Government College University Lahore

Assignment
Subject:
History
Submitted To:
Ms. Hadia Rasool
Submitted By:
Zain Javed
4315-BS-PS-22(Morning)
Zainjaved465@gmail.com
Topic
What is history? And how history is different from a country’s national discourse?

Introduction To History
1. Definition Of history.
The basic meaning of history is the “Quest to knowing the past”.
 “History is the witness that testifies to the passing of time; it illuminates
reality, vitalizes memory, provides guidance in daily life and brings us tidings of
antiquity.”
(Cicero, Roman Author)
2. Origin Of History.
The traces of history are found in Greeks. As the word HISTORY, is derived
from the Greek word ‘Historia’ ,which means ‘inquiry’ or ‘investigation’.

3. Branches Of History.
History is divided on the basis of time periods.
3.1)Pre-Historical Times/ Pre-history
This time period constitutes of no written records. Evidences of pre-history
was based on mainly archeological records. The Great Ages of pre-historic times
given by “Jurgensen Thomson” (a historian on Denmark) are;
1. Stone Age
2. Bronze Age(3500BC-1000BC)
3. Iron Age(1000BC-400BC)
3.2) Proto-History
Proto-history gives us written records. Its time period begins from 500BC-today.
This period is further divided into three ages;
1). The Ancient Ages (till 500AD).
2). The Middle Ages (from 500AD-1500AD).
3) The Modern Ages (from 1500AD-today).

4. Father Of History.
Herodotus was an ancient Greek historian and geographer born in 5th century
BC. He is known as Father Of History because, he wrote “ The Histories” to perform systematic
investigation of historical events.

5. Conclusion.
 In conclusion, history is account for what happened in the past. History helps us to
read past events, wars, societies, nations, civilizations,etc. History is the asset for the present
generations to learn from the mistakes of our ancestors that lived in the past. Knowing about
history enriches a person and make them well rounded. The Need of History is measureable
from the given saying;
“It is useful to remember that history is to the nation
as memory to the individual. As a person deprived of
Becomes orientated and lost, not knowing where they
have been or where they are going, so a nation denied
a conception of the past will be disabled in dealing with
its present and future.”
Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.

History is different from a country’s national discourse.

History is quite different from a country’s national discourse. History educates us
from the events that herald in past. It is based on mainly facts, reasons, stories of different
cultures-civilizations and written evidences. History is not based on absolute neutrality. It
depicts the negativity or positivity. Mainly historians are the story tellers of the past. While A
Country’s National Discourse is mainly based on nationalism and patriotism. Country’s
reshapes their discourses in order to develop patriotism in youth. But in reality these discourses
are much different from the facts of history. We read history to know what was true or false,
we do not have to support based on patriotism. We just investigate the past. There are
numerous examples that we’ve witnessed in Pakistan’s history and many other nations such as
how Hitlar used national discourse as a tool against the Holocaust of Jews. There are references
which links how history is different from a country’s national discourse;
1. Who started 1965’s war?
In Pakistan studies of grade 9 book, it’s written that India began the war of 1965, but
the reality was different. The conflict began following Pakistan’s Operation Gibraltar, which
was designed to take the control of Jammu & Kashmir. In beginning, India was losing ground so
to survive Kashmir India launched full scale war which was not expected by the military
leadership of Pakistan. The point here is that Pakistan Officials used education system to
develop positive side of Pakistan.
References:
(History of indo-pak war 1965 by Gen. Mahmud Ahmed, My version-india-pakistan war 1965
by Gen. Muhammad Musa)

2. Fall of East Pakistan.

 History is bitter. We also find false academic work in our national discourse. In
accordance to discourse Sheikh Mujeeb Ur Rehman was a traitor who lead Bengal to
Bangladesh. But our discourse never tells us that in 70’s Mujeeb got the mandate of people, he
was selected, his party won 167 seats by 169 it was his right to form the government. But again
democracy failed because military dictatorship did not agreed to transfer powers to Sheikh
Mujeeb Ur Rehman. All the reserves were being used in different projects in west Pakistan.
There were 80 percent of the military personals from west Pakistan. Whenever Bengali’s
protested for their rights, use of force was made against them. These reasons lead to failure
which are not mentioned in discourse and never told the other side of the picture to our youth
that west Pakistan power holders misbehaved with bengali’s in every field. There were no
health centres, also in the war of 1965 only 20 percent army was present on the eastern front
while we deployed all the army in the West Pakistan to protect the west only. So, Bengali’s
observed the whole scenario of the 1965’s war as their borders were free to attack by Indian
Troops.
Basically Sheikh Mujeeb’s Six Point Formula was for the purposes of economic gains for the
East Pakistan. Four Points were based clearly on economic controls of assets because all the
industrial sector was in the East Pakistan but their gains were used in construction in the West
Pakistan. Bengali’s were not getting their proper share that’s why Sheikh Mujeeb Ur Rehman
proposed formula. After 70’s election situation was out of control which resulted in fall of
Dhaka.
Reference:
(On the official website of Bangladesh Awami League it is written that after martial law
enforcement by Ayub Khan when Sheikh Mujeeb Ur Rehman and other political leaders were
arrested. In December 1959 when Sheikh Mujeeb Ur Rehman was freed. He discussed with
party members and said that he had made up his mind for separate Bengal.)

3. War Of Kargil.
In 1999 General Pervaiz Musharraf did the same act like Ayub Khan. Pakistan once again
launched operation to take Kashmir. For this army took the control of Siachen glacier. The
operation was launched without the permission of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, But later
somehow Gen. Musharraf convinced Prime Minister. In this conflict officers and soldiers of
Pakistan Army fought fearlessly. When Indian troops watched the situation , Indian
Government warned Pakistan to start full scale war, as Pakistan was not able to fight another
war, PM of Pakistan reached USA and signed the pact and called forces back to LOC. Gen.
Pervaiz Musharraf was unhappy by this decision of Prime Minister.  Gen Musharraf used to say
that it is the govt which has decided unconditional withdrawal. The soliders who martyred in
this operation, their bodies were not recovered by Pakistan. Moreover, this war is explained
dramatically in national discourse.
Reference:
(From Kargil to the Coup: Events That Shook Pakistan by Nasim Zehra)

Conclusion:
At the end, history is not there for you to like or dislike. It is not there for you to learn
from it. And it offends you, even better. Because then you are less likely to repeat it. It’s not
yours to erase or destroy.

“Some peoples do not want to hear the truth.

Because they don’t want their illuisions destroyed.”
(Friedrich Nietzsche).