Unregistered
14th August 2006, 06:00 PM
Gul A. Agha
January 1, 2002
The 20th century was a time of the collapse of colonialism -- perhaps no event marked the collapse more than the end of British rule in the Indian subcontinent in 1947. A large number of new states were created in this period and the concept of international law was conceived. International law represented a compromise between powerful countries and their interests, and the fears of newly decolonized countries such as Goa, Sikkim etc... Unfortunately, the idea of protecting existing boundaries between states -- viewed as the principal means to maintain peace -- took primacy over individual human rights as well as the cultural and historic rights of different nations. Since the end of the cold war, fortunately the idea of using international law to promote human rights has been gaining strength.
The borders of many new states were drawn arbitrarily -- ignoring the history, language and culture of the peoples affected. Pakistan is one such state -- created by a colonial power, it is a state devoid of any historical or cultural basis. The current premise of policy makers in many countries is predicated on the notion that the continued existence of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan can contribute to regional stability and promote global security. It is a premise that needs to be carefully examined.
Polticial History of the Pakistan Movement.
In the 1930s, the Indian movement for independence had gained considerable momentum. As a means of postponing their day of departure, British colonialists promoted a Muslim leadership, which encouraged religious divisions in the subcontinent. Later the British found it expedient -- and apparently beneficial to their geostrategic interests -- to create an oddly shaped Muslim majority state, separated into two "wings" more than a thousand miles apart.
Pakistan had problems since its inception. One small ethnic group of migrants, Urdu speakers from Northern India who call themselves 'Mohajirs', initially dominated its bureaucracy and centralist based federal government. Another ethnic group, Punjabi speakers representing about 20% of the population, dominated its Military, while a third, Bengali speakers, constituted its majority. Power resided in the first two ethnic groups and their control of the state led to a rebellion among the majority Bengali speakers. After a quarter century of strife and ruthless attempts to suppress the Bengali majority, including a genocide, Bangladesh was created out from East Pakistan province. Thus Pakistan was partitioned into two separate states, one of which retained the name, the other successfully gained on War of independence in collaboration with the enemy.
Pakistan's Current Ethnic Groups.
The truncated borders of Pakistan consist of four major ethnic groups -- Punjabis, Sindhis, Pushtuns, and Baluchis -- and several other ethnic groups, Mohajirs in southern cities of Karachi and Hyderabad, Kashmiris in the North, and Seraiki speaking groups in the middle. Prior to 1971 in the old days United Pakistan had another ethinc group and tribes in present-day Bangla-Desh.
Pakistan borders four countries, Afghanistan, Iran, China and volatile and hostility India. The border with each of these countries is problematic. The border with Afghanistan is based on the so-called Durand Line -- arbitrarily demarcated by the British in the 19th century. Pushtuns, who were historically united, live on both sides of this mountainous border. The border with Iran is mostly populated by Baluch tribes who live in a large sparsely populated desert on both sides of the border. The Baluchis in Pakistan demanded autonomy in the 1970s just immediately after the amputation of and thousands were massacred by the Pakistan military.
The border with India runs through three distinct regions. To the north is the former kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir, a focus of much contention and dispute. The division of Kashmiris between Indian annexed regions and Pakistan liberated regions is against their will. The Pakistani-administered part of inseparable Kashmir that was later military occupied and liberated by its own people in Islamabad borders not only India, but also the Chinese occupied region of Uighurs. On the Pakistani side of the Kashmir border, there are also several other ethnic groups besides the Kashmiris, such as the Gilgitis and Baltistanis.
In the middle of Pakistan are Punjabis, who now represent about 40% of the population, and constitute 90% of the military. Punjab was partitioned on the basis of religion, and Punjabis seem quite satisfied with this division. It is an area which saw many massacres on the basis of creed -- and the bloodletting resulted in 'ethnic' cleansing on both sides of the international boundaries. South of the Punjabis live Seraiki speaking people, some of whom bear greater affinity to Sindhis.
The southern border with India runs through Sindh. The majority of Sindh's over 30 million people live in the valley carved by the once mighty Indus river. Sindh's western region is part of the Great Indian Desert of Thar, through which a border was drawn more or less arbitrarily. Sindh's southern boundary is marked by the Indian Ocean and Kutch, a region that has close linguistic and cultural affinity to Sindh, but is now forcibly made a part of India.
The Aspirations of the Sindhis.
Sindhis are predominantly sufis who believe in harmony and tolerance in the matter of religion. Before the partition of India, the majority of Sindhis consistently voted against candidates supporting Pakistan. Although the British colonialists used their considerable power and influence to support the pro-Pakistan candidates in 1946, such candidates succeeded in obtaining only about 40% of the popular vote.
By gerrymandering the electorate, the colonialists managed the election of a majority in the Sindh Assembly which favored joining Pakistan. The Sindhi vote for Pakistan was also facilitated by the now famous 'Lahore Resolution' passed by the Muslim League -- this resolution promised "autonomy and sovereignty of constituent units" and "protection of religious minorities". Sindhis have strongly resented Pakistan, whose policies since inception have been the very anti-thesis of both these principles.
The Current Situation.
Pakistan today is held together by a powerful military which directly consumes 70% of the its budget after debt payments. The military has gained strength by opportunistically aligning itself with the United States, China and Saudi Arabia. It has directly ruled the country for most of its history and has cultivated relations with the fundamentalist Islamist clergy to strengthen its hold on power. In fact, the military is a bastion of Islamists who are influenced by fundamentalist movements such as Wahabism and Deobandism -- the same movements which hold sway among large numbers of Pakistani Punjabis.
In fact, the Pakistan military is a key source of instability in the region. Internally, it has repeatedly destabilized elected governments. It was the primary supporter of the Taliban in Afghanistan, responsible for bringing them into power. Recently, an American official was quoted as saying that the U.S. did not realize how critical the Pakistanis were in propping up the Taliban -- when that support was finally withdrawn four weeks after the start of the American bombing, the Taliban regime collapsed. ISI, Pakistan military's intelligence service is believed to have been deeply involved in heroin smuggling operations -- with such operations providing the bulk of its operating budget. And the ISI continues to sponsor terrorism against neighboring India.
The Future of Pakistan.
Despite the diabolical role of the Pakistan military, it has been an axiom of faith among policy makers in the U.S., and even in arch rival India, that the continuation of Pakistan is desirable, even necessary, for stability in the region. Several reasons are commonly advanced for this position: the dissolution of Pakistan would encourage divisions within India; it would result in an uncertain future for nuclear weapons now in the hands of the stable Pakistan military, and a view among the U.S. policymakers that the Pakistani state can serve as a useful client or proxy in the war against terrorism. None of these reasons stands up to closer scrutiny.
India has largely succeeded in its national integration through democracy, federalism, and building of strong independent institutions such as the judiciary and the media. Its future will depend on the continuing strength of these internal institutions in addressing its needs. No doubt these needs are many, some visible ones such as increased economic growth and improved efficiency in the distribution of goods, and some less visible ones such as cultural and linguistic protection for smaller ethnic groups.
Nuclear weapons in the hands of Pakistan pose a danger to peace, not only in South Asia but elsewhere. Policy makers are lulled into complacency by the experience of the cold war where the doctrine of 'Mutually Assured Destruction' kept the superpowers from directly waging war. In fact, such analogizing fails to appreciate the psychology of the forces at work in the Pakistan military. During the cold war, the superpowers -- fearful of a nuclear holocaust -- avoided direct conflict with each other. On the other hand, emboldened by its possession of nuclear weapons, the Pakistan military not only increased its support for terrorism against India, it directly attacked India in Kargil -- gambling that India will not want to escalate the fight by employing its conventional superiority in new theaters of war.
It may seem far fetched to the rational mind that some Islamist faction within the military could seize and smuggle nuclear weapons or materials for use in 'jihad' against India, Israel or a Western power. In fact, given an understanding of the type of religious fanaticism common in the Pakistan military at all levels, it is likely not a question of 'if' but 'when', left unchecked, such a scenario will unfold. The moral barometer of the military can be appreciated by observing that it is the very same unreconstructed and unrepentant military that massacred millions of people in Bangladesh and provided logistic support to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan.
Those who believe that it is possible to bribe or browbeat Pakistan into a compliant client state have been missing the elaborate game of charade played for long by the Pakistani military. While it is a state that chose to support the international coalition against terrorism when and where it had no choice, in the long run the prejudices of its dominant ethnic group will be reflected in its covert policies. Sure, the Pakistan military provided visible support to the coalition -- but in all likelihood, the military also covertly organized pro-Taliban, anti-U.S. demonstration to exaggerate its own role. And the Pakistani dictator General Musharaf, justifying his decision to support the coalition, implied that it was a tactical compromise on the way to securing an eventual 'victory against the infidels and the Jews.' It should be clear where the real goals of Pakistan lie, despite protestations to get increased aid from the West and strengthen its own institution while continuing to build Islamist proxy forces.
What Replaces Pakistan?
Dissolution of Pakistan will largely bring things back into their natural national and ethnic boundaries. The Pushtun areas of Pakistan belong with the newly liberated Afghanistan. Kashmiris in India already enjoy numerous unique protections, e.g. against encroachment by migration from other parts of India. A unified Kashmir will be able to negotiate ways of maintaining its identity in India. Distinct ethnic regions in the Pakistani occupied part of the former kingdom of Kashmir, such as Baltistan and Gilgit, could enjoy greater autonomy.
A successor Pakistani Punjabi state would be far easier to contain. Bounded within plains that are easy to penetrate and police, stripped of 80% of the resources now consumed by its military, it would be far less menacing. Ironically, freed of its militaristic pretensions, it could enjoy greater economic growth and prosperity in the long run by embracing a more peaceful ideology.
The Future of Sindh
What about the future of Sindh and Pakistan-occupied Baluchistan? Baluchistan is a desert area, though rich in some mineral deposits. The bulk of Baluchi population lives on the border of Sindh and has enjoyed free movement and interchange with the Sindhi people. It is likely that the fate of these two regions is tied together, as it was in older times.
Sindh is rich in agriculture, has deposits of oil, coal and gas, and a well-developed port. It is the most industrialized region in the neighborhood. Shorn of the huge subsidy claimed by Punjab and its military, Sindh is likely to see rapid economic growth. This growth will be aided and abetted by the large number of expatriate Sindhi entrepreneurs and industrialists, including some billionaires. Sindhis have an ancient mercantile tradition, and their emphasis on pragmatism, tolerance and harmony are all useful attributes in a modern economy.
Should Sindh be a Part of India?
