<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=us-ascii" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18928"></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=687263414-19042011><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>The "Zaidi" quoted in the bibliography is not
me.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=687263414-19042011><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>Abbas Zaidi</FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT size=2 face=Tahoma><B>From:</B> lgpolicy-list-bounces@groups.sas.upenn.edu
[mailto:lgpolicy-list-bounces@groups.sas.upenn.edu] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Harold
Schiffman<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, April 18, 2011 11:46 PM<BR><B>To:</B>
lp<BR><B>Subject:</B> [lg policy] Language Policy and Planning in
Pakistan<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>All,<BR><BR>I recently discovered this message in the "sent mail"
area of<BR>the lgpolicy-list's gmail account, which looks like I am
claiming<BR>to be the author. I am not. The author is Ibrar Bhatt,
which<BR>I found at his blogspot: p<A
href="http://holisticeducator.blogspot.com/2008/08/language-policy-and-planning-in.html"
target=_blank>http://holisticeducator.blogspot.com/2008/08/language-policy-and-planning-in.html</A><BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>I originally Forwarded this message to the list on Sun,
Aug 31, 2008 at 7:49 AM<BR><BR>Language Policy and Planning in Pakistan<BR>To:
lp <<A
href="mailto:lgpolicy-list@ccat.sas.upenn.edu">lgpolicy-list@ccat.sas.upenn.edu</A>><BR><BR><BR>"Language
Policy and Planning in Pakistan<BR><BR>As a kind of follow up to the
code-switching work, I [Ibrar Bhatt] have written this<BR>brief piece on
Language Policy and Planning in Pakistan.<BR><BR>When Mohammed Ali Jinnah (the
founder of Pakistan and its first<BR>Governor-General) declared Urdu as the
national language of Pakistan,<BR>only 7.5% of the people in the West of the
country, and a mere 0.5% of<BR>those in the East, knew it as a first language
(Weinstein, 1983; as<BR>cited by Powell, 2002: 241). Nevertheless Urdu, already
the usual<BR>medium of instruction in Panjab, North West Frontier, Balochistan
and<BR>Kashmir, was decreed a compulsory subject in all government
schools.<BR><BR>The diglossic situation in Pakistan consisted of disparate
language<BR>communities each of which preferred its vernacular. These
varieties<BR>included Sindhi, which had played a significant official role
since<BR>the province was annexed by the British in the 1850s; and
Saraiki,<BR>which is spoken around the southern Panjab region. Altogether
there<BR>are 58 of these communities in Pakistan (Rahman, 2004: 1). Each
of<BR>these communities challenged (and since have challenged) the
official<BR>language planning policy since Pakstan's conception resulting
in<BR>so-called "language riots" in January 1971 and July 1972 (Ahmed,
1992;<BR>as cited by Rahman, 2004: 4). The greatest opposition, however,
came<BR>from East Pakistan, present day Bangldesh. Due to independence
the<BR>Bengalis seemed to support Urdu as a symbol of Muslim nationalism,
but<BR>afterwards found themselves geographically isolated from
the<BR>government (which was based in the western half of the country),
and<BR>culturally marginalised despite comprising 54% of the
population<BR>(Rahman, 1999; as cited by Powell, 2002: 241). Rahman (1999)
describes<BR>the policy of language planning in Pakistan as one which used Urdu
to<BR>contain regionalism and English to check Islamisation (ibid:
242).<BR><BR>Powell (2002: 242) writes: "A 1958 National Education Commission
under<BR>Ayub Khan's military regime (1958-69) urged the promotion of
unity<BR>through Urdu, but since the civil and military bureaucracies
were<BR>English-educated and in favour of social modernisation, they sent
out<BR>mixed messages."<BR><BR>Eventually, under Zia-ul-Haq (1977-88), the
National Education Policy<BR>of 1979 phased out English-medium instruction
everywhere, only to be<BR>replaced entirely by Urdu-medium or vernacular-medium.
