From 'Friday times'. We have seen similar campaigns against Najam Sethi and Asma Jahangir.
Professor Nayyar of QAU speaks out in his defence
Following an incident at the Quaid-e-Azam University, which was misreported by a section of the press, Professor A H Nayyar, against whom some Urdu dailies have launched a vilification campaign, has issued his version of the events. Nayyar says he never made the statements that were attributed to him and therefore the stories and editorials published by some newspapers are based on falsehood. TFT is reproducing here Professor Nayyar's version on the principle that everyone has the right to a defence and no one should be condemned unheard.
"This clarification relates to an event that happened on May 2. I was invited to the National Institute of Psychology at the Quaid-i-Azam University to give a talk to the students and faculty on 'The sense of insecurity and the weapons of mass destruction.' The centre-piece of my argument was that we, as a nation, have been afflicted with a sense of insecurity that has now degenerated into a state of acute paranoia. I invited the students of psychology to see if the symptoms point to the ailment. I also pointed out that as an answer to our perceived insecurity we have constructed our own realities which quite often are at variance with truth, and in turn reinforce our paranoia. I contended that this has become a pathological condition with us.
"To elaborate the point I gave examples from our textbooks, about how history has been distorted and how things have worsened over the years. I recalled how my senior colleagues tell me that in the late fifties, full ten years after independence, some of their examination papers were set in India, their thesis teachers used to come from India, how Radio Pakistan could air Indian film songs until the early sixties, how Indian films were shown in Pakistani cinema houses, how we had the privilege of learning history in an impartial manner, with details on the reigns of early Hindu period of Ashoka and Chandargupt Moriya, etc. But then we closed the door on us and insulated ourselves in order to conform everything, including history, to our own mental constructions. I tried to show that much of what is taught to students nowadays is anything but truth.
"The students are fed on falsity and are taught to hate, I said. Even the most recent history is blatantly distorted. For this I cited some textbooks lessons on the 1965 war, which state that India started the war and attacked Pakistan in the dark of the night. That Pakistan valiantly fought back, winning large enemy territories. India desperately sought international help in stopping the war and Pakistan graciously returned the captured territories. All this against the statements of former PAF chiefs, Nur Khan and Asghar Khan. Linking the state of collective paranoia with nuclear weapons, I quoted a serving Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee telling my friend Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy some years ago that he would not mind if Indians in retaliation to a Pakistani use of nuclear weapon destroyed all the Pakistani cities and killed millions, as long as Pakistan could harm India in some manner.
"What happened in response to this talk was interesting. A student stood up and berated me for negating the ideology of Pakistan and the concept of jehad (I had neither spoken of the ideology of Pakistan nor of jehad). He insisted that Pakistanis must destroy India even if it meant complete annihilation of Pakistan. What struck me most was the loud applause his statement drew from other students. The student then walked out in protest against my subversive talk. The rest of the students remained seated for another half-hour's session. The discussion was lively with arguments both for and against my contention. I realised later while talking to a student of mine that the younger people, particularly those who have passed through the mainstream educational system where the state indoctrination is so prevalent, are so heavily conditioned by the textbooks that truth comes to them as an unpleasant shock. This may explain the ovation the student got after my talk. It also expalins why jehad has such a wide approval in society.
"More interesting things happened the next day. The event was reported in an Urdu newspaper on May 3. It attributed to me what I had not said, and in a very venomous way. For example it quoted me as saying: 'The two-nation theory was wrong'; 'It is Pakistan's armed forces which have erected the wall of hatred between the peoples of India and Pakistan'; 'Pakistan is a mischievous country, and always nags India' etc.
"The next day, on May 4, the paper carried a column by its editor (in essence an editorial) with the provocative headline of "Indian Assault on Quaid-i-Azam University." The editor repeated all the statements falsely attributed to me the previous day, questioning my loyalty to the country and demanding that I be sacked from the university. I later learnt that in a seminar of journalists on May 3 some journalists, including the editor of another newspaper, spoke against me on the basis of the earlier news reports. This paper also wrote an editorial against me on May 4. The first Urdu daily which started the whole controversy published another news item on May 5, being more provocative this time by accusing me and my friends at the Institute of Psychology of indulging in propaganda against Pakistan and Islam, of being non-believers and denigrating Muslims.
"I have written to the paper's editor in Urdu and have sent this version to various publications in order to bring the facts on record and clarify my position."