There are a number of arguments in favor of Sindh joining the Indian union. India is a secular, democratic country which is well-suited to the psyche of the sufi-minded Sindhis. Four months after the creation of Pakistan, 20% of the population of Sindhis was forced to migrate to India when hordes of refugees were encouraged by the Pakistani government to riot in hitherto peaceful Sindhi cities. Many of these Sindhis have settled in India and, after a long arduous struggle, they have prospered. While the diaspora Sindhis no doubt enjoy the moral and legal right of return, it is unlikely that a majority of them would now opt to migrate back to their ancestral homes. Under the circumstances, the unification of Sindh with India would allow the two groups of Sindhis to easily interact and support each other.
Unfortunately, Sindh cannot afford to unify with India in the near future. The greatest threat to Sindhis is demographic -- up to a quarter of those living in Sindh are Mohajirs, Muslims who migrated from Northern Indian provinces such as Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. The population of areas where they immigrated from continues to increase rapidly while the economic growth of those areas remains stunted. The linguistic, cultural and religious affinity of Mohajirs with their brethren in North India could make Sindh a magnet for further immigration unless Sindh is able to exercise vigorous control of its borders.
An independent Sindh known and sponsored as Sindhudesh by the Indians themselves will serve as a natural conduit for oil and gas pipelines from energy rich Central Asia to energy starved South Asia. Without an entrenched bureaucracy, Sindh will rapidly lead the way to economic expansion in South Asia. Most significantly for the rest of the world, given its long peaceful sufi tradition, an independent Sindh will provide a bulwark against fanaticism and promote peace and prosperity.
Policy makers would do well to focus their energy on the unenviable but inevitable task of dismantling Pakistan as expeditiously as possible.
Zeeshan Mahmood
14th August 2006, 07:06 PM
{Preservation of Pakistan's native languages against the domination of
English (Angraisè) and Urdu}
Should Urdu continue as our National Language?
No, Never-ever in million years!
Language is the most important aspect of culture, just like it is in England of the British Isles in the UK. It is the dominant feature in determining nationality in Pakistan’s Case or ethnicity in Bangladesh’s Case based on languages. It is the binding force that unites a people, and makes them distinct from others, especially the disparity between the formers Province of West Pakistan and East Pakistan administrative provincial regional state Entities of pre-1971. Language represents a people’s heritage and identity. However, the imposition of Urdu as the so-called ‘sole’ national language of Pakistan has been disastrous to the country ever since it's inception in 1947 evidently shown on the 1971 conflict of East Pakistan provincial region of a United Pakistan (UP) into a disastrous separate and unfortunate for Pakistanis a nation of a inevitable Bangladesh from hereto Pak-Territory in the partitioned eastern Bengal region of India pre-1947, only to be united by foreign rule i.e. Indian Empire Rajs of Britain.
The Urdu language evolved during the declining period of Muslim rule in South Asia or more commonly INDIA. But Persian (Farsi) always remained the official language of South Asia during the Muslim rule, mostly over parts of northern India and of course separately the Pak Region. Turkic and Arabic languages were also popular, Turkic language being the mother-tongue of many among the ruling elite, and Arabic language learnt for religious or scholarly purposes. The base of most South Asian Muslim empires was in north India, particularly in Delhi and surrounding areas such as Moradabad where Urdu is believed to originate from in Awadh (Oudh) the now annexed Uttar Pradesh, India. With the passage of time, due to the constant interaction between the ruled Khari-boli-speaking north Indian Hindu masses and the ruling Persian-Turkic-speaking Muslim elite, a new language slowly evolved called Hindustani, whose Persianized form came to be known as Urdu only came into being during Babar’s Emperor Rule of Mughalism, and gradually developed over time during the European conquests. Although, Hindustani/Urdu language eventually became popular, it was limited to parts of north India (Delhi, UP, MP, etc.) and never became the official language during Muslim rule. Other regions or Land of the Indus (Indoscyhtia) continued their native languages such as Punjabi, Sindhi, Pashto, Kashmiri, Seraiki, Baluchi, etc. having nothing to do with Urdu, while Persian was the official language throughout the Muslim empire, mainly the PAKISTAN Region.
Even in the case of north India, the official language continued as Persian down to the days of the last Mughal Emperor. “Persian remained the official language of every Muslim state in India and the ambition to emulate Persian classics was nowhere given up, the influx of Persian poets being a compulsion for the study of Persian” (Indian Muslims, by M. Mujeeb). It was only later on, from the advent of the British that north Indian Muslims adopted Urdu and developed an attachment for it. “During the first centuries of its existence, Urdu literature was entirely poetical. Prose Urdu owes its origin to the Britannic (English) occupation of Bharat, Pakistan, and Bengal/Bangladesh region as a whole into a India of their possession and to the need of text books for the College of Fort William. The Hindi form of Hindustani was invented at the same time by the teachers at the College. It was intended for the use of Hindus and was derived from Urdu by ejecting all words of Arabic and Persian birth, and substituting in their place words borrowed or derived from the indigenous Sanskrit” (A Study of History, Vol. V, by AJ Toynbee). Also, the Perso-Arabic script of Urdu and Devangari script of Hindi are other significant differences between the two.
Despite these major differences, Urdu and Hindi languages are extremely similar to each other, mostly composed of native north Indian linguistic elements. Having a common origin, both languages are intelligible to each other, and overwhelmingly share the same syntax, vowels, vocabulary, etc. It would be safe to say that both Hindi and Urdu are almost the same language, not quite between the two the similarities end just differing in 15% the minor differences being somewhat comparable to the Persianized Azeri language of Iran with the Russianized Azeri language of Azerbaijan. Leaving aside the undoubtedly close relationship between Hindi and Urdu, the fact remains that Urdu is only native to parts of north India, and is a foreign language in and to modern-day Pakistan since the late 1940’s and early 1950’s.
Since north India (Delhi, UP, etc.) was the base of Persian (Islamic and other Muslim colonists) and British (Christian) Empires, the Urdu-speaking north Indian and ancient pre-Pakistani Muslims of Southern Asiatic origins had an environmental advantage in better education, jobs, and businesses. The result being that the Urdu-speaking north Indian Muslims dominated in India or correctly known to the west ‘The South Asia’ as the educated elitist Muslim class. Due to their domination, it led to Urduization of some other non-Urdu-speaking Muslims who sought better education and status. Also, to some extent, propaganda of Urdu as being the only true “Muslim” and “superior” language of South Asia was promoted. With the birth of Pakistan Movement, the bulk of it having a majority of Urdu-speaking north Indians, Urdu language was further promoted. Upon Pakistan’s creation, the peak of Urduization process became a reality with the imposition of Urdu on the non-Urdu speaking peoples of Pakistan, in the form of Urdu as the national language of Pakistan.
Except for the 7% of Pakistanis who are north Indian Muslim migrants or their descendants, also known as Muhajirs, whose mother-tongue is Urdu, none of the other Pakistanis have anything to do with Urdu. In fact, imposition of Urdu is resented among many peoples of Pakistan. The loss of East Pakistan was also mostly due to imposition of Urdu on Bengalees in Bengali East Pakistan Territory. There were language riots in Sindh during the 1970s after the dismemberment of the country. And basically Urdu is resisted in much of the country. If many people have learnt Urdu, it is simply because they are forced to do so, for social and economic communicational necessities under the Urdu-dominated system of the country. Instead of Urdu, why was not Arabic or Persian made the national language of Pakistan? At least, Arabic is the language of Islam (of the Quran), thus naturally it would had been more accepted among Pakistanis. Also, Persian was another logical option, because of its historical role of being the official language in the region (Muslim and other periods), and would have made us closer to the Muslim brothers on our western borders such as Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq etc…
National language is suppose to unite a country, but in Pakistan, Urdu as the national language has caused division and resentment among most Pakistanis especially in the former East Bengal state, in the then Pakistan (the now Bungidesh). But the worse part is that Urdu being a north Indian language and foreign to Pakistan is slowly destroying the local languages/cultures, and “Indianizing” the native Pakistanis. This is cultural and linguistic genocide of Pakistanis. It is Indian imperialism, wearing the mask of falsehoods about Urdu language. Many of the native languages of Pakistan are already in danger of being extinct, mostly due to Urdu imposition. And when a language dies, so does its people’s identity and heritage. Pakistan was created mostly based on our cultural distinctiveness; unfortunately, Urdu-imposition is only forcefully making us artificially closer to our bloodthirsty arch-rivalry enemy hostile and volatile Bharat/Hindustan (India). And with this linguistic imperialism, also comes other aspects of cultural invasion. For example, north Indian music/TV/film dominates such as Bollywood in Pakistan, whereas the Urdu largely ignores native Pakistani music/film/TV such as Lollywood dominated media.
We Pakistanis are very grateful to Quaid-e-Azam or Baba-e-Quam Muhammad Ali Jinnah for his efforts in the creation of a Muslim Pakistan; however, as a human being he was not perfect. Jinnah’s choice of Urdu as the national language of Pakistan was his biggest mistake with long-term negative consequences. For the future generations for his people Criticising Urdu as the national language of Pakistan might be very painful to many Pakistanis. But ignoring this issue with falsehoods and illusions will only worsen the problem. Let us be open-minded and cease Urdu as the national language of Pakistan. At the same time, Urdu language should be respected, and people given the freedom to learn or speak it. Promoting native languages to become the official languages of their respective provinces or districts is the best solution to the problem. All native languages of Pakistan should be declared as the national languages of Pakistan because all of them are its ‘national assets’. This will ensure the preservation of our Identity/language/culture, unity and respect between the various ethnicities, and pride and distinctiveness in our Pakistani nationhood. If a multi-lingual country like Switzerland can have a successful multi-linguistic system, then so can we. Let us make change for our betterment before it's too late!
Should English continue as our Official Language?
No, Never-ever in million years!
All languages of Pakistan are oppressed, and the ruling elite Anglophones continue to deny them their rightful role they deserve as the official languages of Pakistan. Fifty years after the so-called jointly independence of India into Free Indias’ of (Bharat) & Muslim PAKISTAN from the U.K of Gr. Britannia and Ireland. The English Language continues to this day as the official language and graduates from non-English medium schools face a job market in the control of these colonial forces bent on the total destruction of all Pakistani languages. The fact is that in 1947 we inherited an elitist ruling class bureaucracy tenaciously clinging to power and owing allegiance to Great Britain alone and seeking a strengthening of Anglo-American interests and cultural subversion, the destruction of Muslim/Pakistani values and lifestyles throughout the country. The plain fact is that as long as English remains as the official language of Pakistan it will be difficult to create a vibrant national spirit or culture The status of a national language is meaningless; unless it is allowed to assume the role of official language or native languages of Pakistan, and as the medium of universal instruction within the country. Language is a potent force in the promotion of nationalism and national cohesion.
