Concealing History

Is our past so ugly that we cannot dare to show it to our succeeding generations? Apparently, the answer is yes. K.K. Aziz (1993) stated that in Pakistan teachers do not “…teach or lecture but repeat what history book contains and the student is encouraged or simply ordered to memorize its contents”. The underlying assumption with this philosophy of teaching and learning is that the young generations will conform and accept “our ideology”.

Photo Credit: freepik

That is why prevalent approach of learning history is memorization, which implies that history is made of certain “facts” and “fixed interpretations”. Consequently, such approach obscure and distort history. Therefore, question arises: is it worth learning? This article discusses approaches to writing history followed by its teaching and learning at school levels and finally ways forward. 

It would be appropriate to begin by asking: What is history? Answers to this question are many such as “history is the story of human experience” to Davidson (2000); while Cicero termed it as “the witness of times, the light of truth”. Aziz Esmail (1970) points out that most people consider history as “facts about the past”, which is a misconception, as “fact” according to him belong to the past as well as to the present. He also argues that the historical facts are “complex” due to multiplicity of reasons.

These stated views suggest that history is not so simple to explain. Rather it is amalgamation of description and/or distortion of facts as well as opinions. Thus, this intricate nature of history as well as the historiography makes it challenging to make sense of. Therefore, without considering important questions such as what are the sources of information about a particular event and how valid and reliable they are? Are the sources primary, secondary, tertiary or oral tradition; we cannot ascertain the usefulness of a particular account.

Historians depend on these mentioned sources to pass down history to succeeding generations. Ibn Khaldun stressed, “the message of history is to be discovered in the careful study of historical laws revealed in the play of forces which are the expression of man’s political and social nature”. Thus relying on few sources or perspectives may not give a holistic picture of the past.

There are different approaches to historiography as well as teaching and learning, each claiming the appropriate approach. Being a student of history, I will discuss the appropriateness of each approach. I categorize historiography into four approaches. The first approach collects and compiles information for history books without critical review. Individuals using this approach are considered historians as they compile information from different sources without analyzing. For example, Aziz (1993) points out errors of such historians, as “Sir Sayyid Ahmed ‘founded Muslim University of Aligarh’, “Nawab Muhsinul Mulk” led Simla deputation by such historians. Relying on such sources whose reliability and validity are uncertain can be dangerous. Furthermore, this approach relies on rote learning. The purpose of this approach is not learning from history, rather it appears to mislead, as this approach does not emphasize on meaning.

Pervez Hoodbhoy (1998) affirms, “Our education system produces the best breed of parrots” and encourages students “to reproduce staggering amounts of information from their memory banks”. Syed Jaffer Ahmed (2008) argues that whatever is taught about history in Pakistan, any objective thinker cannot be satisfied with its contents. Thus, it naturally follows from the above that this sort of history appears to make people subservient to a particular ideology.

Therefore, challenging this notion appears to a certain class as challenging their authority. Perhaps this was the reason, when a Secretary of Education termed K.K. Aziz as anti-Pakistani, when I refer his book “The murder of history in Pakistan” during a meeting on curriculum related issues. This testifies Ali’s (2008) assertion about distortion of History of Pakistan is deliberately made to confuse people.

The second and relatively better approach is when historians try to evaluate and incorporate such information while finalizing any written text. However, the problem emanating from this type of historiography is like the first type; the text may be considered as fixed and as a result, little or no room is left for learners to search more for themselves. This approach assumes that certain people are experts and rests are blind followers. Moreover, this type of historiography can be termed as subjective approach. In this approach evidence and testimonies are usually gathered to prove something is or not the case.

The third approach encourages teachers as well as learners to try their best to evaluate and incorporate such information while finalizing any written text. In this type of approach although, endeavour is made to engage people in inquiry and find about a fact as well as interpret it in the light of evidences gathered at hands yet the approach is for certain period of time.

