The inadequacy of uniformity

Simplicity and antagonists are necessary preconditions for the perpetuation of any ideology or national narratives. Dividing the world between ‘us’ and ‘them’, ‘East’ and ‘West’, ‘Muslims’ and ‘non-Muslims’, has served our masters well. Such ideas suggest uniformity — all of ‘us’ versus all of ‘them’; and unity, that all of ‘us’ share the same ideals and values.

Burdened by an oversimplification and a lack of appreciation for diversity, these narratives depend on situating social groups at opposite, often antagonistic, extremes. Many have argued that an overly simplified explanation of what being a Pakistani means is essential to unify the country. That may or may not be a prerequisite for nation building; however, continuing to preach this simplistic understanding of an increasingly complex world leaves us, as a society, vulnerable to exploitation and manipulation.

Conservatives in Pakistan would share more in common with American conservatives, than with fellow Pakistanis. Many would view this reality sceptically. One, accepting such links would disturb their ‘us’ versus ‘them’ understanding. Second, such ideas are considered by some as a concession to globalising forces that are inherently viewed as western and, therefore, hostile.

In the face of both internal and external challenges, the powers that be have found it convenient to cast the people of Pakistan as a uniform whole. Any suggestion that while the people of Pakistan may hold much in common, they are also individuals, is met with a swift ideological backlash.

Rather than developing our national narrative to help explain an ever changing world, stubbornness and rigidity forces us to dig our heels deeper. In the face of the WikiLeaks revelations, our reaction to both authentic and fake cables suggests that many of us have become quite comfortable with the status-quo.

Our passion for uniformity permeates into every aspect of state policy. Over the past few years, calls for a uniform curriculum across the country have grown louder. Most commentators highlight that parallel educational systems in the country breed inequality and foster divisions.

The prime minister recently announced that the government would work towards a national unified curriculum. Many are horrified at the possibility that foreign secondary education qualifications may be under threat or that madrassas would have to adopt a state-approved curriculum. Others agree that a uniform curriculum would help reduce inequality in education. Uniformity is attractive and fits neatly into our national narrative of encouraging unity. However, research on the effectiveness of education clearly shows that the two factors that are positively correlated with academic achievement is the quality of teaching and parental wealth.

A unified system will fail to reduce inequality and raise academic achievement, because children cannot be viewed uniformly; each child will learn at his or her own pace. The curriculum may be uniform; however, schools with better teachers in affluent areas will always outshine schools in deprived areas. While the objective is noble, the suggested policy is overly simplistic and doomed to fail. Our understanding of the world, our country and every aspect of policy are coloured by the ignorance of, and failure to recognise, the diversity of individuals and social groups. Not only are we allowing ourselves to be openly manipulated, we are also contributing towards the collective failure of our future generations.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 14^th, 2010.