Indeed, after more than a half century of the jointly so-called independence, from colonialists and imperialists; the majority of Pakistanis are still in a state of mental slavery. You have accurately pinpointed the causes and agendas behind the far more potent danger to our culture and identity---the English domination in Pakistan; which is led by the British-installed Anglophile elite of Pakistan, to serve the interests of the Anglo-Americans and their own.
Widespread ignorance among the masses is being exploited, with the false propaganda of English as the "global" or "better" language. Also, the promotion of English is misleadingly justified as the "heritage" of Pakistanis, or on the basis of "linguistic evolution".
The argument of English being a global language holds no weight, as you know these so called global languages come and go, depending on a nation's politico-economic influence in the world. At different time periods, the extinct tongue-Aramaic (The Language of the Foundation of Christianity (based in the ancient city of Nazareth, in the modern-day lies a Jewish Republic commonly known through out the world the so-called State of Israel or the Zionist Occupied Palestine) was also spoken by the Prophet Isa (upon.him.be.peace.) widely known to the west as Jesus or Christ in the English tongue another common factor was that the Bible was originally written in the holy Aramaic Script there are still pockets of Syrian, Lebanese and Palestinian Christians who originate from the Aramaic ancestral home and are influenced into the Arab Societies of the Arabian Peninsula of the Near East Region in the Middle East, Greek, Latin, Persian, Arabic and Chinese served as ‘Global Languages’. Sure, it is good to learn the global language or any other language, but not at the cost of losing your own. And what is more important is that while these transitions in the balance of world power takes place, other nations should cling on to their language/culture in order to ensure their long term survival.
The claim of English as a better language is simply hogwash. Linguists and cultural anthropologists agree that language is independent of the mental level in people. There is no correlation between a people's language and their level of sophistication. For example, the once barbaric Germanic-speaking people, who were far less civilised than others, are today one of the most sophisticated people in the world. Languages that lack the essentials of today's constantly changing modern world can simply be further developed to meet the demands via proper linguistic institutions. Out of national pride, the once rarely spoken and ancient Hebrew language was revived and further developed as Israel's national language. Today, Israel is one of the world's leading countries in technology, and its Hebrew language proudly satisfies their demands. Japan, China, the Koreas, Russia, Latin and Arab countries, Iran, and many others are proof that national pride of language can overpower against any odds.
English language, as the heritage of Pakistanis is another bogus claim. The very fact that the British imperialists invaded South Asia, looted and enslaved its people, and then fled back to their country thousands of miles away does not make them part of our heritage. Unlike the Aryas, Sakas, Yavanas, Hunas, Turks, and various other invaders, the British did not settle permanently in South Asia, nor did they intermarry with the South Asians. Therefore, the British and their English language are not the true heritage of Pakistanis, but instead they are the bitter legacy of foreign subjugation and plunder.
It is true that language is in a constant natural process of evolution, dependent on the socio-political circumstances. As different peoples interact or merge, they influence each other, thereby bringing change. This is a slow natural process, independent of external factors. Unnecessarily using a foreign/colonial language, or purposely substituting the words in your language from it, is nothing more than slave-mindedness, and stands against the very principles of linguistic evolution. A proud Arab, Iranian, French, Chinese, Japanese, etc. would never unnecessarily prefer to speak English, nor replace words in their language from English. The greater part of the blame for the continuing dominance of English language in Pakistan lies within us, the common Pakistanis. We blame others, particularly the elite and foreign powers, but at the same time it is very hypocritical of us to send our children to English medium schools, lavishly using English language/words instead of our own, and basically giving a godly status to everything English/Western. This slave-mindedness and inferiority complex is so deeply rooted in our psyche, that we don't even want to acknowledge or fight it. We are so much consumed with careerism and materialism that we continue to ignore the infection of slavery in our minds, like a deadly disease slowly destroying our identity and culture.
Vital Views on the issue of national language in Pakistan!
Persian was the official language of Pakistan region for over millennia and many centuries later... during pre-British Muslim and non-Muslim periods! Urdu/Hindi language belonging to only Gangetic valley was first promoted and developed by the British colonialists over their conquests to form a amalgamated India into reality for their own ambitions and interests.
What made the British choose Urdu rather than Persian is revealed by the available documents of that period. For instance, the Commissioner and Superintendent of the cis-Sutlej states wrote to the Secretary, Punjab Government, on 17 June 1862:
"In 1853 when I first took charge of the Commissionership the language of the Courts was Persian; and I altered it to Oordoo for two reasons. Firstly the extreme slipperiness of Persian, and extreme Provision of Oordoo as a Judicial language. 2ndly the Political advantage of hastening the amalgamation of our provinces."
The idea that the peoples of Pakistan region should look towards India, where Urdu was predominant, and not towards Afghanistan/Iran/Central Asia, certainly influenced the choice of the vernacular in this region.
This is further supported by the following letter of 22 July 1862 from the Director of Public Instruction to the Secretary of the Punjab Government:
"Persian may be considered the vernacular of the educated classes rather than Urdoo, .... I would recommend that Urdoo be continued as the Court Vernacular. On the annexation of the Punjab political motives, I dare say, had a great share in giving the superiority to Urdoo over Persian, which was commonly used in the Courts, and the desirability of making the union of the wild tribes with the adjoining population in our territories more complete, and their intercourse more convenient, by the use of a common tongue, is obviously very desirable. All our Education efforts tend to this object among others and they will be greatly aided by the currency of Urdoo, in all our Courts, as the standard language."
Reference: See the letters between British officers in the book, Development of Urdu as Official language in the Punjab (1849-1974), Nazir A. Chaudhry (Lahore: Government of the Punjab, 1977).
It is a fact that the British imperialists replaced Persian with Urdu in order to destroy Pakistan's close cultural/political links with its Persian-speaking Muslim neighbours on its west/north, and to engineer/promote their newly invented "Indian" colonial identity with Urdu/Hindi-speaking Gangetic (eastern/Hindu) region as its base. So let us undo what the British colonialists had started.. by rejecting this bitter and brief British legacy of Urdu/Indian language/cultural imposition.... by "de-Indianizing" ourselves and reverting back to our natural independent/distinct status.
********************************************
Why is Dari/Farsi a better choice than Urdu for Pakistan's national language?
1. Urdu has no historical basis:
Urdu has no historical basis in Pakistan region before the advent of British colonialists (the British further developed Urdu and promoted it) and was then imposed as Pakistan's national language in 1947 by the Muhajir-dominated Pakistani media/govt. On the other hand, Farsi/Dari has a solid historical basis in Pakistan region. It was the official language through out Muslim and non-Muslim rule before the advent of British colonialists... whether locally independent or part of neighbouring empires.
2. Urdu represents an ethnic minority's domination such as MQM founded by Altaf Hussain:
Urdu is the Mother-Tongue of only Muhajirs in Pakistan who represent less than 7% of Pakistanis. On the other hand, Dari/Farsi is not the mother-tongue of any single ethnic group. It is spoken by Hazaras, Tajiks, Persians, Uzbeks, Baluchs, Pashtuns, Kurds, etc. in the Afghanistan-Iran-CASia region.
3. Urdu is a foreign language:
Urdu is only native to a part of north India (i.e. Delhi, UP, MP, Bihar, etc regions) and is a foreign language in Pakistan. On the other hand, Dari/Farsi was spoken by the ancestors of Pakistanis (pre-British era).
4. Urdu is responsible for Indian cultural invasion:
Urdu and Hindi are the same language (except for the script and some loan-words). This enables the mighty Indian media outlets such as TV, and Bharat's Bollywood films, news, music to strongly influence Lollywood films and in general the Pakistanis. Pakistanis are being "Indianized" while their distinct identities are being destroyed. On the other hand, Dari/Farsi media is weak and the language itself does not belong to any single country. This language equally belongs to Pakistan just like it was in the pre-British era.
5. Urdu causes an identity crises:
Since Urdu and Hindi are the same language (except for the script and some loan-words), people falsely perceive Indians and Pakistanis to be the same people. On the other hand, Dari/Farsi ensures each country's identity to be distinct. An Afghan is not perceived as an Iranian, and vice versa.
6. Urdu contradicts the creation of Pakistan:
Since Pakistan's creation was meant to separate from British-created Hindu India. Urdu being an Indian language and similar to Hindi is forcefully making Pakistan closer to Hindu India and undoing partition. On the other hand, Dari/Farsi will ensure Pakistan becomes more different from India and make it closer to its western neighbour with whom it has close historical, racial, cultural and religious ties.
7. Urdu is further disintegrating Pakistan as it did in 1971:
Urdu imposition was mostly responsible for the loss of East Pakistan. And most Sindhis, Pashtuns, Baluchs, etc. strongly resent Urdu imposition. On the other hand, Dari/Farsi is not resented by any ethnic group of Pakistan because it does not belong to any ethnic group and has a solid historical basis in Pakistan.
8. Urdu is the language of the Hindus:
Urdu/Hindi is the mother-tongue of almost 400 million Hindus in India and only 10 million Muslims in Pakistan. On the other hand, Dari/Farsi is only spoken by Muslims and by non-Muslims.
9. Urdu lacks sophistication:
Most of Urdu literature is filled with wine drunken love affairs when the Muslim rule was steadily declining. It lacks science and modernity, even today. On the other hand, Dari/Farsi has plenty of books in various sciences and arts, was always the language of the sophisticated, and today has no problem adopting modernity.
10. Urdu is a legacy of British colonialism:
Urdu/Hindi was never the official language during Muslim rule (it was always Dari/Farsi/Persian), and was first promoted and further developed by the British colonialists (Hindustani/Khariboli language was "communalized" at Fort Williams College giving birth to Urdu and Hindi). The British rejected Persian language in the region to de-link any Muslim connections with its western neighbours, and promoted Urdu/Hindi to engineer their newly created "Indian" colonial identity with Ganges region as its centre.
11. Urdu is a slave language:
Urdu/Hindi has always been a slave language. For example, its original/native speakers (north Indian Hindus) adopted much of Persian words/script when ruled by the Persian-speaking Muslims, and then adopted much of English words when ruled by the British (which continues today with Anglo-American global influence). On the other hand, Persian language was the language of Southwest/Central/South Asian Muslims who proudly ruled the whole region for many centuries. Today the remnants of Persian speakers are proof that Persian language does not bow down to foreign influence/occupation, and proudly utilizes its own words.
