Over the years, many people have worried about the state of education in Pakistan and the need for reform has been emphasised in countless speeches by political leaders, in government reports, parliamentary debates, some books, scholarly essays and research, newspaper articles and editorials. But in all these years, there has never been anything like what has happened in the past few months.

During these months, the content of our education system has been passionately debated as right-wing politicians and the right-wing press denounced and reviled a recent report by a group of scholars, teachers and educationists about the many problems with the national curriculum and text-books used in our public schools. They have also attacked the government, accusing it of having made changes to the textbooks under American pressure.

At the heart of the controversy is a report entitled The Subtle Subversion: The State of Curricula and Text-books in Pakistan - Urdu, English, Social Studies and Civics .

The report grew out of a study started in June 2002, when SDPI brought together 30 experts on Pakistan's education system from around the country to assess the problems with the national curriculum and textbooks and to propose reforms. The goal of the study was to understand how the education system was helping foster a culture of sectarianism, intolerance and violence.

The SDPI report was an attempt to see where our education system was 20 years after General Zia's efforts, and to take up General Pervez Musharraf's promise of supporting reforms that would find, in his words, "solutions to the problem of sectarianism and extremism".

To these ends, the study group collected and reviewed the official curriculum documents, that had been revised and published in March, 2002, and the officially approved textbooks in Pakistan Studies, Social Studies, Urdu, English and Civics covering classes 1 to 12.

The questions asked were: What is the religious content of textbook material in subjects other than Islamic studies? What kind of hate material is in the textbooks and how prevalent is it? What, if any, are the distortions, by commission and omission, in the narration of our history? Which values and personalities are projected? To what extent is militancy inculcated in students? What gender biases exist in the learning material? And, lastly, what role does the curriculum, prepared by the Federal Ministry of Education, play in determining the content and character of the books published by the provincial textbook boards?

We went through the books, line by line, section after section, chapter after chapter. We hoped that our answers would give way to an informed national debate about what our children were actually being taught.

Let me explain some of what we found, and then the storm we met. Take first the case of teaching religion. We found that Islamic teachings are a systematic part of the textbooks in Urdu, English and Social Studies that are compulsory for students of all faiths. For example, the report shows that on an average about one-fourth of the lessons in Urdu textbooks published by the Punjab and the Federal textbook boards have religious content.

The report also looked at the example of the integrated primary level course, which is taught to all children. Since it is integrated, Islamiat is a part of it. This is a clear violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Article 22(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan says: "No person attending any educational institution shall be required to receive religious instruction, or take part in any religious ceremony, or attend religious worship, if such instruction, ceremony or worship relates to a religion other than his own". Are we to infer that the education system works on the basis that only Muslim citizens of Pakistan send their children to school?

The report brings out example after example of statements from textbooks on Social Studies as well as Urdu which clearly seek to create prejudice and hate against Hindus and India. One textbook says, "The religion of the Hindus did not teach them good things"; another teaches the child that the "Hindu has always been an enemy of Islam"; yet another says, "the Hindus lived in small and dark houses"; and, as a final example, consider the story used in an Urdu textbook that has a Hindu character explain that "Hindus please the goddess Kali by slaughtering people of other religions at her feet'.

On issue after issue, we found more than what we had feared. There were the instructions to textbook writers to emphasize jihad and shahadat ; the obvious lies about history, even that which was within living memory; the sustained focus on wars and military heroes rather than peace and development and the countless people who have struggled for human compassion, peace and justice; and the deeply disturbing representation of women. Despite state rhetoric regarding women's rights and the need to provide them with equal educational and job opportunities, state sponsored textbooks continue to reinforce gender-biased stereotypes. The report documents all of this.

The report came to the conclusion that the curricula and the instructions contained in them, and the Curriculum Wing of the Federal Ministry of Education were the most fundamental source of the problem. It is the Curriculum Wing that has the final authority to whet the books prepared by provincial textbook boards. This conclusion was borne from a couple of more recent examples that have come to light.

In December 2003, the Curriculum Wing rejected a proposed English language textbook for Classes IX and X from the Sindh Textbook Board. The Curriculum Wing raised two "serious" objections. One objection centred on a lesson containing a letter by the Quaid-i-Azam's daughter Dina to her father; it was considered unacceptable because she was not a Muslim. The second problem was about a lesson that talked of a family where both husband and wife worked and in which the husband was shown to share household chores with his wife.

A second, even more recent example shows just how little has really changed since General Musharraf's regime came to power. In February, 2004, the Curriculum Wing expressed its disapproval of a class IV textbook on Social Studies because the book did not contain enough material on jihad . The SDPI report has received extensive comments in the press both in the country and outside. It attracted a great deal of support for its proposals for urgent and sweeping reforms. It also met with hostile criticism from right-wing and ultra-nationalist groups, and their like-minded commentators in certain sections of the media. The government, despite being a military regime in all but name, made a hasty retreat, and has failed again to take any kind of principled position or action in favour of its' much proclaimed reform agenda.

Earlier this year, as the SDPI report began to attract public support for its proposals for urgent and sweeping reforms in the education system, the Ministry of Education created a committee to review the report. The ministry chose to give the responsibility for hosting the review committee to the Curriculum Wing, despite the fact that the SDPI report had recommended that the Curriculum Wing be abolished.

In March, the Minister for Education informed the National Assembly that following the review, her ministry had rejected the analysis and recommendations of the report. The National Assembly was not informed that the 15-person review committee had, in fact, endorsed the SDPI report by a vote of 9 to 6, and supported its most significant proposals for reforming the national curricula, textbooks and the ministry itself. Whatever side the minister is on, it is not that of the report and its reform proposals.

Another part of the campaign has been to attack SDPI for being an NGO and to suggest that it must have an agenda defined by its supposed foreign funders. The same tactic is used against the government. Consider for example the following newspaper claim, purportedly citing a statement by US National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice.

Columnist Irfan Siddiqui has quoted Rice as saying: "Educational reform in Muslim countries is the top-most priority of the US government ... Reforms are being introduced in Muslim countries, curricula are being changed. Pakistan's education minister is a wonder woman. I had met her in Washington last year and exchanged views on Pakistan's educational curriculum".

Condoleeza Rice's deposition is available in its entirety on the internet. Search it for the word 'curriculum'; it is simply not there. Search it for the word 'education', and there is only one paragraph, which is:

"One of the things that we've been very interested in, for instance, is the issue of educational reform in some of these countries. As you know, the madrassas are a big difficulty. I've met, myself personally, two or three times with the Pakistani - a wonderful woman who's the Pakistani education minister. We can't do it for them. They have to do it for themselves. But we have to stand for those values. And over the long run, we will change - I believe we will change the nature of the Middle East, particularly if there are examples that this can work in the Middle East."

It is clear that Rice's statement refers to madrassas and says nothing about the curriculum of the public education system. What is more disturbing is that it is not just a columnist misinforming his readers. Much of the Urdu press, including major columnists like Hamid Mir and Ataul Haq Qasmi, also now carry the misquote. None of them ever bothered to check Rice's speech. For many readers, a lie has now become the truth.

When some newspapers are willing to use their power to mislead public opinion and to incite religious and national passions in this way, it is hard to understand how we can have a serious, thoughtful and informed debate about the fundamental character and content of our education system.