The fourth approach suggests to continue to “interact with fact” (E. H. Carr, 1987) and encourages others to approach history through this particular way. Meanwhile all of the four stated types of historians might be writing in good faith, the last stated approach seems more reasonable, as it not only encourages, learner to continuously engage with history, but also pushes them to question validity and reliability of particular source(s). As, this approach involves highest level of rigour; therefore, it may be seen as idealistic.

The fundamental assumption in this approach is that there is a possibility of getting new evidence, which will alter the earlier stated history altogether. Hence, this approach poses threat to the stances of people, who appear to be narcissist and worship their stated past. Therefore, they may resist such approach. The positive aspect of this approach in my view is it empowers people to constantly discover histories.

Consequently, the chances of deception reduce, which is more likely in the first and second approaches of history writing, teaching and learning. However, the approach may lead to excessive scepticism about contents as well as the sources. Thus, it may not be able to lead or may end up with rejection of every analysis. The compilation and transmission of historical information without analyzing appears to be the prevalent approach in Pakistan.

As Aziz (1993) expressed his dismay on the responses or rather apathy of scholars and professors as well as of National and provincial assemblies in 1992 about his published articles which highlighted many errors then. He further argues that “false history” is “being taught and studied” (p. xii). Similarly, Ali (2008) has also indicated distortion in the history of Pakistan. He has also hinted that there are confusions between the favourite historians of executives and educationists. He further argues whatever is written is completely distorted and imbalance. Thus, the approach to writing history itself negates inquiry into history. I do not remember any history lesson, from my school days, where my colleagues and I learnt about a particular phenomenon from different source, other than the textbooks, neither our teachers encouraged us to do so.

That is why Aziz (1993) holds teachers equally responsible for distortion and presentation as they write books as well as teach history. Being a teacher, at times I felt crippled like other teachers, to use new approaches discussed above as only one of the approaches fitted into the curriculum orientation. The analysis of revised National Curriculum Document for class VI-VIII (2006) reveal there is low emphasis on high order thinking, yet it appears encouraging on two accounts:

The document is available and accessible on internet, which in the past were unknown to teachers; and they are relatively better to the extent of intention. However, developing books accordingly and implementing such intention will require multifaceted efforts. There are many challenges in the schools’ contexts for implementation of such intentions. I have practically observed in some of the government rural and urban schools where either dated resources are provided and/or headteachers/teachers are not willing to use the resources.

Moreover, teachers are not enough trained to use such resources and there is not a good supportive mechanism in place. Therefore, good intention alone will make no difference until and unless concrete steps are not taken, including developing support mechanism to sustain and improve initiatives. Despite all the challenges presented above, teachers can individually as well as collectively in different context take initiatives to make history lessons interesting by actually involving students in different projects such as writing a book about their areas. Whereby, student gathered and analyzed information about various aspects of their surroundings. Such projects give a sense of accomplishment, and can initiate innovations and apply in different contexts. However, the assessment practices doe not have any place for such projects. Therefore, the stakeholders may treat such projects as futile exercise.

In the light of the above discussion, it can be easily deduced that in the context of Pakistan there is heavy reliance on the approach, which treats history and historiography as a fixed fact and interpretation. Consequently, it encourages teachers and students to wear blinkers. Hence, history as a subject has lost its importance.

Besides, there are major issues in curriculum orientation, teachers training about the required approaches. In addition, provision of relevant resources is other significant area which is not up to the mark and there is not any support and check and balance system in place which ensures quality in teaching and learning across Pakistan. The approach cannot be rectified without bringing changes in the curriculum and preparing textbooks accordingly; providing relevant training to teachers; provision of modern facilities such as relevant books, computers, related packages and internet; the will and better teaching methods adopted by individual as well as groups of teachers in their capacity; and developing a strong mechanism for monitoring and evaluation.

 
author can be reached though aafiyatnazar@gmail.com

first published online

http://www.thefrontierpost.com/News.aspx?ncat=ar&nid=405&ad=20-02-2011