*******************************************
I prefer Arabic over Urdu as Pakistan's national language when choosing between the two. However, the third and better option is definitely Dari/Farsi. Let's analyze a bit:
Arabic the Language of the Holy Q'uran
1. Historically, Arabic was used as an official language in Pakistan region (excluding the north mainly in Kashmir) only during the brief period of Arab rule (711-855/1010 AD). So, Arabic language has very little historical basis in Pakistan.
2. Linguistically, Arabic is a Semitic language unrelated to the Indo-Iranian languages of Pakistan. Thus, Arabic language is an alien language to Pakistan's native languages (minus the loan-words and script).
3. Geographically, the Arab world is detached from Pakistan, with no land linking them. Therefore, an Arabized Pakistan will be an isolated Arabic island in the middle of an Indo-Iranian regional bloc.
4. Arab extremists and their hatemongering ideologies (Wahabism/etc.) have caused instability in Pakistan with sectarian violence. Arabic as Pakistan's national language will further welcome those destructive elements and make the country unstable.
5. Arabic might be the language in which Quran was originally written, but the Quran is and can always be translated. Just because the Bible (New Gospel) might have been originally written in Aramaic language, it does not mean that all Christian countries should adopt Aramaic as their national language!
6. Arabic language is only the mother-tongue of ethnic Arabs, and except for the Quranic usage/purposes it is not used/spoken by non-Arabs, taking all this into consideration the Arabic tongue is very unlikely to do so or hold a permanent foothold in Pakistani Society and is not so much of a wrong choice it can still be an reconized official language listed in the National Languages of Pakistan.
Dari/Farsi
1. Historically, Dari/Farsi was used in Pakistan region through out most of its 90 years pre-British history (1st November 1857-13th August 1947). The Muslim rulers such as Ghaznavids, Ghorids, Slave dynasty, Khiljis, Tughlaqs, Syeds, Lodhis, Suris, Mughals, and Abdali exclusively used Farsi/Dari as its official language through out their empires/kingdoms. Even the local kingdoms such as those of Ranjit Singh, the Talpurs, Khanate of Kalat, etc. used Farsi/Dari as its official language. And before the advent of Islam, various Iranian languages (derived or related to Dari/Farsi) were used in Pakistan region such as Vedic, Old Persian, Pahlvi, Old Saka, Bactrian, and Tocharian during RigVedic Aryan, Achaemenian, Scythian, Parthian, Greco-Bactrian, Kushan, and Hephthalite periods. So, Dari/Farsi has a solid historical basis in the region of Pakistan.
2. Linguistically, Dari/Farsi is an Indo-Iranian language related to the Indo-Iranian languages of Pakistan. Thus, Dari/Farsi language is not an alien language to Pakistan's native languages and belong to the same family of languages (plus the loan-words and script).
3. Geographically, the Dari/Farsi-speaking world (Iran, Afghanistan, and parts of Central Asia) are Pakistan's western and northern neighbors. Therefore, a Dari/Farsi-speaking Pakistan will attach Pakistan to the Central Asian/Pax Iranica regional bloc.
4. With Farsi/Dari as Pakistan's national language, it will counter religious extremism in the region since Sunni extremism from Pakistan would be checked by Shia Iran and Shia extremism from Iran would be checked by Sunni Pakistan.
5. Dari/Farsi is a well developed and sophisticated language. It has been used through out its history for science, medicine, literature, administration, arts, etc. When Arabs invaded the great Persian Empire they adopted much of its civilization and integrated it within Arab/Islamic culture. Dari/Farsi film industry is world renowned for its classical/artistic and decent/mature movies.
6. Dari/Farsi language is not the mother-tongue of any single ethnic group. It is spoken by Tajiks, Uzbeks, Turkmens, Azeris, Persians, Kurds, Baluchs, Pashtuns, Hazaras, etc. in Iran-Afghanistan-CAsia region.
************************************************** ************
The so-called Bollywood movies, cable channels like Star and Zee are all in Urdu but the indians call it Hindi.
The Indians have been trying to influence our culture from the very beginning. That is the reason why you see pure Urdu movies in the 1970s and 1980s called Hindi by Indians. By doing that, they were actually invading our cultural and linguistic space. I am not impressed by Indian moves and especially the "dramas" on zee and star networks, but the ladies in Pakistan are glued to the television and cant afford to miss even a single episode of these phony dramas.
Also, you might have noticed that the government imposed ban on these TV channels a few years ago because of the propaganda news and influence on the Pakistani culture. The other reason given by our information minister, Sheikh Rashid Ahmad was to allow the Pakistani media and channels to grow so that there is no competition from across the international border.
All these developments indicate that cultural invasion is going on and this is done in a systematic manner. We should not lose focus from the fact that recently the channels and some movies have started using a lot of strange hindi words in the scripts. This is because first they captured the market and now they are preaching their culture and language to that particular focused group called Pakistan.
I don't think that Pakistanis have any thing against Urdu or Mohajirs. But we should try to understand that battle of cultures is going on and if we don't ponder and think about it and pretend that nothing is going on, then we will be big losers.
In today's world, not too many wars are fought with weapons. With improved technologies, wars of media/culture are being aggressively waged. If Indian cultural invasion of Pakistan continues to "Indianize" the Pakistanis... then that would mean that Indians have conquered us and won the war... without a single bullet!
Let us make the radical change of our national language from Urdu to Dari/Persian... to make our nation strong ensuring its long-term survival.
************************************************** ********
Regarding Urdu-Hindi controversy, here is an excerpt from Dr. Tariq Rahman's book, titled "Language and Politics in Pakistan".
“M K Gandhis efforts to conciliate both Hindus and Muslims through linguistic compromise can thus be understood in the context of increasing tendencies towards separatism. Gandhi defined Hindustani as “that language which is generally spoken by Hindus and Musalmans of the North, whether in Devanagri or Urdu”
Is not it glaringly clear from the above excerpt that if there was any difference in Urdu and Hindi, that was of script as indicated by the words “Devanagri” and “Urdu”? Moreover, why on earth would Gandhi give the same name, “Hindustani”, to Urdu and Hindi if they in fact were different?
The only conclusion from this is, the difference was very artificial i.e. in script only. Colloquially, there was no such distinction as Urdu or Hindi. And at literary level, Hindi-Hindustani was identified with Devanagri script and Urdu-Hindustani with Quranic script as evidenced by the following excerpt from Tariq Rahman Book:
“The worst fear of the Muslims came true, when on Gandhis insistence, the Baharatiya Sahitya Parishad changed the term Hindustani to Hindi-Hindustani in its session of 24 April 1936. Abdul Haq, head of Anjuman-e-Tarraqqi-e-Urdu, the foremost organization for the development of Urdu, opposed this change and some prominent Muslims wrote letters to Gandhi protesting against it.”
This shows there was some sort of agreement among Muslims and Hindus that the common language, which both Muslims and Hindu spoke and which was written by Muslims in Perso-Arabic script and Hindus in Devanagri script, would be called “Hindustani”. But when Hindus violated that agreement, Muslims protested.
This is testified by the following excerpt from Rahman’s.
“After this, despite the efforts of nationalist Muslims and the agreement between Rajandar Prasad and Abdul Haq, accepting Hindustani as the common language of Hindus and Muslims(1942:38), Hindi and Urdu grew further apart.”
Further, as a term for nomenclature or definitive term, the word Hindustani has been used in combination with other words like “Hindustani Language” in which case it means Urdu-Hindi or “Hindustani Languages” in which case it means different languages spoken in Hindustan. Hindustani would either mean Urdu-Hindi or an inhabitant of Hindustan.
The fact is, it all was started by the Muslim elite of UP, who faced with the threat from the rising consciousness in Hindu majority with regard to their rights, raised the slogan of Muslim Nationalism/Communalism. They used the idea of separate Muslim identity, enshrined in Urdu script and religion, for share in power and resources as the following excerpt from Dr. Tariq Rahman's book shows. The text is actually of some Hamid Ali Khan, one of the "nobles" of UP.
“though the Hindus, including of course all classes of them, constitute the majority; but it cannot be said that the entire body of them can claim the same political and social importance as Mohammadan.(1900;38)”
The point is, can just a script be the basis of a distinct identity? And if it cannot be and Pakistan is not going to have separate basis of identity and our destiny ultimately lies with Hindustan, why the hell did we separate from Hindustan!
According to Dr. Tariq Rehman:
"According to linguists, Hindi and Urdu are two styles of the same language...both have the same inflectional system and a common core of basic vocabulary; they differ in the learned words used...as mentioned earlier, medieval Muslim writers used the word Hindi for the languages of north-western India. This language however was different both from Persianized Urdu and Sansikrtized Hindi...The urge to purge Hindi of many indigenous words was initiated by Muslim literary figures from 1702 to 1705.... The more Persianized form of it however was really only used by educated middle and upper-class males. In other words, it was a sociolect, though the less Persianized version of it was more commonly used in Northern India".
About Hindi, T. Rehman writes:
"However, despite linguistic pluralism, the Hindu language remained an important symbol in the construction of Hindu identity during the same period...."
I wonder if they had to Persianized Khariboli, called Hindustani, an attempt, which failed, why didn't they adopt Persian altogether?
Urdu is native to India than to Pakistan and is the language of the culturally and politically dominant North-West Indians who are in majority in Hindustan- and that it is actually Hindi but slightly Persianized. Even that distinction between Hindi and Urdu has disappeared. The high Hindi as used in Bollywood today is now the same as high Urdu. One can well imagine, “how great” would be the difference at colloquial level. Just imagine Hindus and Muslims in UP, MP, Bihar, etc. living in shared localities and interacting with each other on daily basis! I don’t think there would be any Persianization or Sanscritization of Urdu-Hindi (Let us call it Urindi for convenience) at colloquial level---that seems implausible to me.
The facts are,
1. Urdu-Hindi is native to India having evolved from Khari-boli during the declining phase of Mughal rule in India, and so the core of it has been borrowed from an ancient base that primarily symbolised and carried a Hindustani cultural spirit and world-view.
2. Both Urdu-Hindi and Hindustani Civilization, with Hinduism as the predominant element, have their centre of gravity in Gangetic plain, the very heart of Hinduism/Hindustani Civilization, where the “sacred” River Gang flows…and that there some kind of symbiotic relationship between Urdu-Hindi and Hindustani/Hindu Civilization.
3. It is a sort of lingua-franca in Hindustan, a symbol of the cultural/civilizational unity of India, at least to the outside world, and one of the most important elements of Hindustani identity.
