Ka-pi96 said:
I'd say a chunk of that (especially the election stuff) seems like it should be part of a politics class rather than a history class. Although as I said I'm really not a fan of "recent" history anyway so I'm kind of biased. Do they teach much history from the pre-Pakistan days? To me personally that would be the interesting stuff, especially with Pakistan I imagine there's an awful lot that could be covered there. |
As I said somewhere else, they don't delve into provincial history a whole lot and considering Pakistan is an especially artificial nation(note that many nations are artificial essentially) so the history depends a lot on the region. They also don't teach history of our cities many of which are historical going back 100s of years. They do teach a lot of pre Pakistan Indian history which is somewhat connected to the provinces but not directly. They talk a lot about British Raj and Mughal raj and stuff, but they don't talk about Balochistan's history or sindh's history or kpk's history. Punjab is linked with India a lot so they essentially talk about it by accident. They do lie about a lot of stuff and propagandize a lot as well.
And I think the Pakistan stuff is important and politics is very important to history. I would be ok if there was another topic called political history that we learned but no such thing is taught, so all the responsibility lies on Pakistan studies (the name of the history course after like 7th-8th grade).
Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also








