At the outset, I had categorically stated that my purpose is not to provoke an argument. But as always, we have our share of crusaders and defenders that take upon themselves to contort facts just to satisfy their whims. I did not attack Islamic History and Culture, rather I felt that it has a disproportionate weight in selection criteria. It is believed that in the new scheme of things (post reform) all subjects pertaining to history would be reduced to 100 marks. Furthermore, important subjects such as governance and urban planning would be introduced.

Now, let us come to the critique of my post, we will proceed step by step. My motive is thoroughly rational. I am not driven by any desire to "defend" or "safeguard" anything. My desire is to achieve truth.


1. For a nationalist, it is quiet strange to quote M.K. Gandhi who was the greatest adversary of our national goal. It was Gandhi who rejected pleas of Jinnah regarding greater constitutional representation of Muslims within united India. I would rather seek inspiration from my national heroes, rather than quote a person who resisted our national cause. Secondly, specialization is not restricted to humans but in animals too we see division of labor. Ants and bees have social organizations where roles are clearly demarcated. There is a queen, whose reason for existence is to procreate, then there are soldiers who defend ant colonies and finally workers who toil. Even our body is a classic example of division of labor. Even on a cellular level there is a clear cut and distinct appropriation of tasks. The mitochondria, the golgi complex, the ribosomes and the DNA have specialized roles. Human body is the best teacher, we can learn a lot from the ourselves.

The reason for the decay in our institution is that specialists are discouraged. A bureaucrat who is a generalist is running irrigation, school education and archaeology department. Is a person qualified to run these department after clearing CSS with the 'glorified' subjects of Punjabi, Arabic, Islamic History and Forestry? Furthermore, these generalist do not have a career. The keep on switching from one department to another. A lawyer is a lawyer for the rest of his life. An engineer is an engineer for his entire professional life. But our bureaucrats serve in one department for 3 months and then in another for 4 months. Thus generalist paradigm is lethal, no wonder we stand at 146 in human development out of 170 countries. Our literacy rate is at abysmal 60 %, the lowest in the region. I would not go in details because I can furnish example of Henry Ford and other specialists who triggered industrial revolution. I think, this is sufficient for point #1.

2. Which history do we need to study? Is it the history of Philip K. Hitti or is it the history of Syed Ameer Ali or the history of Mazharulhaq? I myself opted for Indo Pakistan history. Tragically, when I read Stanley Lane Pool, he gave a perspective but that perspective was totally antithetical to that of Ishwari Parsad, who in turn was totally different to K. Ali. That's the problem of history, it is not definite. Each people construct their own history. Hence, mostly history is conflicting. Furthermore, historians have limited practical applicability. In a skill driven world, esoteric subjects demand little importance. See, the admission criteria of Harvard, Yale or Stanford. Physical sciences, applied sciences and other definite subjects that can contribute to national cause - all have a high merit. This means society values these subjects dearly. Even in Pakistan, the 'lesser' students opt for these subjects as there are no jobs associated with these disciplines. In the world of IT, where people speculate for future, we are still time warped. To add, we are not sure about the correct or objective version. Then I again ask, what is the efficacy of such subject?

3. I said, Arabic and Persian are not relevant to our society. I never said anything about history. Please re - read the original post.

4. Yeah, I can see the questions but this type of questions have so much subjectivity involved in them. No wonder, many people believe CSS is a game of chance or luck. To begin with there is the subjectivity of the examiner, the subjectivity of the examinee and the subjectivity of the person setting the paper. Is there any research carried out to asses the efficacy of these questions? Do they test these questions for their ability to tap the requisite skill or knowledge objective? The answer is No. Objective questions can be tested and refined. Moreover, they do not involve the whims of the examiner. Furthermore, such long question can be interpreted in a number of manner by the examinee. Are we testing definite knowledge?

5. The PMS current affairs paper of this year had a question, " Aeroflot is the airline of which country?" I am sorry but this question is outright inane. How is aeroflot related to a PMS officer, I fail to understand. In a competitive exam, every mark counts. Is this question justified?

6. Nationalism is not inculcated through a distorted concept of history. First of all we have to create a national narrative, that narrative should be in line with facts and not outlandish. Finally, fact driven, analytical narrative should be taught as opposed to the ragtag version of past we have to contend with.



Finally, I respect my brothers comment. He has a good mind and ability to articulate his ideas. I do not want to reply anymore. Mine were mere suggestion. Furthermore, I would appreciate, if we do not distort the original message. Lastly, we should be strong enough to identify lacunaes. Nothing is perfect, everything can be changed and should be changed for the betterment. Stagnant water does not move, has no urge to change it's direction or shape......that's why it stinks. My goal is not to undermine anyone but it is a humble effort to help us understand more and improve our system.

My best Wishes to all