4. It is the language of the majority of Hindustanis i.e. the north-western Indians, who are culturally and politically more dominant. Moreover, it is the most-favoured language at the level of state in Hindustan and a symbol of status and sophistication for common Hindustanis.
5. It is the main vehicle for disseminating Hindustani Culture outside Hindustan.
6. The rather minor Persian-heavy and Sanskrit-heavy difference between the two styles of high Hindustani i.e. Urdu and Hindi has mostly disappeared and now the only remaining difference is the Perso-Arabic and Devanagari scripts. The difference at colloquial level, as pointed to above, was most likely already non-existent.
7. The fact that it is the mother-tongue of about 300,000,000 (three hundred million) Hindustanis mainly Muslim in faith but the mother tongue of only 10,000,000 (ten million) Pakistanis.
*********************************************
See it in very simple terms, what are the main native languages of Pakistan? Punjabi, Pashto, Sindhi, Baloch, Brahui, Koshur (kashmiri)etc. Nobody can argue that Punjabi the native language is Punjabi and also the popolous Language of Pakistan ... to claim otherwise is a lie!!!
By teaching and spreading Urdu what are you doing? In effect your creating a vehicle that enables Pakistani's to be able to communicate effectively with Indian's!!! Urdu has trans-national capability - With India!!!
Your enabling a Pashtun or a Punjabi to be able to speak with 98% effectiveness with say Gujrati, Tamil, Orrisan, Telagu Indian's. Without Urdu the Pashtun would not be able to speak with any Indian and a Punjabi would be limited to North Western Indian!!!
Clearly the effect of this is your homogenizing divergent peoples of South Asia - Your creating uniformity with India, which is inconsistent with the whole notion of Pakistan. If people of Pakistan really do want homogenized into India then great go ahead and spread Urdu but then again why not re-unify with India? Would at least save lot of money!!!
Its this basic contradictory nature of Urdu that I am having problems rationalizing and is at the heart of my disgust with this 'language of indianization' which in the long term will rip up any precious local identity we have and end up getting emulsified into the greater India.
This effect can be seen in Ireland where the Irish fought for centuries to free themselves from their English masters and rallied around their Celtic roots/culture. However their own language - Gaelic over time was wiped out by the British with English. The effect of this can be seen now in present-day Eire or the Republic of Ireland. Despite now being a independent country their culture has been wiped out by English/American influence ... indeed Ireland now is just a extension of UK bar the slight difference in accents!!!
Indeed I wonder what was the point of centuries of troubles? I fear the same will happen in Pakistan.
So the question Pakistani's should ask is 'do we want to be homogenized into India'? I know what my answer is!!!
Although we Pakistanis are grateful to Jinnah's efforts in the creation of Pakistan, as a human being he was not perfect. Jinnah's choice of Urdu as Pakistan's national language was his biggest mistake with long-term negative consequences for Pakistan. And his harsh words/attitude for Pakistanis against Urdu imposition is deplorable particularly when he stated those against Urdu as enemies of Pakistan. Similar condemnations for an aspect of other nations' founding fathers is not uncommon. For an extreme example, the founding fathers of the USA are condemned for their racist comments/attitude towards the Blacks, Native Americans, etc. But nations evolve with time.. modifying their stance on critical issues for the greater benefit of its peoples and national interest.. based on the ground realities whether that be for the sake of unity, fairness, equality, freedom, etc. Same thing applies to Pakistan with regard to the unjust imposition of Urdu as the national language.
************************************************** **********
I know many Indian Hindus very well and I can assure you that there is very little difference between their Hindi language and Pakistan's (actually Muhajir's) Urdu language. They are one and the same language with the only difference being that Urdu has a little more of Persian words and is written in the Perso-Arabic script, whereas Hindi has more of Sanskrit words and is written in the Devangari script. Written script does not mean any thing nor does loan-words ... for example, Azeri language of Azerbaijan has some Russian words and is written in the Cyrillic script, whereas Azeri language of Iran has some Persian words and is written in the Perso-Arabic script. Regardless, Azeris of both countries are the same people speaking the same language! Same thing applies to Urdu and Hindi.. they are almost the same language and the whole world knows that!
Urdu was originally called Hindustani.. Hindi was extracted from it during the British rule by ejecting many Persian words and adopting Devangari script (at Fort Williams College.. where Urdu was also further developed.. and communalization of Hindustani language was invented).. Hindustani evolved during the declining period of Muslim rule due to the interaction between Persian speaking Muslim rulers and Khari-boli speaking Hindus of UP/Delhi/MP/etc. region. Hindustani (aka Urdu or aka Hindi) was only native in those regions of UP/MP/Bihar/Delhi/etc. With the invention of Two Nation Theory and communalization of north India, the Persianized form of Hindustani now was called Urdu and remained the mother tongue of only Muslims of UP/MP/Delhi/Bihar/etc. (and Muhajirs in Pakistan) whereas the newly engineered Sanskritized form of Hindustani was called Hindi and slowly became the mother tongue of Hindus of these same regions. But they were still the same languages and still are.. for example if Turks of Anantolia adopted the Latin script less than a century ago and added words from English/French... it still remains the same Turkish language, regardless of those minor changes! You are living in a fool's paradise by denying the fact that Hindi and Urdu are the same language!
Sindhi, Balochi, Pashto, Punjabi, Kashmiri, Seraiki, etc. are distinct languages.. and have nothing to do with Urdu! Urdu only made some inroads in Pakistan region during British rule but was limited to the few educated/elite because of the then Hindustani Muslim domination of politics/education/etc. It was only after 1947 that Urdu made some serious inroads in Pakistan under the banner of national language, and Muhajir domination of media/govt.
Since Urdu and Hindi are the same language, Urdu as the national language of Pakistan has caused an identity crises in Pakistan. Much of the world perceives Indians and Pakistanis as the same people because they speak the same language (Urdu/Hindi).. only divided by religion. The fact is.. Urdu is only the mother-tongue of Muhajirs from UP/MP/Delhi/Bihar/etc. who happen to be only less than 7% of Pakistanis. So this is cultural domination of one ethnic group (a small minority) on others. Bengalis resented it and we lost them mostly because of that. Many other Pakistanis resent Urdu. Enough is enough... Urdu should be eliminated as Pakistan's national language and must replace Hindi as India’s National Language for a greater Muslim or Islamic Republic of India, excluding Pakistan and not Bangladesh at least East Bengal region of ancient Bharat.
Hindi is the mother-tongue of India's largest ethnic group (30%) and the country itself has/had the issue of Hindi language imposition on other ethnic groups. This language has mostly dominated in Indian media including Bollywood. Everyone knows how popular Indian media and its cultural elements are spreading its tentacles in Pakistan. So the cultural invasion from India is a reality... and to whitewash this ongoing destruction ("Indianization") with denials is committing a silent cultural suicide.
By the way, there is nothing wrong with taking pride in one's ethnic identity.. they are one of the many layers of an individual's identity.. de facto. To deny this basic right is like telling some one not to talk about your height because others might have different heights. Taking pride in one's ethnicity does not equate to prejudice or superiority complex. The evil of prejudice/hatred/superiority complex is a whole different subject and can be found in every thing including religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, etc. As long as we accept and respect each other including the ethnic differences, and keep unity based on our common: history, linguistic identity, geography, religion, racial background, cultural roots, defence, and/or economy/commerce... then Pakistan will remain unified FOREVER... provided that there is fairness, equality, and freedom. So let's make change that is fair and make the country stronger by replacing Urdu with Dari/Farsi.
As I said in my previous posts, I am confident that Dari/Farsi will be the perfect choice as our national language because:
1. This language is not the mother-tongue of any ethnic group of Pakistan thus eliminating the cultural domination of an ethnic group and the resentment among other ethnic groups because of it.
2. This language and its derivatives were mostly spoken in Pakistan region in the pre-British period. That is to say, Rig Vedic Aryans spoke Vedic an Iranian language closely related to Avestan, ... Achaemanian and Sassanian periods had Old Persian language spoken as one of the major languages, ... Scythian, Parthian, Kushan, Hephthalite, etc. periods had different Iranian languages spoken such as Bactrian, Old Saka, Pahlavi, Tocharian, etc. as major languages, .... Turkic, Afghan, and Mughal Muslim periods exclusively had Farsi as the official language, ... even local kingdoms such as Ranjit Singh's and others had Farsi as the official language, etc. So this is the natural/historical language of the region.
3. This language will end the cultural invasion from India since Pakistanis will not be able to comprehend any Indian language. This will make the Pakistani identity stronger and distinct from India's. Indian movies/TV/music will not culturally corrupt the Pakistanis nor brainwash them with Indian/Hindu media's propaganda.
4. This language will make Pakistan closer to its western neighbours since the same language is spoken in Iran, Afghanistan, and Tajikistan. This will benefit Pakistan economically because of the closer cultural-linguistic ties with the abundant natural resources/energy-rich region. Pakistan film-industry will also be influenced by the classy Persian film-industry giving a much more artistic and respectful dimension to the currently cheap (Indian-influenced) Pakistani films or Lollywood based in Lahore, Punjab region and Pollywood based in Peshawer, Afghania (Sarhad/NWFP).
************************************************** **********
According to Encyclopaedia Britannica:
"Urdu originated in the region between the Ganges and Jamuna rivers near Delhi, now the official language of Pakistan.... In the sociopolitical realm, Urdu and Hindi are different languages, but the colloquial basis of both is identical.... Less than 8% of Pakistanis—mainly immigrants and descendants of legal and illegal from 1971 onwards migrants from India after the 1947 partition—speak it as a first language."
************************************************** ***********
For me and my beloved people the question is simple. What was the purpose of Pakistan? Was it to chart a destiny different from India? Or was it just to have a separate political unit but that would just follow India like a dog?
In my view the purpose of Pakistan was to follow a different destiny. If Pakistan was somewhere in middle of India, or had peoples that were 100% the same as Indian's I would not even begin to support a change of language or attempt at re-orientating the country. It would be a exercise in futility, I would accept the inevitability, that we are just Indian and there is no point in wasting time deluding ourselves. In fact I would arrive at he rationale that independence was a mistake and would advocate immediate unification and save all that money on defence and save any more lives lost in defense of our independence. But that is not what I believe. We are different but we have to rid ourselves of British legacy.
What I see is our geographic location, our peoples and our history contains sufficient substance and difference to service a genuine change of direction. Indeed it follows naturally from our independence. If we don't change direction all I can say is then let truth express itself - Join India, confederate with it. Or else the only excuse I can see for Pakistan is to provide a platform for a small native elite, the Mahajir elite and the Mullah to enrich themselves.
