Reimagining and reproducing the partitions (of 1947 and 1971) in textbooks in Pakistan: a comparative analysis of the Zia and Musharraf regimes

IF 0.5 3区 社会学 Q3 AREA STUDIES India Review Pub Date : 2022-09-26 DOI:10.1080/14736489.2022.2086408
Mazhar Abbas
{"title":"Reimagining and reproducing the partitions (of 1947 and 1971) in textbooks in Pakistan: a comparative analysis of the Zia and Musharraf regimes","authors":"Mazhar Abbas","doi":"10.1080/14736489.2022.2086408","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><b>ABSTRACT</b></p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":56338,"journal":{"name":"India Review","volume":"62 18","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"India Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14736489.2022.2086408","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重新想象和再现巴基斯坦教科书中的(1947年和1971年)分治:齐亚和穆沙拉夫政权的比较分析
摘要本研究试图分析在齐亚和穆沙拉夫独裁政权时期,学校教科书对1947年印度次大陆和1971年巴基斯坦分治的重新想象和再现过程。是什么吸引我为这项研究绘制时间、空间和主题限制?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,这两个独裁者都被认为是对立的意识形态拥护者——例如,齐亚——一个狂热的统治者——激进化了教科书,而穆沙拉夫——一个“开明温和”的拥护者——试图去激进化课程。此外,分治提出了两种不同的情景,进行了有趣的比较——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。对教科书的内容分析表明,这两个政权都采用了黑格尔对待历史的“哲学”方法——选择自己选择的人物、事件或时期,同时排除或抛弃对方——来强化民族叙事。报告进一步指出,国家资助的课程助长宗教民族主义,而不是世俗民族主义,后者随后助长了多数民族主义,并促进了该国其他少数群体的进程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
India Review
India Review AREA STUDIES-
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
期刊最新文献
The paradoxes of Vietnam’s ties to India Theories of governance and development: How does India’s experience fit? Rising to the challenge: a systematic review of development of environmental justice in India Faultlines and stultification: contemporary currents in India and Pakistan Living in a fragmented world: India’s data way
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1