Teaching and Research on India in Pakistan - A Conspicuous Absence

In many important ways, there is not much of a story to tell. An attempt to look at empirical data and evidence in order to examine the nature, extent and quality of social science teaching and research conducted in the disciplines of economics, history, sociology, political science and international relations, in Pakistan on India, draws almost a complete blank. There seems to be a conspicuous, silent, absence of India in Pakistan’s academic and research institutions where the social sciences are taught and researched.

There are very few exceptions to this general observation, both in terms of individuals and institutions. Most of the exceptions that do exist, both in terms of individuals and institutions, strictly speaking, are not part of the broader category of the social sciences, and are almost exclusively restricted to ’experts’ in security studies.

This noticeable absence of India in Pakistan’s higher institutions of learning and research ought to come as a surprise, given India’s dominant presence in Pakistan’s historical, political, cultural, and militarist existence and being.

One would have thought, that like the relationship between the United States and Russia during the Cold War and between the US and China, adversaries (and in this case, neighbours) like India and Pakistan too, would have studied, researched, taught, understood and analyzed each other almost to extinction. Unlike all adversaries in the world, Indians and Pakistanis know nothing about each other.

There are two probable explanations for this. The first relates to Pakistan’s nature of the state and to its intrusive security/military establishment which lays claim to being the fountain of all knowledge and wisdom in Pakistan regarding most things, but especially regarding anything having to do with India over which it claims to have undisputed monopoly. And, the second has to do with the rather dismal state of the social sciences in Pakistan.

One needs to know whether the fact that India is under-taught and under-researched, is specifically due to India, or whether there are additional explanations to be found in Pakistan’s social science structure and institutions. Since India is perceived by many - and especially by Pakistan’s military and security establishment - to be Pakistan’s main adversary and its biggest threat, we also look at some other possible explanations as to why India is not taught or researched enough in Pakistan’s academic and research institutions.

The main purpose was to try to answer the question: How is India taught and researched in Pakistan, in institutes and universities, in the social science disciplines of history, political science, economics, international relations and sociology? The ’methodology’ for this study is based on interviews of key informants, some of whom are academics, some researchers and others who are columnists or commentators.

These include some of Pakistan’s better known academics, scholars and commentators, many of whom were interviewed a few years ago for a study which preceded this particular one and on which it builds. The second component of the research was a visit to institutions where some form of research on India was thought to be taking place, where the institutions’ publications list and curricula were analyzed in order to get an understanding of the nature of research and teaching taking place.

In addition, the social sciences publications list of three of Pakistan’s main publishers was also examined for evidence to see whether there were any publications on India in the social sciences; catalogues in three libraries in different departments were also quickly scanned to get an idea of the type and number of books that they hold on India. Some secondary published and unpublished material was also analyzed - in particular, titles and lists of theses in the social sciences.

Data provided by the Council of Social Sciences (COSS) in Pakistan, an independent body which collects data and publishes books, reports and newsletters about the state and issues related to the social sciences in Pakistan, shows an extraordinary statistic: in the 56 year period 1947-2003, there have been only 1,202 theses conducted both, at the MPhil and PhD level at all the universities in Pakistan in a very broad range of social science subjects.

Based on the data base developed by COSS, a search based on key words from the theses title and subject, provided the following information based on the 1,202 MPhil and PhD theses. For the word ’India’, there were 41 theses, for ’Pakistan-India’ 24, and for ’Kashmir’ 14. Of these 41 theses on ’India’, the following distribution according to the following broad categories emerges: In the international relations, strategic and defence studies categories, along with the different area study centres and departments, thirty of these 41 theses were completed, which look at nuclear issues, the relationship with Pakistan and India of China and the US and similar themes. Only five look specifically at issues related internally to India.

Another data set, that of the University of Karachi Faculty of Arts which shows the total number of MPhil and PhD degrees awarded in the 1958-2002 period, shows an even grimmer picture with reference to research on India in Pakistan. A total of 239 MPhil and PhD degrees were awarded by the faculty, including some on subjects not normally categorized as part of the social sciences, such as languages. Of the 184 PhDs awarded by the University of Karachi, more than thirty percent are on Urdu, 12 each are on Arabic, clinical psychology and philosophy.

Fourteen were in economics/applied economics, nine in international relations, 25 in political science, 10 in sociology and 12 in general history. With the exception of two theses in general history - one looking at Awadh in the late 18th Century, and the other at Sindh under the Mughals - not a single thesis of the 239 is on any aspect related to India.

There is one recent thesis in international relations on the ’national liberation struggle’ of the Kashmiris, and another on ’Azad’ Kashmir since 1947; that is about all that India features in the research output in the social sciences from the University of Karachi over a period of 45 years.

