April 10, 2005

History does not seem to have impressed us much, which is quite understandable. A society raised on popular slogans and fed on unscientific beliefs and superstitions can only find it difficult to embrace the faculty of critical inquiry

LOOKING at the scheme of things as they obtain in our society, it appears that despite our repeated references to the events and personalities of the past, our attitude towards history is inconsistent and devoid of seriousness. As a result of this our capability in historical judgment is only too limited.

History which enriches human outlook and facilitates a better understanding of the present, derived from the consciousness of the past, does not seem to have impressed us much. This is quite understandable. A society cultivated on popular slogans and fed on unscientific beliefs, and superstitions can only find it difficult to embrace the faculty of critical enquiry. Needless to mention that our society is not guided by the universities or other centres of learning, but by the pirs and the sajjada-nashins or leaders, with a miserably poor world view.

While our rural areas have become a fertile ground of recruitment for the extremist outfits, the urban centres are earning name not for their creative activities in culture and liberal arts, but for the growth of shrines, meditation halls and a print and electronic media that is promoting illusions and superstitions in the name of suggesting remedies to the personal, psychological and material problems faced by the people.

The successive governments, too, have shown a tendency of reliance on information rather than on analysis. The information itself is gathered through administrative channels and intelligence agencies, and is used to devise policies. Nowhere in the process the underlying social aspirations and perceptions are considered and evaluated scientifically. Since a historically evolved social reality can only be understood through critical analysis, a policy not based on such analysis is less likely to yield the desired results.

The state of history in the academia is also not much better. The discipline that has attracted serious attention and has been elevated to greater heights in other societies, seems to have been condemned as bearing no purpose for our society.

The observation may appear a bit uncharitable, but a number of facts as well as their causes can help understand what has been uttered here.

Since the time of Herodotus, known as the founder of history-writing, up until our own times, the discipline of history has attained remarkable heights. Its substance has enriched, its scope has widened, and its utility has increased manifold. More than a mere record of the events of the past, history is now regarded as a science. It now has the capacity to explain the underlying causes behind the events, and suggests the rules which work behind the process of change in human society.

Particularly during the twentieth century, historians came out with detailed works focusing the historical processes spread over centuries and deducing lessons from the comparative study of civilizations. Following the tradition set by Ibn Khaldun’s Kitab al-Ibar, and taken forward by Edward Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, a number of historians in the last century took to constructing holistic accounts of the past civilizations with underlying message for the present and the future societies.

Oswald Spengler’s The Decline of the West, Arnold J. Toynbee’s A Study of History and Will and Ariel Durant’s The Story of Civilization, were written with the objective to identify the factors which determine the course of history and govern the rise and fall of societies.

In our own times, Paul Kennedy produced his single volume The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. Coming a little before the break-up of the Soviet Union, Kennedy discussed the making and un-making of the great powers from 1500 to 2000, in the context of the economic changes and the military conflict, suggesting the critical position of the economic and military strength in the world system.

The above are just some of the major titles. If one looks around, thousands of historians — experts and amateurs, professional and popular — can be seen producing histories in the developed as well as in some developing countries. All this activity suggests that history is not only still relevant, but has obtained a renewed significance amidst the growing complexities of present day societies and the world system.

In listening to their historians, these societies in fact demonstrate their belief that history fulfils certain objectives. For instance, it advances the understanding of human nature, sheds light on the foundations of the existing social formations, explains the relationship between the causes and effects, and promotes dialogues between diverse societies and people. And more pragmatically, it has great potential in bringing harmony in international relations and promoting peace by demystifying historical prejudices. Historians also occupy prominent place in the think-tanks in democratic countries; they are listened to by the policy-makers and the legislators.

This is not to suggest that the historians provide, or are capable of providing, ready-made solutions to the governments. Far from it. The books of history are not engineering manuals. Or, as Harold Wheeler had put it, a book of history is not a kind of a medical book that offers remedies for all diseases. Not only this, historians are fallible too. But still if their work is significant, it is in the sense that, if taken collectively and read comparatively, it can lead to a better understanding of a given situation in the context of the past experiences, and can help determine the present choices.

