Illustration by Abro
The subject of Pakistan Studies was introduced in the early 1970s. It was first made compulsory in schools and, from the late 1970s onwards, in colleges and universities. Over the years, it has often been lambasted for promoting half truths and — from the 1980s — even religious and racial bigotry.
Various Pakistani scholars, such as Dr A.H. Nayyar, Ahmad Salim and Rubina Saigol, have substantiated these claims through detailed Studies of Pakistani textbooks. Indeed, the content in these tomes, especially in Pakistan Studies books, is rather alarming.
The overlying consensus in this regard is that the subject of Pakistan Studies was concocted as a reaction to the rising sentiment of ethnic regionalism in the country; and largely as a response to the violent manner in which the former East Pakistan broke away in 1971 to become Bangladesh.
The subject may have been formulated and promoted by leftists and liberals as a response to the country’s existential crises but they themselves became its victims
According to a desperate and bruised state and a new populist government headed by Z.A. Bhutto, this happened because a cohesive ideology of Pakistan, based on a shared Muslim faith which transcended ethnic identities, had not been properly formulated and ingrained among the people.
So, Pakistan Studies set out to do just that, even if it had to distort and omit certain inconvenient truths. But, as a project, it was initially not really in the hands of belligerent politico-religious scribes, even though it would become just that during the Zia dictatorship in the 1980s. Initially, as an intellectual pursuit, it was formed by some noted, rationalist historians and introduced by a ‘modernist’ state and a populist left-leaning government.
But here’s the interesting bit: Those who came up with this subject eventually became its victims. Let me explain. The creation of Pakistan Studies in the 1970s was related to what was emerging in certain prominent segments of the academia in the US and Europe at the time.
In 1961, the French philosopher Michel Foucault published Madness and Civilisation. In 1962, the American philosopher Thomas Khun published The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. In 1966, two American sociologists, Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, penned The Social Construction of Reality. In 1968, the American anthropologist, Carlos Castaneda, published The Teachings of Don Juan.
These books made a huge impact on the evolution of psychiatry, sociology and anthropology. Each one of them were authored by ‘progressive’ men who were educated in some of the finest Western educational institutions which, for years, had upheld the core principles of the Age of Enlightenment: reason, rationality, science and empiricism.
Yet, these books are all vehement attacks on these principles. They claimed that truths, even scientific truths, were all constructions of power elites. Mental illness was a concept, not a truth. Reality was a social construction. Superstitions and ‘magical thinking’ can be as legitimate as scientific truths because truth was ‘relative.’