The significant other

Nationhood is a cultural artifact. It combines political thought with literary expression, to carve out ideological boundaries of a place where a people are supposed to belong. With time, the factual historical content becomes irrelevant. What remains is a myth.

Textbooks are a primary method of dissemination of that myth. Pakistani textbooks justify the creation of the Islamic republic with the two-nation theory – the idea that Muslims and Hindus in the subcontinent were two separate nations. India and Hindus therefore become a necessary fixation for the textbooks defining Pakistani identity, as an Other without whom the We cannot exist. In that way, it constructs not one but two nations, who can neither become one, nor get along, but are stuck together.

“India is our traditional enemy and we should always keep ourselves ready to defend our beloved country from Indian aggression,” 11-year-olds are taught.

“They (Hindus) will not allow the establishment of an Islamic government here,” says an anthropomorphised minaret in Lahore (now associated with the Pakistan movement) in an Urdu textbook for 10-year-olds. “They will form such a government where Hindu law will prevail over God’s law. Muslims will be considered untouchables according to that law.”

The textbooks say Hindus are superstitious and backward, but manipulative, and would assert their power over the weak, especially Muslims, when given a chance. They would deprive them of education “by pouring molten lead in their ears”. These characters are linked to race.

“Different Races” is the first heading in a 5th grade textbook chapter titled History of Pakistan. The theory of Aryan invasion in India is asserted and justified by the simple fact that “they were cleverer than other races and hence enslaved them”.

In meta-contrast, Muslim conquerors who fought among themselves for centuries for control of Indian land are seen as one party.

This Muslim rule is justified by the assertion that “the foundation of the Hindu set-up was based on injustice and cruelty” and the Muslims replaced it with equality and justice. “There is no place for equality in Hinduism,” an exercise question at the end of the chapter asks. “True or False?”

The realm of the Other is certainly not restricted to Hindus. When the textbooks take pride in the supposed Arab ancestry of Muslims of the subcontinent, it has to include Christians and Jews. “Christians have always harmed the Muslims,” the same book says in a chapter about Saladin. A book for grade 5 narrates the story of a Jew who owned a well but would not let Muslims drink water from it until the Muslim caliph paid for it. It then draws the conclusion that Jews are wicked and cruel. No mention is made of peaceful coexistence between Jews and Muslims for about a thousand years.

Therefore, while the Aryan invasion is justified on grounds of superior race and the Arab invasion on grounds of superior religion, the British invasion is seen as an unacceptable enslavement. “After the conquest of South Asia by the British, the Muslims… became slaves,” says a book for 11-year-olds. In subsequent mention of the British rule, they and the Hindus are referred to as one group, the non-Muslims. Their aim in this collaboration is to suppress the Muslims of India, according to the textbooks. “The persecution of Muslims started at the hands of the (Indian National) Congress and their separate identity was planned to be crushed. For this, a ban was put on the religion of the Muslims.”

While Muslims and Hindus did cooperate against the British, a class-8 textbook says “Mr Gandhi being a staunch Hindu insisted on getting things decided in his own way. The dialogue known as Gandhi-Jinnah Talks, failed as it was destined to.”

And it is that last part that provides a national narrative with a closure. That it was destiny.

The author is a media critic and the News Editor, The Friday Times