, Urdu columnist Mr Ataul Haq Qasimi and academic Ms Dushka Syed. But before we go any further, it is appropriate to put one allegation to rest: Ms Zubaida Jalal’s opposition to the SDPI report should remove the allegation that the government was following the agenda in syllabi correction on the basis of the SDPI report which itself has been put out at the behest of some foreign powers (read, the United States). Even so, during the discussion Mr Qasmi chose to undermine the report by saying that it followed someone else’s maqasid (objectives)!

It would have been funny if it weren’t so tragic to see the inability of the report’s critics to mount a decent argument. If an argument is premised on allegations, it clearly cannot even begin to look at an issue on the basis of its intrinsic merits or demerits. The opponents chose to kick the player rather than the ball. There is evidence galore that our education system has failed comprehensively. Corollary: there can be no two opinions about the urgent need to look into the various causes of decline and try to turn the situation around. There is also no doubt in the minds of those who are either non-partisan or are not pining for positions within the establishment that intolerance and bigotry have become the staple in this country. Now if someone chooses to look into this process of degeneration, among other things, in the syllabi that are being taught, should that exercise be debated on any basis other than its innate value?

Ms Zubaida Jalal called herself a fundamentalist. That, if nothing else, should have won Dr Nayyar the debate. What sort of person calls himself/herself a fundamentalist? We have had to see the sorry spectre in this country of judges in the highest court declaring themselves fundamentalists. There is no point in falling for the sophistry that such declaration means nothing more than the fact that anyone who believes in the fundamentals of Islam is a fundamentalist. In reality, we have seen what believing in certain fundamentals means in this country, and what consequences normally flow from such belief. The sectarian strife is an example of how perceived ‘deviation’ from some ‘fundamentals’ can help fundamentalists on both sides of the divide to apostatise and kill the ‘other’.

Mr Qasmi’s assertion that that if jihad and shahadat were removed from the textbooks then we would also have to remove the Quran, the hadith and Allama Iqbal from our midst has become typical of the way we argue, taking a leap to the other extreme. The Quran by no means is just about jihad or shahadat. Why must one aspect be emphasised at the cost of ignoring the hermeneutics of the holy book. Any jurist knows that a constitutional clause is normally read and interpreted in conjunction with other clause(s). If this is the case with a man-made document, should we be so cavalier in relation to the holy book as to pick and choose from it concepts and treat them as stand-alone ideas without fulfilling a host of exegetical requirements before arriving at a rational conclusion?

Ms Syed, an academic and author, was even more disappointing. She completely failed to pitch her argument at the level we would have expected her to, resorting instead to clichés a la politicians. It is painful to even reproduce her arguments. None of the three opponents of the report had the courage to put things in a context. Since Ms Jalal represents a government that is ostensibly trying to purge the syllabi and bring them in line with modern requirements, her performance on the show should worry her boss Mr Jamali. None of the three answered the question of when, how and why the syllabi were subjected to the kind of indoctrination that the report points at. None was prepared to look at the report’s findings and recommendations in relation to what can be empirically proved. Incidentally, the SDPI report is not the first of its kind. Much work in the field has already been done, beginning with Prof KK Aziz’ brilliant book, “Murder of History”, which was the seminal work. Others who have contributed to studying this malaise include sociologists Rubina Saigol and historian Dr Mubarak Ali.

It is good to debate controversial issues on television. But the good is lost through the inability of the participants to argue a point. It makes no sense to go into a discussion and lose track of the basic premise. This stream of consciousness, more appropriately a free-for-all, indicates a complete ignorance of the rules of debate and the use of logic to make a point. It replicates what we see on the streets and is a good ploy because the only way to defeat a logical argument is to attack it outside that framework. If nothing else, this inability to deal with logical categories should be enough reason for us to see where we might have gone wrong!

EDITORIAL: SDPI report and Jama’at’s accusation
by Munir Saami
Daily Times
March 19, 2004

The ruckus created by the government’s decision to purge the Biology textbook of Quranic verses on jihad is refusing to die. We editorialised the issue on 16th March (“Qazi Hussain Ahmed’s choice”) pointing to the dangers inherent in taking a religious approach to such issues. That advice has predictably fallen on deaf ears. The Jama’at-e Islami is not about to nuance its political stand and is bent on making mischief. But our immediate concern relates to the fact that one of its MNAs, Farid Paracha, has added another dimension to the debate. Mr Paracha, on a call-attention notice in the House on 17th March is reported to have said that the government has effected the changes on the basis of a report published last year by the Sustainable Policy Development Institute, an Islamabad-based think tank. The SDPI report, The Subtle Subversion: the State of Curricula and Textbooks in Pakistan, has been dragged into the issue to prove the point that the government is purging the syllabi of Islamic references because of external (read, US) pressure. Mr Paracha thinks the SDPI, like all think tanks and non-governmental organisations, is funded from outside and therefore published a report on textbooks at the behest of foreign vested interests.

At this point, the two issues become confused. But this confusion is caused deliberately. Does the issue relate to change of syllabi or pertain to such a change being effected on the basis of foreign interests? The rightwing in Pakistan has always suspected the liberal social agenda of the NGOs and other such organisations. In its enthusiasm to put them down, the Right has consistently branded the NGOs as pro-America. The fact is that most such organisations comprise left-liberal individuals who are opposed to the US policies and also to globalisation. But the complexity of the situation does not sit well with the black and white categories the rightwing loves to throw up to push its ideas of a civilisational clash along defined boundaries. In fact, while intellectuals in the West have tried to rubbish the thesis of clash of civilisations, here the rightwing has deemed fit to swallow it hook, line and sinker. It will perhaps be instructive for the Jama’at and Mr Paracha to know that one of the authors of the SDPI report under attack for being foreign-sponsored was in the forefront of the boycott of American products in the run-up to, and during, the Iraq war.