This was offset<BR>by the policies of the later Bhutto government which
supported more<BR>English. Hence, the socioeconomic hierarchy of language
remained; with<BR>English at the top, Urdu next, and the regional languages
below these.<BR>According to Rahman (2005: 1), Muslims in South Asia
(including<BR>Pakistanis) have responded to English in three ways: (a) rejection
and<BR>resistance, (b) acceptance and assimilation, and (c)
pragmatic<BR>utilisation.<BR><BR>This has since been the case in Pakistan and,
indeed, in South Asia as<BR>whole. English is the expensive product to which the
elite have<BR>access, and as such plays a major role in the construction
of<BR>pro-Western secular identities; its snob value makes it a class
marker<BR>and symbol of polarisation of a society. Rahman (1998; as cited
by<BR>Powell 242) describes the 'double-speak' of Pakistani elites who
would<BR>utilise English for their own benefit while promoting Urdu for
the<BR>nation; and bureaucrats and politicians who speak up for Urdu
in<BR>public but make sure in private that their children learn English<BR>(even
General Zia, according to anecdote).<BR><BR>Consequently, Urdu state education
has such low esteem that there has<BR>been a huge expansion in private
education, nearly all of it<BR>English-medium. This provides a way for some to
join the existing<BR>elite, leaving the poorly educated without sufficient
proficiency in<BR>the language most highly valued by both the civilian and the
military<BR>bureaucracies. In short, English has remained a language for the
elite<BR>in order to perpetuate their hegemony.<BR><BR>References:<BR><BR>Ahmed,
F. (1992), 'The Language Question in Sindh' in Zaidi, [page
unkown]<BR><BR>Rahman, T. (2005), The Muslim Response to English in South Asia:
With<BR>Special Reference to Inequality, Intolerance, and Militancy
in<BR>Pakistan, Journal of Language Identity & Education, 4:2,
119-135.<BR><BR>Powell, R. (2002), Language planning and the British empire:
Comparing Pakistan,<BR>Malaysia and Kenya, Current Issues in Language Planning,
3:3, 205–79.<BR><BR>Rahman, T. (1999), Language and Culture in Education,
Karachi: OUP<BR><BR>Rahman, T. (2004), Language Policy and Localization in
Pakistan:<BR>Proposal for a Paradigmatic Shift, Crossing the Digital Divide,
SCALLA<BR>Conference on Computational Linguistics, 5:7, January.
[Available<BR>online <A href="http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/P/P06/P06-1143.pdf"
target=_blank>http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/P/P06/P06-1143.pdf</A>]<BR><BR>Weinstein,
B. (1983), The Civil Tongue: The Political Consequences of<BR>Language Choices,
New York: Longman.<BR><BR>Zaidi, S.A (1992), Regional Imbalances and the
National Question in<BR>Pakistan, Lahore: Vanguard Books.<BR><BR><A
href="http://holisticeducator.blogspot.com/2008/08/language-policy-and-planning-in.html"
target=_blank>http://holisticeducator.blogspot.com/2008/08/language-policy-and-planning-in.html</A><BR><BR>--<BR>**************************************<BR>N.b.:
Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to<BR>its
members<BR>and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the
owner<BR>or sponsor of<BR>the list as to the veracity of a message's contents.
Members who<BR>disagree with a<BR>message are encouraged to post a rebuttal. (H.
Schiffman,
Moderator)<BR>*******************************************<BR><BR></DIV><BR><BR
clear=all><BR>-- <BR>=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+<BR><BR> Harold F.
Schiffman<BR><BR>Professor Emeritus of <BR> Dravidian Linguistics and
Culture <BR>Dept. of South Asia Studies
<BR>University of
Pennsylvania<BR>Philadelphia, PA 19104-6305<BR><BR>Phone: (215)
898-7475<BR>Fax: (215) 573-2138
<BR><BR>Email: <A
href="mailto:haroldfs@gmail.com">haroldfs@gmail.com</A><BR><A
href="http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/">http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/</A>
<BR><BR>-------------------------------------------------<BR></BODY></HTML>