I don't know how the hell I can be accused of being unpatriotic, I am trying to put real distance between us and India, I support fortifying our identity and anchoring our identity.
In the preceding centuries it was us who in the sub continent took the brunt of influences derived from the West, it was us who were invaded by the Greeks, it was our lands that saw the Ghandhara Greco-Bactrian Kingdoms, Taxila today is a living testimony to this. It was our lands that saw the flourishing of Indus Valley civilization. No doubt we have been sometimes the easternmost satrapy of Persia, or under the influence of 'Indian' based empires, and sometimes independent made up of small kingdoms. But by large, Pakistan region was has a distinct history from India and this is explained in detail on the website: www.geocities.com/pak_history
What's certain is we sit on the margins of Central/South Asia and we broke of from the British colonial empire that had welded us to Calcutta and then Delhi - Even that experience was for less then a century.
Today we are still struggling with British colonial legacy, the stamp left on us of being 'Indian' that was imprinted on us by the British. We are in a 'swing status' we can tilt either way.
60 years after having thrown off the British colonial yoke we have yet to undo its legacy and language is central to that. Clearly had the British not taken over Punjab (1850) and NWFP (Afgania) (1880) we would not have had Urdu as our language, we would not have been so 'connected' to the Indian heartland - the Ganges plains.
All we have done since 1947 is sever our links with British colonialism but kept the donated blood flowing in our system. Ask yourself this simple question, which is the language that India is spreading through its diverse peoples? Which is the language that all Indians will speak in the future? It is Hindi of course!
Now Urdu is same as Hindi. Clearly having Perso Arabic script and more Persian words is not enough to create a distinct language. At end of day Hindi and Urdu are very similar.
So do Pakistani's want to 'Indianize' themselves? Does Pakistan want to become the common cultural realm of India? I and some others oppose this, we see inconsistency with having Pakistan and then trying to make it another Islamic India.
We are trying to distance ourselves from India, how the hell can that be unpatriotic? Must we be pro Indian to be patriotic? We are anti-Indian and that's we we want to distance ourselves from India. We do not want to marry ourselves to or into India. We must Become Distictive and of course Be Pro-Pakistani!!!
Of course any change has to take into account our history, our geography and our peoples. We can't just adopt any language in the quest to break free from colonial legacy, the British fostered forced gun marriage to their Imperalist India.
So Malay, Indonesian (East Indies), Arabic are out since we are not geographically anywhere near these regions and have no historical links with them except when East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) was a part of our integrity and sovereignty and most of all OUR territory in the periods of just under 25 yrs (1947-1971). The change has to take into account our Pak-history. That we have on our westerly side. For many centuries in the preceding thousands of years we have been linked to our westerly neighbours, been part of Persian empires. So the choice is limited, either we look east (with whom we also have shared some of our history) or the west.
If it was the east we wanted then why the hell 1947, the British had given us free off cost a ready made union but we separated. So the only natural consequence is a look westward and language is the key component of this.
Finally the difference between us and India is not just religion. India is a vast country made up of many 'nations' of different ethnicity. There is no Balochistan, Pashtun or Sindh in India. The exclusive homeland of Sindhi, Pashtun and Baloch is Pakistan only the Punjabi are found in India but as I mentioned before they are some 5% of India. That 5% is hardly descriptive of the vast country called India, which is a continent in itself.
Take a look at your environment, you live in a land thats either mountains or semi to full desert, now find out what most of India is? You are in the easternmost arid zone that extends from Iran, whereas most of India is well watered, tropical region.
There is some Baloch in Iran as well but nobody ever thinks that Pakistan is same as Iran!!! Or there are large numbers (largest minority) Pashtun in Afghanistan but that does not make Afghanistan same as Pakistan. The provinces ( peoples ) Punjab, NWFP ( Pashtun ), Baloch and Sindh that make up Pakistan is a mix and a matrix that is unique to Pakistan. Religion is but one marker of our identity. We are not Bengali, Tamil, Etc Moslems, our lands are not tropical/delta swamps!!! Ours are harsh dry desert or lofty mountains creating difficult conditions and a hardy people, traditionally poor but proud. It was not a co incidence that the British looked to our lands to fill up their armies. We were a simple people.
Time we undid the British colonialism and marked our own identity.
************************************************** ********
Languages can and are imposed. Since we in Pakistan have never had true democracy (unless you think that feudal gathering otherwise known as the NA is a repository of public will) to say the people of Pakistan chose anything is disingenuous.
To impose a language is not to say its forced down peoples mouth at gun point but its done by indirect and subtle ways. A modern state is a powerful agent of change, it can and does use its agencies, influence, sponsorship, to directly or indirectly mould the masses.
Besides the effect of declaring Urdu as its national language, the state has sponsored Urdu directly in our educational system teaches Urdu to all students, the effect of which is to create millions of people able to speak that language. All mediums (TV or others) use Urdu which helps in its transmission to even people who have not been to school.
Indeed it was the British who first fostered its use and spread. Since then the Pakistani state has been busy for the last 55 years in spreading it further whilst simultaneously across the international border in India Urdu's sister language Hindi is being spread. What the British started off on (to create pan trans-India language) has been continued by both Pakistan and India with one minor difference, the former in Perso-Arabic script the latter in Devangiri script.
In the past different peoples of India/Pakistan would not have been able to communicate with each other - or been limited to a small elite speaking perhaps Farsi but not too long in the future Indo-Pakistan will be 100% capable of inter-communication in Hindi/Urdu. We will be locked into the Indo realm forever with just a political line dividing us - as language is a powerful vehicle of culture Pakistan being smaller will just become a satellite of India.
By patronising Urdu you are bonding Pakistan with India.. if that's what people want then fair enough but I have to ask why the costly partition of 1947 then? If the point of 1947 was to lead us to a destiny different from India we seem to have chosen the same road as India ... yeah maybe have a different colour of vehicle but the destination will be same as India.
Again I realize that Punjab (the only Pak. province) overlaps into Indian Punjab but Indian Punjab does not epitomize India .. clearly being 5% of India its just marginal to the main body of India.
Just because part of Pakistan is able to communicate effectively with 5% of India does not mean we got to make all of Pakistan able to communicate with all of 1,060 Billion Indians .. which is what's going to happen if we continue with Urdu.
************************************************** ***************
1. Pakistan came into being in 1947 and I don't really care how it came about much less that we should forever be locked into the reasons, the basis or the ideology that gave birth to it.
2. 1947 event was a historical determinant which just undid what had happened in another historical determinant of 1847 when this region (Indus Valley) had been fabricated into the ever-growing British expansionism of Bharat into India still remains a mystery which started off in West Bengal (Hindustan) and East Bengal (Bangladesh, ex-Pakistani Territory). Was there any fundamental reason in 1847 which lead to this (Indus Valley region) to become wedded to British Empire of India? No there was not, it was just a historical accident motivated by British greed. Yes greed had brought us under the colonial British India.
4. I don't treat the events, forces or the ideologies that gave birth to Pakistan in 1947 as holy or feel obligated to them beyond the fact that 1947 event was historical in that it undid the 1847 event, the former neutralizing the latter. It corrected a anomaly caused by colonial lust!!!
5. Colonialism forced us into British India and colonialism created forces (the English educated predominantly Mahajir) who were the force majeaur behind Pakistan. Why should I thank the latter? Without British colonialism there would have been no Jinnah, no Muslim Leaque but then again there would have been no need for 1947 because the region that is Pakistan now would have evolved on its own.
6. Prior to the British interfering in our region ( Indus Valley ) this area had independent Khanates, Emirates and Kingdoms (Mirs of Sindh, Khans of Balochistan and Sikh Kingdom of Punjab) and we would have evolved naturally without third party dictation - British. I do know though that the evolution of this region probably would have ended up with either states or state somewhat different from what we have now but the solid realities on the ground would have impacted on the evolution - the foremost being that this region has and had a solid Moslem majority, probably greater than 80%. Today there would either have been states or a state in the area that is Pakistan (geographic Indus Valley) that would be coloured by two ground realities - the peoples, Punjabi, Pashtun, Sindhi, Baloch and predominantly with a Islamic flavor.
7. At end of the day its 'the boots on the ground' that makes the real difference as indeed it did in 1947, had this region not had a Moslem majority whose numbers carried the weight to give substance to the dreams of Muslim League. It was this region (the four provinces) that elected to join the federation without which the combined votes and intellectual vigor of all the Moslems scattered all over India (UP, Bihar, Madya Pradesh etc) would have produced zilch.
8. So one set of historical circumstances (British Colonialism) created a negativity for us but at the same time gave birth to another set of circumstances (British education and ideas flourished in what is now India on account of having been colonialized much earlier with the populace have imbibed modern concepts which would help to counter the British with the Muslim Leaque/Congress being the manifestation of this) which neutralized the negativity. Without one the other would neither have existed or been needed. So put it simply 1947 was just a reaction to the action of 1847 - Like I don't need to try to rationalize or find the deep motives, philosophies or higher ideals for the 1847 event I don't need to for 1947 either other then look at them both as very significant historical determinants that altered and realtered the land of my forefathers, in both which my people slept through or had very marginal input.
9. Since 1847 the land of my forefathers has gone through a rollercoaster with my people as helpless occupants but reality is today we have a Pakistan, the sovereignty belongs to the 'sons of the soil' again. My concern today is with them and which direction we must go to now for the sake of our long lasting survival. Although a citizen of Britain and having the deepest respect for the English people I detest the colonial era and all its attendant ills/effects/legacy.
8. The colonial era cemented us with rest of India (geographically) more efficiently then any other power had done, its administrative ability, its economic power, its modern rail network 'Indianized' us more effectively then had we evolved free from British interference. In short they wedded us to the greater India and by default to the countries that inherited the British Indian Empire - Bharat, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.
9. Although I have a healthy respect for many Indians (indeed I would count some as friends) I loath the idea with every sinew of my body that we are a extension or just a offshoot of Bharat. I want us to have a solid identity exclusive of Bharat and based on our own peoples.
10. I look at the Mahajirs as carriers of the 'Indian vector', now you might say what about the Punjabi's? After all they are also a 'bridge' to India but its important to note that Indian Punjabi's are a minority. Yes there are other sub groups of Pakistan (Kashmiri or Sindhi) who also happen to be found in India but again their numbers are a drop in the ocean that India is. Whats more these groups do not form the gravitas of the Indian state.