Professor Nayyar of QAU speaks out in his defence
Following an incident at the Quaid-e-Azam University, which was misreported by a section of the press, Professor A H Nayyar, against whom some Urdu dailies have launched a vilification campaign, has issued his version of the events. Nayyar says he never made the statements that were attributed to him and therefore the stories and editorials published by some newspapers are based on falsehood. TFT is reproducing here Professor Nayyar's version on the principle that everyone has the right to a defence and no one should be condemned unheard.
"This clarification relates to an event that happened on May 2. I was invited to the National Institute of Psychology at the Quaid-i-Azam University to give a talk to the students and faculty on 'The sense of insecurity and the weapons of mass destruction.' The centre-piece of my argument was that we, as a nation, have been afflicted with a sense of insecurity that has now degenerated into a state of acute paranoia. I invited the students of psychology to see if the symptoms point to the ailment. I also pointed out that as an answer to our perceived insecurity we have constructed our own realities which quite often are at variance with truth, and in turn reinforce our paranoia. I contended that this has become a pathological condition with us.
"To elaborate the point I gave examples from our textbooks, about how history has been distorted and how things have worsened over the years. I recalled how my senior colleagues tell me that in the late fifties, full ten years after independence, some of their examination papers were set in India, their thesis teachers used to come from India, how Radio Pakistan could air Indian film songs until the early sixties, how Indian films were shown in Pakistani cinema houses, how we had the privilege of learning history in an impartial manner, with details on the reigns of early Hindu period of Ashoka and Chandargupt Moriya, etc. But then we closed the door on us and insulated ourselves in order to conform everything, including history, to our own mental constructions. I tried to show that much of what is taught to students nowadays is anything but truth.
"The students are fed on falsity and are taught to hate, I said. Even the most recent history is blatantly distorted. For this I cited some textbooks lessons on the 1965 war, which state that India started the war and attacked Pakistan in the dark of the night. That Pakistan valiantly fought back, winning large enemy territories. India desperately sought international help in stopping the war and Pakistan graciously returned the captured territories. All this against the statements of former PAF chiefs, Nur Khan and Asghar Khan. Linking the state of collective paranoia with nuclear weapons, I quoted a serving Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee telling my friend Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy some years ago that he would not mind if Indians in retaliation to a Pakistani use of nuclear weapon destroyed all the Pakistani cities and killed millions, as long as Pakistan could harm India in some manner.
"What happened in response to this talk was interesting. A student stood up and berated me for negating the ideology of Pakistan and the concept of jehad (I had neither spoken of the ideology of Pakistan nor of jehad). He insisted that Pakistanis must destroy India even if it meant complete annihilation of Pakistan. What struck me most was the loud applause his statement drew from other students. The student then walked out in protest against my subversive talk. The rest of the students remained seated for another half-hour's session. The discussion was lively with arguments both for and against my contention. I realised later while talking to a student of mine that the younger people, particularly those who have passed through the mainstream educational system where the state indoctrination is so prevalent, are so heavily conditioned by the textbooks that truth comes to them as an unpleasant shock. This may explain the ovation the student got after my talk. It also expalins why jehad has such a wide approval in society.
"More interesting things happened the next day. The event was reported in an Urdu newspaper on May 3. It attributed to me what I had not said, and in a very venomous way. For example it quoted me as saying: 'The two-nation theory was wrong'; 'It is Pakistan's armed forces which have erected the wall of hatred between the peoples of India and Pakistan'; 'Pakistan is a mischievous country, and always nags India' etc.
"The next day, on May 4, the paper carried a column by its editor (in essence an editorial) with the provocative headline of "Indian Assault on Quaid-i-Azam University." The editor repeated all the statements falsely attributed to me the previous day, questioning my loyalty to the country and demanding that I be sacked from the university. I later learnt that in a seminar of journalists on May 3 some journalists, including the editor of another newspaper, spoke against me on the basis of the earlier news reports. This paper also wrote an editorial against me on May 4. The first Urdu daily which started the whole controversy published another news item on May 5, being more provocative this time by accusing me and my friends at the Institute of Psychology of indulging in propaganda against Pakistan and Islam, of being non-believers and denigrating Muslims.
"I have written to the paper's editor in Urdu and have sent this version to various publications in order to bring the facts on record and clarify my position."
Comment