The economic progress that the West has made and the political influence that it enjoys today is also a result of, apart from other factors, its achievements in the domain of knowledge, both of the past and the present. Colonialism flourished on its mastery over the latest tools of learning — historians at its service unearthed mines of information about the colonized societies, the district gazetteers of colonial India being a testimonial to it. And today, globalization, too, is drawing immensely from the reservoir of knowledge amassed by its motivators, adherents and beneficiaries.

If historical data and information have facilitated both colonialism and globalization, another set of historians has taken to itself the responsibility to explain away the exploitative nature of the two. Much has been written about colonial exploitation. Globalization is being addressed now in historical perspective, and valuable works have begun to appear.

What historically has been the response and attitude of Muslim societies towards history? The tradition of historiography has been quite rich in the earlier Muslim societies, particularly until the end of the fourteenth century. During the major part of the mediaeval period, the Muslim society remained subjected to authoritarian rule. This, along with the feudal social relations, severely circumscribed the intellectual and creative potential of the society. The belief in predestination and the more general social attitude of submission to authority gravely affected the creative faculties of the individuals and their instincts of independent thinking and search for truth.

But despite this, quite surprisingly, a number of original historians emerged in the Muslim society. While a good number of political writers and jurists devoted their skills to providing legitimacy to the rulers, historians preferred to write as independently as was possible in their times. Al Yaqubi, al Baladhuri, al Tabari, al Masudi, and others preserved the events of the first few centuries in the form of annals and ilm ur-rijal (an equivalent of present day Who’s Who). But the contribution of Ibn Khaldun was way ahead of the others. As a cosmopolitan person of remarkable abilities, Ibn Khaldun based his history on the study of material and social factors, a feature that later entitled him to be regarded as a pioneer sociologist.

Another prominent phase of Muslim historiography came during the colonial rule when in search of self identity, nationalist history was written with much vigour. In India, Muslim nationalist historiography was aimed at asserting Muslim separateness viz-a-viz the Hindus. Like other nationalist histories, Muslim nationalist history had also emerged in the context of a particular political context and as such fulfilled a political purpose.

Pakistan’s creation provided us an opportunity to decolonize our minds and our culture. In a free environment, objective history-writing could have been pursued as a normal course, but the country’s falling into the hands of undemocratic and authoritarian regimes precluded it. History was put to serve the ideological pursuits of the state. The consequent official historical narrative written in the straitjacket of ideology, distorted its scope as an independent discipline. Not only this, but in the presence of official narrative, or due to it, alternative narratives were discouraged. And this became the major cause of the degeneration of the discipline in the country.

Additionally, in the early 1960s, following the US advisory group’s suggestion, history was merged into newly introduced Social Studies. Later, in the 1980s, when Pakistan Studies was introduced from class IX up to the graduation level as a compulsory subject, history was incorporated into it. Thus a student is not exposed to the distinct character of history, until he or she gets to the Bachelor’s or Master’s level where it is taught as an optional subject.

Moreover, amidst growing commercialization of education, students now opt for job-oriented and monetarily beneficial disciplines like medicine, engineering, business administration and information technology. Social sciences attract those with lesser percentage on the merit list. Within social sciences, at least in the University of Karachi, the trend shows that in the last few years the departments of General History, Islamic History, Urdu and a few others admitted students with the lowest percentage of marks. While the good aspect of this is that even those who are rejected by other more promising departments, get an opportunity to make room for themselves, it also highlights the challenge faced by the departments they are admitted to. As the University education ought to be research oriented, it is not difficult to imagine how the departments like history can ensure this, given the level of their recruits.

Meanwhile, over the years, Persian has almost been expunged from our mainstream education with the result that the doors to research on mediaeval Indian history, which we are heir to, have been foreclosed.

The absence of a culture of research in our centres of higher education, difficulties in establishing linkages with the universities in other countries, resource constraints and political interference in academia have affected the quality of the faculty.

According to the figures compiled by the Council of Social Sciences, Islamabad (COSS), there were only twelve public-sector universities in the country in 2001 which had full-scale departments of history. The total number of teachers in them was 75, with an average of six teachers per department. Out of these 75 teachers, 22 were holding PhD degrees, nine had M.Phil degrees, while 44 had MA degrees. Moreover, from among the 75 teachers, only 13 had their degrees from foreign universities. Considering PhDs separately, out of total 22 PhD teachers, only four had their degrees from foreign universities.

