Isn’t there also an identity crisis and a culture of denial in Pakistan which manifests itself in things as varied as historical revisionism, conspiracy theories and the spread of radical islam? The impression I have is that in their desire to distance themselves from their roots (which would emphasise their inherent similarities to India), Pakistanis embrace the Arab culture and Wahabism, which is at odds with the Sufi culture that is indigenous to the sub-continent and this creates a cognitive dissonance which just feeds all their problems.
Also, ever since the military desired to take and hold power, I believe the history taught in Pakistani schools has been distorted to a great extent, claiming India has started all the wars against Pakistan, India is an existential enemy, Pakistan has won all the wars etc. This has enabled the military to be paramount in Pakistan, and it hasn’t proved sustainable. The denial that there exists government support for terrorism, and the abundant conspiracy theories (Israel-India-USA did it) regarding the troubles that Pakistan faces just mean that a significant proportion of the people don’t even acknowledge the root of the problem, and thus solutions are just harder to come by.
Full disclosure: I’m an Indian. The views here however are a distillation of viewpoints I’ve heard from Pakistani commentators
This post was an additional comment to the original thread, Why is Pakistan such a basket case?
Rather than continue the original, (and often hostile), thread as a zombie, I have split off the previous post to its own thread.
You believe wrong. Totally and absolutly wrong.
To elaborate you points further
Culture
Pakistanis are different from Indian cultures. and help us a lot different from Arabs. Not I said cultures. In the plural. There is no one Indian culture as there is no one Pakistani culture either. Pray do tell what do I as a person of Pathan origin have in common with someone who is Tamil? Not much. I would have a lot more in common with Afghans and Central Asians and Punjabis. In the same vein a Sindhi (especially from the South East) would have more in common with India, specifically Rajestan and Marhastra.
History
I don’t recall anything being said about India strating most wars or India winning or us winning. History was divided into two subjects; World History; which was as it states about World History and Pakistan Studies whcih was about the history of the sub-continent from a certain point in time, when I was studying it was from 1600 onwards (when my sister did it five years later I think it was from 1857 onwards). with everything earlier then that being from taught in World History.
If it was deficient, then World History was deficient in the sence that I thought it concentrated too much on Western European History and too little on China and the Far East. Pakistan Studies was deficient as it tred to cover too much material (it had both a history and georgraphy element)
Finally education is a provincial subject and there will be significant variations in what is taught according to the province.
Hmm. As for the ‘cultures’ point, the Indian propaganda was ‘Unity in diversity’ We buy it to a large extent, and there are in fact many common cultural strands running through India. Much more so in today’s day and age than previously of course. At any rate that’s not really material to the discussion at hand. Don’t you think though that the Pakistanis would still have more(food, language, dressing, movies, plays, jokes, songs) in common with Indians (ok, if you must, North Indians) than Arabs? And isn’t the radical Wahabi strain of Islam running through Pakistan today an Arab import that is supplanting Sufi traditions? And isn’t there an attempt to identify with Arab history and negate actual local history?
My problem is most of the videos by Pakistani commentators that I have seen were in Urdu/Hindi so citing them becomes an issue. Here’s one by a Pakistani professor of history that’s in English. Not for backing up my arguments, but makes some good points.
When were you in school? This distortion is supposed to be comparatively recent. It may also be that I’m confusing ‘popular version of events’ with ‘history taught in school’ , but I don’t think that’s the case. Here’s a video for AK84 and other people who understand Urdu/Hindi.
The poster of the video has actually summed up the commentators views on History in English
Bold text is my addition
Graduated in 2003. As for your other post, except for no 10-12, 13 none of them were ever taught even implicitly.
So, the ones about India starting all wars and Pakistan being the victim and the victor. Also, don’t you think some of the omissions are just as pernicious? 4,6 in particular.
What do you make of the rest of the points? Najam Sethi is a fairly distinguished journalist though isn’t he? Do you think he’s referring to the popular/government version of events? Or maybe the provincial differences in textbooks that you mention might account for your texts having been different? Genuine curiosity, no desire to run Pakistan down.
As for the OP of the original thread, he presupposed some things that are bound to get you defensive. I’m keen to understand your perspective. Do you think Pakistan is faced with a massive, existential crisis? Why do you think this is/is not? As for the troubles it undeniably is facing - extremist violence, radicalisation, etc. What do you think the root causes are?
To the best of my knowledge the strains of radical Islam running through Pakistan today are overwhelmingly “homegrown.” By homegrown I mean originating in south Asia in the 18th-19th century somewhat in parallel with the rise of Wahhabism in eastern Arabia and for vaguely similar reasons ( reaction to western modernism among them ). The origins are in the subcontinent pre-split, if not necessarily in the part that would become Pakistan per se.
Though the Pakistani Ahl-e Hadith are often casually referred to as “Wahhabis” and have strong ties to them particularly in recent decades, strictly speaking they are not identical and are not an import.
Deobandism is another, larger strain of what is often considered “fundamentalist” thought ( the Taliban was most heavily influenced by Deobandi teaching ), but it even less closely related to Wahhabism. Among other differences Deobandis are Hanafi rather than Hanbali.
Which is not to say that Saudi Wahhabis haven’t been actively exporting ideology ( and funds ) to the region. They have as part of standing policy since the 1970’s in particular. But they have at best stroked and prodded native radical Islamism, not create it.
The information stated here is not correct. Kashmir was a princely state, and therefore it was not included in the partition. After independence, British paramountancy lapsed and Kashmir became an independent country. After irregular troops from Pakistan invaded, the king of Kashmir at the time flew to India and signed an instrument of accession, ceding Kashmir to India. Now, it’s certainly fair to question whether an absolute monarch has the moral right to unilaterally determine what happens to his people, but it’s not true that India “did not allow Kashmir to join Pakistan.” Kashmir itself joined India.
Furthermore, according to the terms of the UN resolution, Pakistan was supposed to withdraw all its troops from Kashmir before the plebiscite would be held. Since Pakistan never withdrew its troops, India’s position was that it could not hold the plebiscite. I believe that now the Indian government position has changed, and it now holds that since Kashmir is a state, Kashmiri issues are an internal matter for the Indian government.
If I was in charge in 1948, I would have gone ahead and had the plebiscite after the formation of the Sheikh Abdullah government, since it would have almost certainly come out favorably for India.