Indeed, it seems that for the Pakistani student in the social sciences - who may know of the latest Bollywood movies and its gossip or about the last partnership between Rahul Dravid and VVS Lakshman - India as a researchable academic and intellectual category does not really exist, for there have been almost no MPhil/PhD theses on India in the last 57 years. Perhaps the students should not be held responsible for this situation and the real responsibility rests on the shoulders of those who teach them and on what in Pakistan is called ’the system’.

If one examines the curriculum at the master’s level for economics at the University of Karachi, or the course content at the post-master’s level at the MPhil and masters of applied sciences in economics courses at the same university, there is absolutely no mention of India or the economy (or economics) in India. It is quite fair to say that India and its economics/economy are non-existent in the economics teaching programmes across Pakistan’s universities.

The degree in political science at the University of Karachi at the master’s level has a number of courses related to the theory of political science as well as a number of courses which have an applied/case study component. Along with more standard modules in courses on Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau, there are courses on ’Islamic political theory and institutions’, ’international law’, ’comparative local government’, ’public administration’, etc. In the case of say, ’comparative local government’, there is one module out of six, which looks at ’comparative systems’ in six countries, one of which was India.

In the course called ’Public administration’, the principles of public administration were to be taught with reference to Pakistan, the US, UK and France. A course entitled ’The political system of the developing countries’ looked at comparative politics with regard to Pakistan, Iran, Turkey and India, although in its list of 38 recommended books for this course, there was no book by any Indian author. Other courses such as ’Studies in political systems’ and ’Theory and practice of modern government’, looked at China, Japan, Indonesia and Malaysia in the former course, and the UK, USSR (sic), USA, Switzerland, France and Pakistan, in the latter.

The curriculum for sociology is based largely on US textbooks and problems of developed countries and on theory which was popular perhaps thirty years ago in the US. There are a few specialized sub-disciplines in sociology such as medical sociology, urban sociology, etc., but their reading lists are more reminiscent of the 1960s in the US than with recent developments or with developing countries. India does not feature anywhere in the list of countries, themes or reading lists provided and the entire orientation is largely Western, but specifically of the 1960s/1970s era American school of sociology.

It is not completely surprising that India is ignored in the economics, sociology and political science curricula at the master’s level for reasons that relate to the general state of education and research in Pakistan and which are discussed below. However, because of ideological connotations (and an obvious historical link), it is not possible to ignore India’s presence in the syllabus for history. There are 27 papers in the two year general history course at Karachi University, with numerous courses on South Asian history, from the time of Asoka and Harsha to more modern times, culminating in Pakistan’s independence.

There are papers in the history curriculum which differentiate Indian/South Asian history over specific periods and begin with a course entitled: ’History of South Asia from the earliest times to 1000 AD - excluding the Arab conquest of Sindh’. This is followed by separate South Asian History courses based on the following periodization: 712 to 1526, 1526-1761 and 1761-1947. There are also courses on the History of Europe, of the US, of the Middle East since 1919, as well as optional papers on the French Revolution and Ancient Greece.

Other courses include the ’History of the Freedom Movement 1857-1947’, and one which is entitled ’Constitutional history of the Subcontinent 1773-1962 - excluding Indian constitutional developments since 1947’. There are no courses in the syllabus on modern Pakistani history post-1947, and not surprisingly, none on independent India.

From the prescribed reading lists, it seems that for the most part, the history curriculum which focuses on South Asia, deals almost exclusively with a ’Muslim history’ of India and its interaction with the British. history seems to be divided into eras such as, a pre-Muslim period, the Arab invasion of Sindh, the Delhi Sultanate, the Mughals, and followed by the Freedom Struggle 1857-1947. For example, in the paper ’History of South Asia 712-1526’, all the topics listed in the syllabus deal with the exploits of Muslim rulers, their administration, political system, etc.

Similarly, the 31 topics for the 1761-1947 paper, deal with the decline of the Mughals and the rise of the British, with Haider Ali and Tipu Sultan, with 1857 and the Muslim Renaissance under Syed Ahmad Khan, the Morley-Minto Reforms and the Muslim League; yet, there is no mention of the Congress, Nehru or Gandhi. Clearly, while the General History paper has a large component of ’India’, this is an India which is based on a very narrow and exclusivist reading of what was India between 712-1947.

In the Islamic history MA syllabus, a course entitled the ’Evolution of the Muslim community in the Indo-Pakistan Subcontinent 610-1947 CE’ is, not surprisingly, even less inclusivist than the General History paper, and here even the British do not get a mention or make a presence. However, it needs to be mentioned that in the readings provided for the General History courses where there are numerous Western authors - both of earlier generations and some contemporary historians - there are also a number of non-Muslim Indian authors, such as Beni Prasad, RC Majumdar, Jadunath Sarkar, Tara Chand and R P Dutt.