Moving from the faculty to the achievements of history departments in research, the data provided by the COSS gives a picture which can hardly be regarded as satisfactory. Between 1947 and 2001, history departments of six public-sector universities (universities of Karachi, Sindh, Punjab, and Peshawar, the Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, and Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan) had produced only 43 PhDs and 83 M.Phils in 54 years, which means that the average for PhD theses was less than one per year, and for M.Phil theses it was over two theses per year. These figures provide a sufficient testimony to the poverty of a historical research culture in the country.

To corroborate the conclusion, there exist only a few institutions in the country exclusively devoted to historical research. The National Institute of Historical and Cultural Research (NIHCR), Research Society of Pakistan (Punjab University), and the Quaid-i-Azam Academy (Karachi) are some of the more prominent public-sector institutions of the country, but their standard and performance has shown ups and downs over the years.

A general problem with all these institutes has been the lack of continuous induction of fresh blood in them. As a result of this, after the retirement of senior figures, these institutes often do not have a second line of researchers and scholars to fill the senior positions. This, in turn, creates vacuum and a persistent vacuum tends to render them inefficient and hollow for long phases.

The focus of these institutions varies; so does their research output which varies both in quality and quantity. Moreover, many of the institutes in the public sector have to their credit more of compilation work — which is not un-important in any way than original research. The compilation of documents done so far has itself been limited. Apart from the speeches, statements, etc. of the Quaid-i-Azam and a few other national leaders, the documents pertaining to the majority of leaders and organizations have yet to be compiled.

Among the non-governmental bodies, the Pakistan Historical Society, established in 1950, and the Institute of Central and West Asian Studies (ICWAS), established in 1967-68 in Karachi University, have a commendable record of research and publication. The Society, under the leadership of, first, Dr Moinul Haq, and now Dr Ansar Zahid Khan, has published over seventy books and monographs including original researches on mediaeval India and the freedom movement as well as a number of edited texts. ICWAS benefited from the guidance and intellectual patronage of a number of renowned historians like Pir Syed Hissamuddin Rashdi, Dr I.H. Qureshi, and Dr Annemarie Shimmel. But it owes most to the untiring devotion of Professor Riazul Islam, an authority on mediaeval period. It is ironical that over the years both the Society and the ICWAS are struggling for survival owing to the paucity of resources.

Research journals are essential to the promotion of historical enquiry. Unfortunately, we do not have more than two or three journals of credibility. The Journal of the Research Society of Pakistan is in its 42nd year of publication. NIHCR’s bi-annual Pakistan Journal of History and Culture is in its 26th year. The oldest of all historical journals in the country is the Journal of the Historical Society of Pakistan, published since 1953. Given the state of research in the country, these journals often have to compromise on standard. Yet their presence is encouraging.

It would be in the interest of our society if history is elevated from its present state of poverty. Apart from energizing the higher centres of learning and research which cannot be done unless the government induces resources in them, there is a need to make the subject socially relevant. It is also important that interest should be created in the subject at the level of society at large.

For this, popular history can play an important role. Free from jargons, and easily comprehensible history, written in Urdu and other languages of the country can potentially evoke interest. In the last two decades, Dr Mubarak Ali has attempted this with refreshing outcome. His books are well received.

The myriad problems Pakistani society faces today can be adequately addressed if history is given a chance. But would we do it?

Conference on history

THE three-day 20th Pakistan History Conference, which is being jointly organized by the Pakistan Historical Society, Hamdard Foundation and the University of Karachi’s Pakistan Study Centre, will begin on April 13 at the university. On its second day, the conference will move to Hamdard University at Madinat-ul-Hikmat, while the last day will be held at the Jinnah Medical College on the Shaheed-e-Millat Road.

Sindh Education Minister Dr Hamida Khuhro will chair the inaugural session, while Professor Sharf al Mujahid will deliver the keynote address on ‘History — The State of the Discipline: An Overview.

About 75 papers will be presented during the conference by delegates from within the country and those coming from India, Bangladesh, Singapore, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Iran and Nigeria.

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)