ABSTRACT

This study attempts at analyzing the process of reimagining and reproducing the partition of the Indian subcontinent in 1947 and Pakistan in 1971 in the textbooks at school level during the dictatorial regimes of Zia and Musharraf. What has appealed me to draw temporal, spatial, and thematic limitations for this research? To begin with, the dictatorial regimes, are believed to, have deeply relied on manipulating the Textbook Boards to further their agendas. Moreover, both the dictators are deemed to be opposing ideologues – e.g., Zia – a fanatic ruler – radicalized the textbooks while Musharraf – a champion of “Enlightened Moderation” – tried to deradicalize the curriculum. Additionally, partitions present two different scenarios for a fascinating comparison – e.g., in 1947, Pakistan was an emergent state while in 1971, a parent state. The content analysis of the textbooks reveals that both the regimes adopted Hegel’s “philosophical” approach of treating history – selecting the personalities, events, or periods of their choice while excluding or discarding the other – to reinforce the national narrative. It further suggests that the state-sponsored curriculum fosters religious nationalism, rather than secular nationalism, which, subsequently, nurtures majoritarian nationalism and bolsters the process of othering the minority groups in the country.

摘要

本研究试图分析在齐亚和穆沙拉夫独裁政权期间，在学校教科书中重新构想和再现 1947 年印度次大陆和 1971 年巴基斯坦分裂的过程。是什么吸引我为这项研究画出时间、空间和主题的限制？首先，据信，独裁政权深深依赖于操纵教科书委员会来推进他们的议程。此外，两位独裁者都被认为是对立的理论家——例如，狂热的统治者齐亚——激进化教科书，而穆沙拉夫——“开明温和”的拥护者——试图去激进化课程。此外，分区展示了两种不同的情景，以进行有趣的比较——例如，在 1947 年，巴基斯坦是一个新兴国家，而在 1971 年，它是一个母国。教科书的内容分析表明，两个政权都采用了黑格尔处理历史的“哲学”方法——选择他们选择的人物、事件或时期，同时排除或抛弃其他——以强化民族叙事。它进一步表明，国家资助的课程培养了宗教民族主义，而不是世俗民族主义，后者随后培养了多数民族主义，并促进了该国少数群体的其他进程。