Whether it is a decent strategy to not instruct history after struggle is a perplexing inquiry. There are upsides and downsides to the two methodologies.
From one perspective, instructing about history can assist with advancing recuperating and compromise. It can likewise assist with forestalling future contentions by showing individuals the causes and results of war. Then again, teaching about history can likewise be difficult and troublesome, particularly in nations that have encountered late clash.
On account of Rwanda, the public authority went with a cognizant choice to not show the massacre in schools in the quick repercussions of the contention. This was finished with an end goal to advance public solidarity and compromise. In any case, lately, the public authority has started to once again introduce annihilation training into the school educational plan.
There is a developing collection of scholastic work on the subject of schooling after struggle. A few examinations have found that destruction instruction can be gainful for advancing mending and compromise. For instance, a concentrate by Mugisha (2012) found that destruction training in Rwandan schools assisted with decreasing bias and advance resilience. However, it is arguable that is it fair to hide the ill treatment of one part of the society. The state of Rawanda is hiding the genocide of Tutsis, which might protect the future but it is unfair that the ruling majority Hutus are hiding their acts against Tutsis. Is that protection of all or just themselves in the history?
A similar example of such a hidden history lies in the history of 1971 Independence of Bangladesh. Till that, Pakistan (the predecessor state) avoids mentioning or rectifying its acts leading to or during the 1971 War and Conflicts. Alleged large scale murders of Bengali nationalists and crimes such as rapes and looting of general public is claimed and counted as witnessed by numbers, yet there is no response by the state.
Different investigations have discovered that slaughter instruction can be trying for understudies and instructors. For instance, a concentrate by Lord (2010) found that destruction training in Rwandan schools could be horrendous for understudies, particularly the people who had been impacted by the massacre.
It remains unknown to a large extent how favourable or unfavourable it would be to accurately display history. One may say though that hiding the past as a whole can hardly be to avoid conflict and most likely to save image of the oppressors.
The debate over whether it is wise to include historical events from teaching in the wake of a conflict has its advantages and disadvantages. As you rightly pointed out, in the case of Rwanda, the government chose to not teach about the genocide to promote harmony and unity within the country. however, there has been a shift recently, with the reintroduction of genocide education into school programs. Moreover, historical negationism has acted as a barrier to reconciliation and a sign of disrespect for the victims. As in the case of the war of 1971, the omissions have fueled a sense of grievance among Bangladeshis, which has manifested in anti-Pakistan sentiment.
In many ways, I understand the rationale behind shielding the gruesome truths of history, like the decisions taken by Rwanda or the silence surrounding the events of Bangladesh's independence. It's a strategy that aims to foster unity and protect future generations from the horrors that once tore societies apart. (I learnt about most of these shielded historical narratives after coming to LUMS)
But there's a nagging feeling within me, questioning if this silence serves as a shield for the oppressors, allowing them to escape accountability. There's this undeniable sense of injustice in concealing atrocities committed against a part of society, whether to protect an image or to prevent unrest.
I've seen how the debate isn't just academic. It's emotionally charged,…
Lets talk about Pakistan! The manipulation of history in Pakistan can be attributed to a number of factors, often driven to shape a specific narrative that serves the interests of those in "power." One key motivation is the preservation of the image of past rulers or regimes, as you rightly pointed out. The erasure or distortion of historical events becomes a tool to maintain a favorable public perception and avoid acknowledging the darker aspects of governance. For example, during periods of military rule in Pakistan, instances of human rights abuses, curtailment of civil liberties, and political repression have been downplayed or omitted from official historical accounts to uphold the reputation of the ruling establishment. The list goes on and on.
Another…
The debate on teaching history after a conflict is complex, with pros and cons. I believe there's a delicate balance. Educating about history can aid healing and prevent future conflicts. Rwanda's initial decision to avoid teaching about the genocide aimed at unity, but the recent reintroduction raises fairness questions. Is it fair to hide one group's atrocities to protect the ruling majority's image? A similar dilemma exists in Pakistan's silence on its actions during Bangladesh's 1971 independence. This raises concerns about hiding the past to protect the image of the oppressors. Studies show genocide education can promote healing but may also be traumatic. How can we balance the need for truth without causing further trauma?
In my view, completely hiding…