Education policy in times of conflict has been center-stage in our course. Through case studies, we tried to understand the role played by education in conflict and post-conflict zones. A common thread amongst our case studies was how the conflict was taught in schools ten, twenty, and even fifty years after its conclusion. What parts did the country choose to show? How deep and multifaceted was the history curriculum when discussing important historic moments?
Most state-designed curricula are focused on presenting a history that induces patriotism. The goal behind teaching history in schools, then, is not to learn from it and familiarize the student with what came before them. Instead, such curricula are designed to avoid dissent. Their goal is to create a society based on an understanding of history void of critical thinking. The most common way of doing that is by thinking of the nation state, and the identity brought upon the individual through their connection to this nation state, as superior to any cultural, religious, or even personal identity. If you are in Pakistan, you are a Pakistani first, and any other thing second. If you are in France, you are French and nothing else. Most of the times, it even results in parts of history being completely removed from textbooks. Thanksgiving celebrations ignore the Native American bloodshed that took place and Pakistani textbooks never discuss the war crimes of the army during Bengal's separation. These are just two of countless examples signifying the state knowingly omitting historical facts to avoid dissent and induce patriotism.
Of course, the intent behind such a policy may not always be as malicious. Rwanda, in its post-genocide education plan, chose to prioritize the Rwandan identity over being a Hutu or a Tutsi. The goal was to create unity under the Rwandan name. While there hasn’t been an outbreak since, the presence of the generation which saw the genocide occur makes it harder to see beyond the differences between the two ethnicities. The genocide may not be repeated again, but there remains a dangerous undercurrent caused directly because of decisions made concerning education.
The problem with such an approach is manifold. Apart from the obvious widespread misinformation it induces within the nation, it also puts a very thin, translucent blanket over the multicultural nature of modern nation-states. Pakistan consists of hundreds of ethnicities, and all of them have a right to self-actualization. A right that is taken away from them by shrouding their cultural roots with the relatively new concept of the Pakistani state.
Instead of homogenizing the history taught in schools, policymakers need to explore the differences present within the classroom. Only through an acknowledgment of these differences, can true unity be created.
A very insightful read! It reminded me of two pages dedicated to the 1965 Indo-Pak War from a Grade 9 Pakistan Studies textbook I came across once while researching for a paper. The first sentence read: “India had been trying all sorts of tricks to weaken Pakistan right from its inception”, establishing India as the problematic, deceptive enemy that wants to provoke the state of Pakistan, and by implication, Pakistan as forced to partake in the war because of the issues India created. The entire section read more like an epic, recounting heroic stories of individual soldiers and singing praises of martyrs for their courage and dedication, rather than a historical account with facts and details. The writers' intention is…
Reading the blog, reminded me of our class discussion, where professor showed us the video of different people stating discrepancies in our "Pak studies book". Before, coming to LUMS, all of us have only read one "substituted and incorporated part" of the history in order to make us "patriotic" or to say "less voilent" for state. But, whatever, the reason be behind teaching "formulated curriculam or history", what's the author comment about the thought that having diverse and broad history in subject would lead to more voilence?, as humans with different ethnicities, classes, casts, who will be the one to make this history?, it will always be people amongst us who will designed and formulate histories and even being diverese,…
I personally believe that school textbooks are essentially designed as a medium to transmit educational content. However, more often than not, governments distort their clear-cut purpose by using them to build the minds of future generations in accordance with their own political agenda, and Pakistan is no exception to that. In Pakistan the curriculum development is under the jurisdiction of people who lack knowledge on the concept of the ‘Two Nation Theory’. Pakistan needs a curriculum change and this process needs to be constant and thorough. Qualified and professional academics from all over Pakistan should be taken on board for reforming the curriculum and once it is reformed, it should then be used in all Pakistani government and private schools,…
One sided history, false references, half-truths and a biased approach, this is what you will find in Pakistani textbooks. The curriculum that we are currently using in schools and colleges is simply outdated, and does not meet the local needs of the Pakistani society, but is rather imposing a particular brand of nationalism. Our present generation is learning the same knowledge that the previous two have learnt. However, glorifying false researches and highlighting negative points against non-Muslims in textbooks is creating an even worse impact on the young generation of Pakistan
An approach to teaching history in post-conflict settings is to set up the classrooms as a workshop for Inter Group Encounter (IGE). This means that the class space recognizes the backgrounds of the students and the possible animosity that they might have between them, and within the workshop, the various groups get to interact with one another and listen to each other's stories. The IGE works in three stages, all of which target us vs. them indoctrination that has been instilled in the participants. In the first stage the other side is humanized and their lived experiences are heard by the other side and they imagine themselves in the other's shoes. In the second stage your own narrative is challenged…