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.