On the other hand, in the Islamic History course mentioned above, all references are of either British historians or then of Muslim writers, some of whom, such as Abul Kalam Azad, Aziz Ahmad and Khaliq Ahmad Nizami, are Indians; there are no non-Muslim Indian historians whose books are recommended for the course which deals with India in the period 610-1947.

The picture that emerges from the discussion of the theses above, shows quite conclusively that there is very little substantive research on India at the university level in Pakistan today. That of teaching, and particularly that of history, does show a poor, though perhaps not a completely dismal picture. In the case of economics and sociology, it is clear that no teaching regarding India takes place and almost no research in the former.

The first problem arises in naming the subject itself: what should it be called? It can’t be called the ’History of India’, or of the subcontinent, for that in many ways undermines the official justification of Partition and questions the separate identity of Muslims which, according to the official view, emerged in 712 AD. So the course or segment on Indian history, usually ends up being called the ’History of Indo-Pak’. Moreover, the now accepted term of ’South Asia’ seems to have saved the blushes of many officials and ideologues who were forced to call South Asia the ’Indian’ subcontinent, or undivided India. The periodization which the British introduced, into a Hindu, Muslim and British India, and which many Indian Marxist historians have tried to replace by Ancient, Medieval and Modern, suits Pakistani historiography, for here there is a very clear, accepted, period called ’Muslim India’.

Nevertheless, this raises questions of how to look at Moenjodaro or the Indus Valley civilization, since while these are located on what is now Pakistan, they pre-date ’Muslim’ history in Pakistan. Some Pakistani historians call this period ’Pakistan’s ancient civilization’. This causes further problems: What is ’Pakistan’s’ history and when did it begin? From the Indus Valley civilization? From the times of Muhammad bin Qasim in 712? Or, in 1947? Clearly, these are fundamental questions of historiography in Pakistan (and relate to Pakistan’s very essence and identity), yet are not discussed, and the official classification of a Muslim history takes care of many of these niggling questions.

One of the two official views of history also causes problems for the study of History in Pakistan. This view popularized by Dr Ahmad Dani locates Pakistan as part of a Central Asian historical and cultural entity, rather than within India/South Asia. In the first decade after Pakistan’s independence, Pakistan considered its history to be part of a larger India’s, a common history, a joint history, and in fact Indian textbooks were in use in the syllabus in Pakistan. However, this changed in the early 1960s when Ayub Khan’s government wanted to create a ’History of Pakistan’ independent and separate from that of India’s. The historians who were given this task attempted to ’take out’ Pakistan from Indian history and just look at Pakistan without India. This gave rise to the writing of a Pakistani history disassociated from an Indian past and links were established with Central Asia.

It is very clear, that in Pakistan, it is ’Muslim history’ that is being taught, and not ’Indian history’. In fact, this Muslim history, as we argue above, is perceived to be a Pakistani history dating from 712 AD. This has major repercussions on what is taught and the way it is taught. For example, since there is a Muslim history and there are courses and subjects called ’The Freedom Movement’ which looks at the struggle for an independent Pakistan - the seeds of which according to some historians were sown in 712 AD, but for others in 1857 - seems to overlook the colonial period entirely and treats the Freedom Struggle as a struggle from Hindu domination, not colonial rule.

In none of the curricula studied, did we find a single course on British India, or on colonialism; the period after 1857 is seen as the beginning of the Pakistan Movement and of the Freedom Struggle. From the ’Muslim’ period, we move on to the ’Struggle for Pakistan’. In essence, the Freedom Movement is shown to be a movement for the freedom of Muslims in India, but not of India from colonialism.

What is interesting, though not at all surprising, is that post-independence modern India, is not taught as part of the history syllabus in Pakistan. For that matter, nor is there a course on the history of modern Pakistan, since both of these countries in this era, are treated under politics.

At the Quaid-i-Azam University in the international relations and political science departments and at the area study centre, some professors had ’made a deliberate attempt to devise a number of courses on different aspects of India’. These courses were said to be very popular with the students and the nature and level of the courses depended critically on the faculty’s interest and desire to teach these courses.

The main courses which were offered and were popular, related to the politics of South Asia and particularly of India. One consequence of this has been that there have been a few theses on Indian politics in recent years. However, there is also a realization that the old cadre and the older professors who belonged to a different generation are leaving and many have already left. Much of the research and teaching was initiated by these professors and there is concern, as with all teaching and research departments in Pakistan, that once this generation retires, there will be very little research and teaching on not just India, but on just about everything else as well.

Interestingly enough, teachers at the University of Karachi’s international relations department said that as late as 1989, the term ’South Asia’ was "banned" in the department, since it was considered too ’pro-India’ and was thought to be a part of an India-centric thinking. South Asia as a subject was introduced only after a democratic government took over in 1988-89 after the death of General Ziaul Haq.