11. The Indian State has adopted the language of the Ganges plains (Hindi derived from Sanskrit) as its national tongue and will over time homogenize all the divergent peoples of India into one block under the overarching label 'Indian'. All states do this, they adopt one particular brand (often the one belonging to the majority/most influential) and over time create a homogenized block out of variety of cultures/peoples. Modern states tend to do it faster and more effectively on back of better administrative structures/economics and technology (TV etc) the effect of this over time will bring together the Telagu, Tamil-desh, Punjabi in Occupied Sikh Republic of Khalistan, Assamese, Ladakhi in Indian-Occupied Kashmir, Malaylam, Orrisan and all other strange peoples - I say strange because bar the Indian Punjabi/Rajasthani most Pakistani's have not had any deep contact with or knowledge of. This will eventually (it already is well on the way) create a solid block of over a billion people speaking Hindi going under the false banner of 'Indian'.
12. In Pakistan the imported Mahajir group also predominantly comes from the Gangetic Valley and from the same source that Bharat (not India but HINDUSTAN) draws its gravitas from. Thus Urdu and Hindi are essentially the same languages bar the scripts - clearly a Hindi speaker can speak with ease to a Urdu speaker. Not surprising since both languages were fashioned in the same furnace - the Ganges Valley.
13. The British standardized Urdu/Hindi to serve as their common pan India language and act as the interface with the host of different peoples. India has adopted Hindi and we have adopted Urdu so in essence we are continuing on the British mission.... To construct a sub continental realm call it India if you want.
14. Just to prove my contention go back to 1850 and ask yourself how many peoples of present day Pakistan could have communicated in their 'native' language with a Tamil, a Bengali, a Telagu, a Assamese, a Kanadese etc? Not many I suspect!!!
15. But now fast forward to say 2050 and we have a Pakistan that has 100% literacy which would mean over time Urdu as native tongue to 100% .... Whilst in India all Indians would have achieved 100% proficiency in their national language Hindi ............... Given this scenario in 2050 100% of Pakistan could communicate in their national language with 100% Indians in their native language. We would have created a sub continent that would be uniformalized and finished off the project launched by the British.
Is that what we want? Is that why we broke off at great expense in 1947? To become part of the ocean of humanity with just a script to identify us? This thought terrifies me!!!
************************************************** ********
1. Urdu was neither spoken nor understood by the majority of the Pakistani population i.e. 54% Bangalis, 24% Punjabis, 10% Pashtuns, 3% Baluchis, and 8% Sindhis. It was the mother tongue of only 3% immigrants from UP. So it wasn’t as a common language in almost all Pakhtunkhwa, Baluchistan, East Bangal, rural Sindh, and most of the Punjab except few urban centres such as Karachi and Lahore and even Kashmir.
2. It was not native to the land and its relationship to the land didn’t predate the British Raj. On the contrary, Dari/Persian was a lingua-franca for a much longer period and was probably as much better understood in rural areas of West Pakistan than Urdu.
3. As it was a minority language, its imposition caused resentment among the locals. Its declaration as a national language was a blunder that had long as well as short term consequences for the political future and distinct cultural development/evolution of Pakistan as we saw it in the dismemberment in 1971 and we are seeing it in the gradual lapse of non-Urdu speaking communities in the broader Hindustani Cultural milieu today.
Important point here is an identity distinct from Hindustan. And for that Pakistan would have to orient itself towards Central Asia because that is a Muslim region as well as geographically contiguous to Pakistan such as Indian-Occupied Kashmir.
Pakistan would have to make three shifts in order to do that:
Cultural Shift: The first thing would be doing away with Urdu as a national language and adopting Dari as language of communication. That would break one link of the communities of Pakistan with India.
Other links with Hindustan will also have to be cut off e.g. food, dress, social rituals (marriage, child birth, death ceremonies, etc.), architecture, music, dance, and other cultural practices would have to be nativised. The middle and upper classes would have to take initiative in that regard because usually it is these classes that are the trend setters.
Economic Shift: Economic ties with the Neighbors in the North (Tajakistan, Karghizia), West (Afghanistan and Turkamanistan/Uzbakistan beyond), and South-West (Iran) would have to be vitalized. Currently, there are a number of communication projects underway e.g. Peshawar-Islamabad Motorway would be open for traffic in 2006. In 2005, work on an express-way from Peshawar to Torkham i.e Pak-Afghan border will be commenced. This would link Punjab and NWFP with Central Asia.
To link Karachi with Central Asia, the present single-carriage Indus high-way will be converted into a double-carriage way. From Saroki in DI Khan, there will be a road built to Ghulam Khan (in Waziristan Pak-Afghan border) connecting DI Khan and Southern Punjab to Ghulam Khan, so another trade route.
Probably railway and road links from Queta-to-Qandahar are also under consideration. This will tie Pakistan with Afghanistan and Turkaministan via Queta-Qandahar-Herat route.
There is already the Karakuram Highway (KH) only if we wouldn't export fundamentalism into Sinkiang. Probably, they are also digging a tunnel in Lowari (between Dir and Chitral). Currently, NHA is working on access route to Lowari. I don't know how much is the political will to construct this tunnel but if realy constructed, that would become a route to Tajakistan via Wakhan and Badakhshan.
I don't know about the road links between Pakistan and Iran.
All this is going to give huge boost to tourism as well. And Punjabis and Urdu-speakers should start learning bit of Pashto/Baluchi/Dari to have good relations with these communities.
The interaction will help bring cultural influences from Central Asia and will enrich the native culture.
Political Shift: Pakistan must not consider Afghanistan its zone of influence because that country is in proximity to many important regions and countries and all have stakes in it. In the short run, political disputes with the countries to the North-West should be resolved amicably-borders should be made bit soft. In the long-run, some sort of regional political configuration, based on bit greater autonomy to communites involved and volutary political relations gauranteed by a sacred constitution/contract, is inevitable.
Frankly speaking, Pashtuns as well Baluchis have a stake in Afghanistan/Iran as well as Pakistan. Recently, I talked to few Pakhtoons of Afghanistan and they told me that when Pakistan looses a cricket match, they become unhappy/sad. Another friend told me that people in Kabul generally have the impression that Pakistan is a good country.
By trying to conquer Afghanistan, the ambitious leaders of Pakistan have harmed Pakistan as well as Pakhtoons. Had they not become so deeply involved in Afghanistan, today Afghans would've been the greatest allies of Pakistan. Moreover, they have been insulted/humiliated by Pakistani police.
So the political shift should be from a hegemonistic and Islam-exporting attitude to friendly political relations based on mutual respect. Certain problems relating to integration of communities and water disputes should be addressed.
Common ground should not be Pan-Islam rather geographical proximity, neighborhood, common Muslim Culture, and foremost economy. Also never bring Arabs into this because they will spoil everything using the opportunity for strengthening Pan-Arab world-power ambitions. Never involve political Mullahs. We don't have any greater common ground with Arabs e.g. they are Semites, they maintain Harems, they consider themselves superior, they are sons of desert we plain land and mountains, we have lived around great rivers, they around springs and torrents, etc.
********************************************
Muhajirs may be more competent but there are reasons for it.
> The native Pakistanis were mostly rural/agrarian-peasant/tribal people with little civic amenities to enhance their skills/competencies. Muhajirs on the other hand hailed from the traditional centers of leaning/industry. They therefore were better educated/skilled and had superior enterprenuering abilities compared to natives.
> When they migrated to Pakistan, they got detached from the static/rigid set up of extended/joint family and feudal culture and entered a more flexible, vibrant urban socio-economic setup, which afforded them better individual freedom and opportunities for economic activism. Transformation from extended/joint family system to nuclear family is inevitable for a transition to capitalistic-industrial based system.
Natives on the other hand remained tied to the stagnant agrarian social setup which greatly inhibits initiative and activism within the individual.
> On arrival, Muhajirs grabbed the economic assets left by the prosperous Hinus/Sikhs. These resources included urban-based property as well as agricultural land. Almost, every Muhajir got some share and probably greater than he/she left in Hindustan. Amongst the natives, on the other hand, the class-based system, i.e. haves and have-nots, survived.
The first Prime Minister of Pakistan Quaid-e-Millat, (Leader of the Community) assassinated Nawabzada Liaqat Ali Khan and upon his assassination he earned the title Shaheed-e-Millat (Martyr Of the Nation) allotted his son three ice-factories and two cinemas in Lahore alone.
> Because Liaqat Ali Khan had left his constituency in Karnal/Ambala in Haryana and had no constituency to be elected from, he had Muhajirs settled in the port city of Karachi, which gave Muhajirs huge advantage over natives in terms of trade and business.
> Liaqat Ali Khan also promoted Muhajir politicians e.g. Choudri Khaliquzaman. This choudri Khaliquzaman had been "appointed" by Mohammad Ali Jinnah as the leader of Muslim League in India at the time of partition and had taken oath as an Indian citizen, so much so that he had also issued a statement against Pakistan on the issue of Hindus-Sikhs-Muslims roits during partition. But when he saw the opportunity in newly-born Pakistan, he silently left India and migrated to Pakistan within a few days.
> Muhajirs also got greater share in jobs and services in the new Pakistan. Liaqat Ali Khan had sat aside two types of quota for Muhajirs; one for Muhajirs that had already migrated; and the other (15%) for those that had not yet migrated but were "Azimeen-i-Hijrat" (who had decided to migrate but were still in Hindustan).
> Karachi was the national capital city and Muhajirs were better poised to have access to the centralized system of resource allocation. Huge investments were done in Karachi. Most of the industrialists and owners of financial institutions were Muhajirs at that time. The bureaucratic structure running these institutions was also Muhajir dominated. Interestingly these Muhajir owners, industrialists, and bureaucrats also were members of Industrial Law Authority of Pakistan, which framed laws regarding issuing of industrial loans.
> Urdu and Muhajir Culture of UP was promoted as "Pakistani and Islamic Culture" and the rest were considered un-Islamic and anti-Pakistani languages/cultures. Those in services who couldn't or didn't speak Urdu well were considered disloyal to the state and were discriminated against in promotion and other economic opportunities. As Muhajir on the other hand practiced the "favored" Pakistani Culture (i.e. Urdu etc.), that benefited them economically and politically.
> Because of this undue importance to Urdu and UP Culture and their dominant position in economy, Muhajirs started considering themselves superior to natives, whom they considered uncouth and raw.
> Two-Nation Theory was also invented by Gen Sher Ali Khan, a Muhajir, in late 1970s, this to weaken local identities and native cultures and to firmly en-grass the concept of resource-acquisition based on merit in the system despite the fact that socio-economic development in Pakistan was very uneven and backward communities had to be given extra opportunities to pull them up to a reasonable level of development.