But the real issue relates to the subversion of textbooks. In 2002, SDPI put together a group of scholars to examine class one-to-twelve textbooks in the subjects of social sciences/Pakistan Studies, Urdu and English. All these books were prepared on the basis of the curriculum set by the federal education ministry’s curriculum wing. Since the days of General Zia-ul Haq, the entire exercise has been geared towards creating a grand narrative which mixes religion and nationalism freely. No one has ever tried to reform the syllabi because it would have meant clashing with the guardians of Pakistan ideology, a concept that has, for a long time now, been appropriated by the rightwing. The ironic aspect of this nationalism is that it has ended up eroding the very idea of the nation-state. The Right’s attempt, in collusion with the state, has been to put down dissent to this nationalism by sacralising it. But in the process of doing this, it has allowed a certain concept of religion to run down the very idea of the internal sovereignty of the state.

It is no coincidence that while Mr Paracha and others in the Jama’at and the MMA choose to fulminate at expunging references to jihad, they conveniently eschew talking about the context in which these verses were revealed to the Prophet (pbuh). Clearly, it is also not part of their agenda to talk about those aspects of Islam that are essential to promoting it as the religion of peace. It is scandalous that we now have either those who cannot think of Islam as anything beyond a few verses on qitaal and those who would want the world to believe that Islam is a pacifist religion. Both extremes are uncalled for and misinterpret the religion.

The SDPI report is a remarkable study in what we have done to our education system, point as it does to the crudity of indoctrination we have subjected our youth to. It clearly illustrates, with examples, what kind of students our schools and colleges teaching these textbooks can produce. Indeed, we wish the government could be influenced by the SDPI report. But that is not the case. The truth is that the education ministry is not interested in the SDPI report because it goes against the grain of what the state has been doing. Chances are that education minister Zubaida Jalal has not even read the report. She is reported to have said in the House that the government has rejected the contents of the report. This is believable because the education ministry is swarming with ideologues who are loath to change course and concede that the guidelines they have followed so far have led to major distortions in the syllabi.

The criticism of the report from the rightwing and from some other ‘nationalist’ quarters shows that we are still unprepared to look at ourselves with any degree of objectivity. The vision General Musharraf has been talking about cannot be realised until the state changes its spots. What is emanating from the Right is predictable; but the inertia of the education ministry as well as its apologetic tone in relation to a good step is unacceptable. This situation must change. It will in fact be good if the government gives a deep thought to what the SDPI report has highlighted.

PPP leader for independent EC, judiciary
Dawn March 19, 2004
By Our Reporter

ISLAMABAD, March 16: Top PPP leader Shah Mehmood Qureshi on Tuesday said the government could be allowed to continue for five years on the basis of quid pro quo. He was speaking at a seminar on "Rule of law: Rhetoric or reality?" organized by the Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI) here.

Elaborating, Mr Qureshi said the quid pro quo was that the government arrived at a consensus with the opposition on some things "essential for democracy" such as an independent election commission and judiciary etc.

He said his party recognised Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali as prime minister but it wanted him to operate in accordance with the principles of parliamentary democracy. In fact, the prime minister is working in such a manner as to render the parliament subservient to the armed forces, he charged.

The institute had invited four MNAs one each from the Muslim League-Q, MMA, MQM and Pakistan People's Party to attend the seminar, but only Shah Mahmood Qureshi and Dr Farooq Sattar could turn up. However, their speeches reeked of a rhetoric of their kind.

Starting the debate, Mr Qureshi tried to prove that there was no rule of law in the country. He supported his assertion by stating that all the four major criteria for such a state of affairs were missing.

These included equality in the eye of the law, transparency in government's functioning, an independent election commission and an independent judiciary. These are the prerequisites to investor confidence without which there could be no economic growth, he emphasized.

He was particularly critical of the role of the Election Commission of Pakistan which, he said, had gone along with the General Pervez Musharraf's scheme of obtaining legitimacy through unconstitutional devices such as referendum. Similarly, the judiciary had donned the role of constitution-maker by allowing the military regime to amend the constitution, though it had no such authority, he added.

The situation now is that all important decisions are being taken by a small coterie outside the parliament, the PPP leader remarked. Answering questions from the audience, he said the political parties had learned their lessons from the past when they remained at logger heads in disregard of implications for democracy.

A social activist remarked that there was no consistency in the words and actions of political leaders. In this connection, he recalled that on the one hand they condemned the Musharraf regime, on the other they participated in the elections organised under the same unconstitutional legal framework. Mr Qureshi justified this policy on the basis of pragmatism.

Dr Farooq Sattar, a leader of MQM, avoided categorically stating whether the rule of law was a reality or mere rhetoric in Pakistan. But he too implied that there was indeed no rule of law in Pakistan. He qualified his assertion by a prolonged sally into the past to show that the situation was implicit in all the constitutional experiments made in Pakistan since its inception.

His oratory was, however, marked by inconsistencies. On one occasion, he criticised the repeated recourse by the military to direct rule. But then he said there was little difference between the behaviour of the advocates of parliamentary democracy and the military regimes.