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).
The habit of treating a question as open collapses at matriculation
In every board, regardless of curriculum generation, inquiry apparatus falls away at classes 9 and 10 — precisely when pupils are old enough to handle contested questions.
Punjab's History 8 contains no occurrence of “primary source” or “secondary source” at all, and what look like inquiry verbs turn out to be stipulated-conclusion prompts — “Generate a class discussion/debate to conclude the reason behind the Two-Nation Theory”. KP's Pakistan Studies 9 has zero source vocabulary and two inquiry-verb hits in 26,000 words. The apparatus thins exactly as pupils become old enough to use it. This finding has since been narrowed by a later one: openness at class 10 is not absent but allocated away from national questions, and the correction is set out in “Openness is allocated, not absent”.
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.
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pakistan Studies 9
Zero source vocabulary; 2 inquiry-verb hits in 26k words. Two-Nation dated conventionally: "Sir Syed Ahmad Khan was the first political leader who expounded the idea that Hindus and Muslims are two separate nations" (pakistan-studies-9-en · PAGE 12), triggered by the 1867 Banaras anti-Urdu movement. 1971 indicts Pakistan's own rulers: "a never ending military dictatorship was becoming strong in the country. Awami League, the wining party of 1970 elections was deprived of the power by one pretext or another. The result was the separation of East Pakistan" (PAGE 94); "Many innocent citizens along with the Armed persons were killed in the military action. As a result people of East Pakistan became enemies of the Army" (PAGE 94); and uniquely, a named counterfactual — "Last Governor of the East Pakistan, Dr. M.M. Malik, advised President General Yahya Khan to solve the matter through political Means, but his proposals were not taken into account" (PAGE 94). Held at 3 by the retained "NEGATIVE ROLE OF HINDU TEACHERS" cause (PAGE 95), a unique anti-American conspiracy cause — "the process of separation of East Pakistan was secretly supported by America" (PAGE 95) — and "India by force separated East Pakistan" (PAGE 92). Surrender not named.
Boards and confidence
PunjabSindhKhyber Pakhtunkhwa 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; Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pakistan Studies 9, printed 2024-25 edition — PDF p. 12
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.