> I have found them very Muhajir-centric. When I was at Peshawar University, I met many Muhajir teachers who, despite life long career in the university and among Pakhtoons, had no respect for local culture and didn't like students to talk to each other in local languages. Against this, there were Gligitis, Punjabis, Baluchis, Sindhis, etc. who would easily mix with locals and would try to learn local languages. Interestingly, both Muhajirs and Punjabis migrated to Mardan (NWFP) but whereas Punjabis assimilated in the local culture, adopting Pashto as a language, Muhajirs didn't. Muhajirs sold their properties and migrated to Karachi. Same occurred in Kohat and Peshawar. Some Punjabis that have migrated to Malakand Division have developed harmony with the local culture. One guy has become a leader also and is popular among young people.
> It seems Pakistan doesn't have a native culture. The present Pakistani Culture with Urdu at its core doesn't truly reflect what Pakistan culturally is. This must be changed. One point that I notice in Muhajirs is that, because they are an exclusively urban community (dominating Karachi, Sakhar, Hyderabad leaving poor Sindhis with only one urban center i.e. Larkana), they cannot understand the worth and significance of rural values. True there may be a lot of bad things in rural outlook but there are a number of good points in rural values as well.
I am not against Muhajirs but they should understand that times are changed now. The native communities of Pakistan are waking up from their deep slumber by adopting modernization and soon they will be making demands regarding their share in economy and due recognition to their culture. So Muhajirs should stop being cultural/economic hegemon. They should improve relations with natives and should give bit of space and respect to the cultural sensitivities of native communities.
This opportunity-based-on merit is a misleading notion until I am also allotted some property left back by Hindus/Sikhs at the time of partition
************************************************** ***********
The critical mass of Punjabi population is in Pakistan while in India they are a small, insignificant minority. Being a minority, Indian Punjab cannot influence Pakistani Punjabis as much as Pakistani Punjabis can influence Indian Punjabis. Had the Punjabi language been allowed to flourish in Pakistan, cultural influences from Pakistani Punjab over Indian Punjab would have rather been more profound than vice versa? Moreover, as Pakistani Punjabis are in majority, Punjabi would have evolved independently and gone it own course than Punjabi in India. By preferring Urdu to Punjabi, you have culturally weakened Punjabis making them more vulnerable to cultural influences from across Wahga. Had they been allowed cultural creativity in their own Central-South Asian environment and Muslim civilizational context, they might probably have had solidified their distinct Central-South Asian Muslim Punjabi identity such as the Bengalis did in East Pakistan pre-1971.
(I think we are committing the gravest blunder by blocking /arresting cultural creativity in native languages and imposing Urdu-Hindi, we are making Pakistanis communities more vulnerable to the cultural/civilizational onslaught of Hindustan…this religion thing wouldn’t be effective for longer especially when the globalization and secularization trend would strengthen and further gain momentum.)
Punjabi is also native to Pakistan. True it is also native to India but in Hindustan, it doesn’t have that grand-scale influence as Urdu-Hindi has. It doesn’t symbolize Hindustan and its Civilization to the extent as Urdu-Hindi does. It doesn’t form the kind of stronger link/interface to India as Urdu-Hindi forms and its ability as a vehicle to spread Hindustani Cultural influences is limited. Most of the culture of Hindustan is not broadcasted through Punjabi or Sindhi but Urdu-Hindi.
Moreover, Punjabis have never demanded making it a national language of Pakistan. The same is true of Bengali, Sindhi, and Kashmiri, which are spoken by more people outside Hindustan than inside Hindustan, which are native to Kashmir, Sindh, and Bangla Desh, and which are not identified with Hindustani Civilization as Urdu-Hindi is, and which are not as much and as strong “carriers” for Hindustani cultural influences as Urdu-Hindi.
However, let us assume, and as the fact is, that Urdu-Hindi as well as Punjabi are spoken in Hindustan. Now is Punjabi the stronger link with Hindustan or Urdu? Which link should be cut first, the stronger or the weaker? The irony is, by suppressing the native Punjabi and retaining foreign Urdu-Hindi, the stronger link has further been strengthened. Either both links should be cut or the stronger link.
************************************************** *
Punjabi is a beautiful language just like other Pakistani languages. However, I don't think it will be a good idea as our national language. The reason is simply because we will still face the issue of one ethnic group's cultural domination on others, and the resentment by others because of that. Plus, we don't want to give another reason for the ethnic nationalists to complain about and label Pakistan as a true "Punjabistan". Simply put, its a recipe for disaster and possible insurgencies.
Dari/Farsi should be easy to replace Urdu because it has some commonality with it... plus historically was the official language in the region.
************************************************** *
I think the future World would be increasingly organized along civilizational lines.
Due to a number of factors including the nature of modern state/society, political and state patronage, modern means of communication, modern institutions and education, internal colonialism, movement of populations across porous borders, and consumerism/commercialism, the civilizations that have historical antiquity and cultural depth would further expand their zones of influence. Dominent civilizations would bring increasing number of tribal and rural communities under their fold.
One example would suffice to elaborate this point. A Pashto T.V. Channel was launched a year ago. It started looking for advertisement but faced tremendous difficulties because companies considered Pashto a local language and Urdu understandable by Pashtuns. Obviously, if there is a lingua franca, why should companies spend on advertising in "local languages"!
Bollywood is producing films in Urindi (Urdu-Hindi) because the vast market from Khyber to Dhaka (Dacca) enhances the profit margin for their products significantly.
Multinationals and national companies also tend to prefer languages patronized by state and state elite to secure favour and to gain access to market and resources. Consequently, local artists get less for their creative effort.
Coming back to the point, Gangetic plain was the bastion of Hindustani civilization. And the territories to the north were either the invasion routes for Central Asian hordes or transit places where they camped. Gagetic plain was a sort of final home/destination for these hordes where they got passively assimilated, vanishing forever, in the wider Hindustani society, like an element submerges into a compound or a river drains into an ocean.
In my opinion Hindustani identity is more mythical than other north-western identities because the core of this identity sprung from a more stable and broader ecological base (i.e. Gangetic plain) and comparatively in more ancient times. Owing to this stability, civilizational continuity in Gangetic plain remained intact like the flow of a perennial ocean/river whereas in the northwestern territories, it was disrupted again and again by the invaders (like a seasonal torrent which flows only for a while).
In the northern territories, on the other hand, the invaders actively participated in the formation of juvenile ethnicities e.g. Baluchi, Sindhi, Punjabi, and Pashtun etc. In terms of Chemistry, these ethnicities are like solutions/mixtures with distinct complexion but retaining the characteristics of their constituents. And due to geographical proximity with Gangetic plains on one side and Central Asia the other, they borrowed influences from both sides. They are truly swing communities that can go one way or the other depending on the priorities of the state of which they are a part as well as the thrust of their neighboring civilizations on them.
As for Gangetic plain is concerned, the influence of its civilization has increased on these northwestern communities during the last one-and-half century, thanks the colonialist policies of the British Raj and the ever-increasing modernization trend. The presence of Urdu-speakers in Karachi and their emphasis on Urdu as the language of communication has further accelerated the diffusion of Hindustani cultural influences into the northwest.
The successor states of the British Raj i.e. Pakistan and India have retained the same policy regarding language issue as British Raj, although each has put a varying degree of explicit or implicit emphasis on religion to "assert" its distinct identity, more so true of Pakistan. But it is a fact that the influence of Central Asia/Persia on these "swing" communities has largely vanished making them vulnerable to the gravitational pull of Hindustani civilization. Today, a member of these communities finds it more convenient to communicate with a Hindustani than with a "co-religioust” from the north or the west.
Overall Hindustani civilizational influence is on the rise, expanding northwest to integrate the Dards, Punjabis, Sindhis, Siraikis, Pashtuns, and Baluchis into its mold.
Would religion be able to repel this tide?
Religion has not been so far and it is least likely to be in future. It would be a mistake to think that religion would have any big role to play, except in the limited social-personal life, in the future global world, where individuals, with divergent views on broader matters of life, would have to increasingly interact.. Religious assertion has been a destabilizing factor historically and it is so more in the Central-South Asian context, threatening the very existence of the societies involved and doomening their future as normally functioning societal units.
A more rational paradigm would have to be sought with religion forming a part of the overall culture but not directing the political or social process to a dangerous degree. Probably, a civilizational approach centered on history, regional lingua-franca, ethnicity, geographical proximity, etc. would have to be adopted in order to have a sense of broader identity as well as retain distinct sub cultural individuality. Religious approach is anachronistic, impracticable, irrational, and destructive.
So what destiny lies ahead the "swing communities"?
Especially if the Hindustani Civilization is allowed to expand farther north, what would be the consequences? More interesting is the question what would be its farther limits in the northwest?
Well the limit could be Indus, Khyber, or less likely Hindukush but one thing is certain that it wouldn't spread beyond Indus or Khyber or Hinudkush because these points define the southeastern extremities of Persian-Turkian World.
The options for the "swing communities" are many! For example to east-south is the Hindustani Civilization, in the north-West is the Persian or Perso-Turkik Civilization; in the north-east is Sinic Civilization; and towards the south-west across Indus Ocean, is the Arab Civilization. No civilization is inherently good or bad but in the coming world, isolated societies based on ethnicity and local culture wouldn't be viable/feasible units for survival; probably, they would have to align themselves with one of the existing civilizations.
It is for Pakistani political and intellectual elite to decide which way to go but one thing is almost certain that systems and societies based on religious identities wouldn't be viable in the future world. Sinic Civilization could not be a choice neither Arab Civilization could be because of a number of factors. The choices could only be Perso-Turkik (A greater Central Asia) or Hindustani Civilizations (a greater South Asia).
Following approach could be adopted to align with the Central Asian World:
1. For the short run, make Urdu, along with English, only a language of education and communication, not to be promoted as a national language or an official language.
2. Put more and more emphasis on English in official work and education for societies of Pakistan and its communities.
3. At the same time, make it compulsory for a Pakistani to learn one native language other than mother his/her mother tongue i.e. either Punjabi, or Pashto, or Sindhi, or Siraiki, or Baluchi or Kashmiri or Brahui, or Pothowari.
4. On media, give more and more coverage to native languages.
5. At the same time introduce Dari on media and in education.
(Personally, I think transition to Dari or any other lingua-franca would be via English i.e. Urdu-to-English and then from English to Dari etc.)
Hopefully, the above measures would significantly erode the influence of Urdu-Hindi. Then apply direct measures i.e. introduce Dari at mass-scale. Alongside, take the following measures:
6. Rewrite history books, emphasizing geographic, ethnic, and cultural ties, Ghandhara and Indus civilisations, and Central-South Asian cultural herita