No announcement yet.

Why is History taught in Pakistan so distorted??

This topic is closed.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Why is History taught in Pakistan so distorted??

    Everyone knows that Shahbuddin Ghauri was an invader of India.
    He killed millions of people( Both Hindus and Muslims), plundered
    India, destroyed temples and mosques. Yet when India named it
    surface to earth missile 'Prithvi' (Prithvi means 'Earth' in Hindi)
    , Pakistani politician tried to name their missile 'Ghauri' in
    honor of the Muslim invader who defeated the noble Hindu king
    Prithviraj Chauhan. We have lost sight of the fact that not all
    of the 'great Muslim heroes' were actually so. Tomorrow we would
    see barbarous Chengez Khan turned into a Muslim super hero.
    Most of the Muslim rulers we consider "heroes" behaved abominably
    by ordering the slaughter of an embassy numbering some three hundred
    - most of them Muslims and also Hindus.

    This is not only outright ignorance, but an ignorance born out of
    fifty years of misconstrued history. Successive governments and
    bureaucrats with vested interests unaware of the fact that history
    has no religion, but that all religions have a history have
    attempted to convert the history of the Indian subcontinent to Islam.
    Consequently, for most Muslims in Pakistan (and perhaps even in
    India) any personage with an Arabic or Persian name is a supposed
    Islamic hero. For most ignorant folks it does not matter how
    disreputable that person may have been -- only the name suffices.

    The History taught in Pakistan is so distorted. All Indians
    and Hindus are treated as villians and Muslims heroes. Pakistan
    does not have any good role model, so it tries to create role
    Models of any Muslim. What has this produced, an entire generation
    of ignorant Pakistanis who are unaware of real history, but have
    one thing in common ie. "Indians and Hindus are our enemies".

    It is a all matter of perspective..
    applying it to modern day politics, those who are called terrorists by some are freedom fighter to others. Aren't those stone hurling, refugee camp dwelling teenagers just that??
    India has done equally well in presenting their history the way they want. Has anyone ever been told what dirty tricks Nehru (aka Chacha) had been up to or for that matter how devious and biased Gandhi's ideas were against the Muslims?? To the Indians he was Bapu, but to millions of others he was a dishonest and crafty old man looking after Hindu interests. Let me ask YOU the same question..why is Indian history so distorted also???


      Antidote : Well said. I dont think anupap68 will answer your question, instead, he will dance around the issue.

      Later on



        You ignorant Hindu ass is fooling no one here. Ghuri was a hero and always will be. Every Mulsim "invader" who invaded India did so to teach a lesson to the dumb hindu rajas so they will stop messing with the Muslim Empire of central Asia. Plus the Hindus invaded the damned land called India in the first place and never went back. At least the Mulsim " Invaders " did NOT bring all their popupation to india and permanatly occupied it like Hindus did.
        One more thing IF the Mulsim rulers of India "Slaughtered " Hindus in India like you said, I am surprised how did you survive..? 800 years of Muslim rule was more than enough to send every single Hindu to hell. But the fact is that your Damned baised history is telling you LIE. What ever your damned land India is Today, Its because of those Muslim " Invader " . Show me one damn thing in India Today that was accomplished by your damned Hindu Rajas that you can be proud of. Taj Mahal , Kutab Minar, and all the rest of the " jewels " of India are gifts of Mulims rulers to unthankful Hindus like you. SO Do NOT put your foot in your mouth.


          Cool Dude,



            Well one can ask in which Arab country you see an equivalent of Taj Mahal or Qutub Minar?

            And you don't see Ajanta, Ellora and magnificent temples in south in pre-Islamic times in India?

            As far as Indian intereference with central Asian states is concerned, please read Encyclopedia Britanica. It has an interesting description of Muslims coming to India descibed as 'invasions' 'raid' 'plunder'.

            History is always subjective. Orwell has a witty remark "Who rules the past rules the future and who rules the present rules the past". So present rulers all around the world dictate which way history should be taught all over the world. In religious and communist regimes this is even more apparent. An Ukrainian friend of me once remarked "Under communist rule, we were a country with uncertain past" Every new ruler changed history bit here and there.

            So there is going to be distortion of history in textbooks all over the world. No American history book is likely to tell the excesses of capitalism which rose the anger of 1917 revolution and no Cuban history book will tell excesses under Stalin.

            So instead of jumping to defend one's textbooks, one should get out of them and grow own perspective.

            Question is whether or not there were excesses under Islam, were they continuous or they were not so, was the relationship between Hindus and Muslims changing in time and which factors changed it.

            A Pakistani textbook, given that it existed for just fifty years is likely to try to tell that it was necessary to make the state since Hindus are bad. That will be their natural role.

            I am not saying you should read Indian History books. Maybe Western history books could improve the viepoint to a less partisan one. It will be interesting to see how they depict Islam in India.

            Finally a quote from Britanica
            "A recent attempt has been made to show that Auranzeb was not as bigotted a Sunni Muslim as has been represented and that he grated land to a famous temple in Varanasi. A few instances of this kind- which to be sure were due to political reasons- would not make Aurangzeb look tolerent, **when abundunt, unimpeachable contempory evidence proves that he destroyed thousands of Hindu temples an schools and focibly converted Hindus in Islam**"

            Do you remember reading anything like what is said in Encyclopedia Britanica about Aurangzeb in your textbooks?



