Zero occurrences of "primary source"/"secondary source". Inquiry verbs are stipulated-conclusion prompts: "Generate a class discussion/debate to conclude the reason behind the Two-Nation Theory" (history-8-en · f.27); "Analyze the reasons behind the two-nation theory of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan" (f.16 SLO). 1971 is six sentences, wholly externalised: "In 1971 CE, India intervened in the internal affairs of Pakistan by supporting the Bengali separatists of the East Pakistan… The Pakistani army fought bravely" (f.89) — no surrender, no causes, no Pakistani actor. 1965: "the Armed Forces of Pakistan, filled with the spirit of Jihad defeated the Indian Army" (f.87). Ch.5 leaps 1971 → Afghan War → six named army operations to Radd-ul-Fassad 2017; no Bhutto, Zia, Musharraf or post-1971 civilian politics. Summary point: "Ayub Khan introduced many reforms in Pakistan" (f.92).
Overview / Findings / Assessment
The compulsion was documented thirty years ago, from the examiner's side
Writing in 1993 about the March 1989 Punjab Textbook Board reprints, the historian K.K. Aziz described a pupil being failed not for being wrong but for departing from the board's account. The mechanism this study observes in today's exercises was described a generation earlier.
Writing in 1993 about the March 1989 Punjab Textbook Board reprints, the historian K.K. Aziz described a pupil failed not for being wrong but for departing from the board's account. The mechanism is visible in today's books: Punjab's History 8 contains no occurrence of “primary source” or “secondary source”, and its inquiry verbs are stipulated-conclusion prompts — a debate staged “to conclude the reason behind the Two-Nation Theory”. What Aziz described a generation ago is what this study measures now. His account is cited as a secondary source quoting the textbooks of that era, not as a book this project read directly.
“If the girl said in the examination script that the Aga Khan led the Simla Deputation, not Nawab Muhsin-ul-Mulk, the examiner would fail her, because the Punjab Textbook Board said it was Muhsin-ul-Mulk. The matter could not be debated.”Punjab History 8, 2022-23 edition
What was checked and not found
A claim that one board does something and the others do not is only as good as the search that failed to find it elsewhere. These are those searches.
Limits
Cited as a secondary source quoting textbooks of that era, not as a book this project read directly.
Boards and confidence
Punjab high confidence
Confidence reflects the evidence tier this rests on. High means native or English-medium text verified by exact string match; medium means it depends partly on Urdu-medium material read at theme grade, or on an absence. See the method.
Source
Punjab History 8, 2022-23 edition
Also cited
K.K. Aziz, <em>The Murder of History: A Critique of History Textbooks Used in Pakistan</em> (Lahore: Vanguard, 1993), p. 189. Cited as a secondary source quoting textbooks of that era, not as a book this project read directly.
Cite this finding
Two citations are appropriate here, not one. The line above cites this finding. If you are quoting the textbook passage itself, cite the book — its full bibliographic record, edition and approval reference is on its own page, linked from each evidence entry above — and say that you found it here.
Challenge this finding
This is a claim about a printed book, so it is checkable, and it should be checked. If the citation is wrong, the edition is misidentified, the passage is quoted unfairly, or the finding does not survive its own evidence, that is worth reporting and it will be acted on whether or not the correction is convenient for the argument. Corrections are logged publicly in the corrections log; this applies fully to the boards themselves.