              I am glad the Muslim warriors conquered India, or else we would have never been able to glimpse/experience/be part of, even if just through ruins and relics - the grandeur, the aristocracy, the wealth and glamour, the graciousness of hospitality, the culture, the attiquettes brought to the Indian Sub-cont by those great Muslim conquerers!!


                Point is what are you proud of and why? Has it been thought over rationally? If you were born Hindu, you would have been proud to be Hindu and if you were Latin American or eskimo, probably proud to be so.

                You can be proud of the things that YOU did, say were first in some exam or got an Olympic medal. How can you be proud of something you did not do?

                Now Rubaiya, what is worth of wealth and aristocracy if conmmon people are just going to toil for it and not get any share. There is still no shortage of aristocracy. White house is built on 4 acres of land. Pakistani prime minister's house is on 400 acres of land. Who gives better performance? Japan's foreign minister stayed in four star hotel where Pakistani journalists refused to stay. What for this aristocracy? The statement is not just for Pakistan, Indian rulers are not very different.

                What worth is culture and hospitality if other religion's people are persecuted. Why did Zorashtrians run all the way from Iran to India and make this place its home. Is it not a sign of culture? Is it not a sign of culture of majority population of India that Israelis have written that it was the only country where Jews faced no persecution. What culture one is talking about? How can one call someone cultured if an honest difference of opinion is not accepted, whether religious or political. In that sense Pakistan is truly inheriting Mughal culture. Only yesterday a newspaper office in Pakistan was attacked, something that happened in India too in Indira Gandhi rule. So metality persists.



                  Bashir sees Pakistan being faced with three major problems: Feudal culture is the foremost and second being our ignorance of our own history. "We talk of Mohammad Bin Qasim, then we jump to Mehmood Ghaznavi, Mujaddad Alif Sani, Shah Waliullah, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and finally to Allama Iqbal. This is our entire history." He is irked at the irrational omission of Ashoka, Chanakya and other such figures who are also a part of the subcontinental history.

                  "Why are we proud of Mehmood Ghaznavi? He was simply a robber who looted our wealth and took away our women. Then we are proud of Nadir Shah and Ahmed Shah who attacked and massacred the people and went away. We don't even know who our true heroes are," he says and is convinced that it is one of the main reasons for our downfall since we do not believe in the continuity of our history.


                    Re: Why is History taught in Pakistan so distorted??

                    All the great Muslim rulers of our past whom we look upon as our heroes were either Turks or Afghans, from Mahmud Ghaznavi to the last of the Mughals—Caucasians all of them, who, in successive waves of invasion and conquest from the colder climates of the north, made themselves masters of Hindustan.

                    For 800 years---from 1192 AD when Muhammad Ghori defeated Prithviraj Chauhan in the second battle of Tarain (in present-day Haryana) to the establishment of British rule in Bengal in the 18th century—every ruler of Hindustan of any note or merit was of Caucasian origin.
                    In all this vast expanse of history, the lands which now constitute Pakistan could produce only one ruler of indigenous origin who could lay claim to any ability: Ranjit Singh, Maharajah of Punjab.
                    We, the inhabitants of Pakistan, may claim in moments of (misplaced) exaltation that we are descended from those early warriors. But this is a false claim.
                    We are now more sub-continental than Central Asian. Just as empires and nations rise and fall, races too do not remain the same over time. The Mughals were a hardy people when they marched into India under Babar. After 200 years of unbroken rule their dynasty--- descended from the great Taimur—had become degenerate and soft.
                    We may name our missiles Ghori and Abdali—although Abdali is somewhat inappropriate, considering that Ahmed Shah Abdali in his repeated invasions brought much suffering to Punjab—but this is a throwback to a past far removed from our present. Comfortable thought or not, Ranjit Singh’s kingdom is more relevant to our present-day conditions than those distant days of glory and conquest.
                    The challenge thus posed is a daunting one. For 800 years we have produced no ruler of native ability. But if Pakistan is to come into its own, if it is to throw off the mantle of failure of the past 60 years and forge a new future for itself, then its native sons and daughters have to create something new: capacity and ability where none have existed before—except in the solitary example of the one-eyed Ranjit Singh.
                    We are going to get no infusion of fresh blood from beyond the high mountains. No Ghaznavi or Ghori is coming to rescue us. We are on our own. It is for us to make something of Pakistan or disfigure it. The kingdom of heaven is here; redemption is here; salvation is here.
                    The very enormity of this challenge should teach us some tolerance. We expect miracles from our rulers without pausing to reflect that what we expect from them is nothing less than a reversal of history. We expect them to be the heralds of a miracle: the creation and expression of native talent and ability.
                    Not that it can’t be done or will never happen. But at least we should be aware of the extent of the challenge. We have to create something wholly new, something which in Punjab, the Frontier, Balochistan, Sindh, has not existed except in the dim annals of pre-history.
                    And even if we pride ourselves on our Muslim past, let us not forget that by the time the British arrived in India and set about establishing their empire, the Muslims had declined to an inferior position. They were no longer a master race. So much so, they were reduced to demanding from the British special safeguards, such as separate electorates, to protect their status and position.
                    Consider the irony of this. Once the Muslims, a tiny minority, had ruled India. Now they were afraid—or their leading lights were afraid—that they would be swamped by the Hindu majority, fearful that in a united India their just rights would be denied them, that they would not be able to hold their heads above the water.
                    This philosophy of fear was dictated by circumstances. After Ottoman defeat in the First World War, Turkish nationalism found expression in the idea of a Turkish republic confined to the Turkish heartland: the Anatolian plateau. The idea of empire was no longer feasible. Mustafa Kemal realised this, his vision clearer and sharper than most of his countrymen. In India, Muslim nationalism found expression in the idea of Pakistan. Jinnah’s greatness lay in helping achieve this idea.
                    But there was one vital difference between Turkey and Pakistan. The Anatolian plateau was the solid centre of the Ottoman Empire, what the Turks called their true home.
                    The centre of the Muslim empire throughout the 800 years of Muslim dominance in India was central India, around Delhi. But Indian partition and the birth of Pakistan meant retreating from this centre and creating a new nexus of existence on the western and eastern marches of the sub-continent. Pakistan thus arose on what used to be not the centre but the peripheries of Muslim power in India.
                    This was a new challenge: of creating a new locus of existence where none had existed before. Muslim kingdoms had existed in South India. But there had never been an independent Muslim kingdom in the areas now constituting Pakistan.
                    We had roads and bridges, canals and waterworks, a judicial and an administrative system, the trappings of democracy, the concept of elections and political parties, but, apart from the one example of Ranjit Singh, no tradition of native ability. The idea of being Turkish had always existed in the Turkish mind.

                    Khaleej Times Online - Reversing History
                    The Muslim faith was part of this idea but it wasn’t the whole of it.
                    Pakistan was a wholly new invention and it was a reflection of the difficulties besetting the idea of Pakistan that our leading figures declared, very early on, that Islam was the basis of our nationhood. Indeed, we made religion a fallback position, seeking refuge in its dialectics when more attention should have been paid to temporal problems. The discontent arising in East Pakistan was proof that temporal problems needed a temporal solution.
                    Today it is the same in Balochistan whose grievances are crying out for something more than the usual palliatives. The fight against the Taleban may yet prove our salvation. It is putting us through a formative experience. We were not willing to take on this fight, using all the mental resources at our disposal to avoid it.
                    But this struggle has been forced on us by circumstances. The Taleban had become a domestic headache. To this was added external pressure from the American presence in Afghanistan, forcing the Pakistan army to shed indecision and adopt a decisive course of action.
                    What does the idea of Talebanism tell us? That it is a foreign importation and as such alien to our soil and condition. Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar just don’t fit into the idea of Pakistan. But thanks to our own misunderstandings and follies we had allowed this alien concept to take root in our soil.
                    Hopefully things are changing. Pakistan has to be an autonomous concept, sufficient unto itself and free of alien viruses.
                    The struggle is not over. The idea of Pakistan is yet in the making but it will come into its own, never to falter or indeed wither, when we realise that the historic task before us is to turn the mediocrity of our ruling class, including the confusion that often besets the military mind, into a vision springing from the needs of our own society.
                    Ayaz Amir is a widely read Pakistani commentator and member of parliament


                      Re: Why is History taught in Pakistan so distorted??

                      I am sorry.People writing against Muslim invadors forget that most of them either Hindu or Muslims are the sons of invadors .Oreagenal Indians are Shuders and other scheduled casts.It was history.We shall be even thankful of all of them even to Britshers who braught new thing with them.


                        Re: Why is History taught in Pakistan so distorted??

                        ghauri was proud and great afghan/pashtun warrior who made rajputs realize that real lion-hearteds live to west of indus.


                          Originally posted by anupap68 View Post
                          Everyone knows that Shahbuddin Ghauri was an invader of India.
                          He killed millions of people( Both Hindus and Muslims), plundered
                          India, destroyed temples and mosques.
                          whats that crap ..............

                          he is great miltary general who blast the asses of rajputs who were considered invincible at that time then a series of their defeats against baber, altamish and akber.

                          i think u have got book of some extremist hindu writer. check 4 second opinion.....

                          beside u should focus on the more relevant topic like to research on the existence of "Ram" . as historian has shown doubts that he ever existed in india............

                          beside when u r going to mention ur opinion (for which u dont have reasonable objective data) dont present it like history.
                          Last edited by Maverick_27; Sep 25, 2009, 02:55 AM.
                          If time is not real, then the dividing line between this world and eternity, between suffering and bliss, between good and evil, is also an illusion.


                            Guyz guyz, we should learn from Indian school books and also teach in our schools that Shri Hitler was a good boy.... Now see this is what you call shistory


                              Re: Why is History taught in Pakistan so distorted??

                              These rulers probably killed millions as well.
                              Liberty is the only thing you cannot
                              have unless you are willing to give it to others.

                              -William Allen White