<div dir="ltr"><h1 itemprop="headline">Supreme Court’s Urdu verdict: No language can be imposed from above</h1>
<blockquote>
<p itemprop="alternativeHeadline">The
Court has sadly overreached and ventured into the domain of executive.
But that is not the only issue with the apex Court’s decision
</p>
</blockquote>
<div class="">
<div class="">September 15, 2015, 6:01 pm
</div>
<div class="">SHARE :
</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<img itemprop="image" title="" src="http://nation.com.pk/digital_images/large/2015-09-15/supreme-court-s-urdu-verdict-no-language-can-be-imposed-from-above-1442322002-1513.png" alt="">
</div>
<div class="">
<a href="http://nation.com.pk/Blogger/ummar-ziauddin2">
</a>
<h5><a href="http://nation.com.pk/Blogger/ummar-ziauddin2">Ummar Ziauddin</a></h5>
<div id="floater">
<div id="sharebar" class="">
<div style="padding:10px 0px 10px 15px">
</div>
<div style="padding:5px 0px 10px 13px">
</div>
<div style="padding:5px 0px 10px 13px">
</div>
<div style="padding:5px 0px 10px 10px">
<span class="" style="line-height:1;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline-block;text-align:center"><span style="padding:0px!important;margin:0px!important;text-indent:0px!important;display:inline-block!important;vertical-align:baseline!important;font-size:1px!important"><span id="li_ui_li_gen_1442418641251_0"><span id="li_ui_li_gen_1442418641251_0-logo"></span><span id="li_ui_li_gen_1442418641251_0-title"><span id="li_ui_li_gen_1442418641251_0-title-text"><br></span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="" itemprop="description">
<p>The recent Supreme Court decision in
Constitution petition No.56 of 2003 has triggered debate on the language
issue afresh. The decision aims to implement Article 251 of the
Constitution that provides for, inter alia, arrangements to be made for
Urdu to be used for official and other purposes. The Court has sadly
overreached and ventured into the domain of executive. But that is not
the only issue with the apex Court’s decision. </p>
<p>The Court opined that due to “non- implementation of this provision
[Article 251] a societal and linguistic divide has been created in
society…” This view is not tenable given the linguistic history of the
country. Pakistani state has been criticised in the past for its policy
of “Urdu Imperialism” by the dissidents. After independence, Urdu was
perceived as the language of “Mohajirs” and preferred language of
educated Punjabi elite who at the time controlled the power politics
from western egg. The implementation of it as national language was
strongly resisted by Bengali intelligentsia. They started a popular
movement called the Bhasha Ondolan which gained significant momentum by
1952. The state eventually had to cave in and it made Bengali the
national language alongside Urdu (from 1955 to 1971). Later on, similar
but less driven reaction came from Sindhi nationals. In the seventies,
language riots took place in Sindh in January 1971 and July 1972. It
should have been appreciated by the Court that “linguistic divide” and
“classe[s]” are created only when one language alone is promoted to the
exclusion of others. This inevitably results in marginalisation of
communities who are not in dominant position and resist the state
measure associating their native language with their identity. </p>
<p>Pakistan is a heterogeneous society that is home to multiple
languages. Urdu is the mother tongue of only about 7.57% of the
population today. Apart from major languages like Punjabi, Pashto,
Sindhi, Saraiki and Balochi; there are 55 other languages spoken in the
country. The Court is right to emphasise: “Empirical studies throughout
the world (including those by UNESCO) advocate the use of a child’s
native language in instruction since this is the language the child
grows up with and which is in use in his home and around him.” In
Pakistani context, the native language of a vast majority is not Urdu.
Instead of taking a simplistic view that Urdu language would have “real
practical implications for the Pakistani public” as it will optimise
human and financial resources, the Court should have deferred to
executive discretion in creating pluralistic culture in the society that
seeks to abolishing the divide created by state’s language policies. At
most, the Court should have restricted itself to the principle that
lower classes ought to have access to what is available to the elites in
knowledge-acquisition. </p>
<p>Language grows on the creation of larger community. English has that
community. An estimated quarter of mankind is familiar with it. It has
emerged as the language of wider inter-cultural communication and has
more linguistic capital than any of the other languages in the global
context. As corollary of globalisation, English has been
de-imperialised. And non- English speaking world has played a pivotal
part in this. It does not belong to English speaking world anymore. Even
in a country like Pakistan, English language is no more an elitist
preserve. It offers opportunities to middle classes to get lucrative
employment both in the public and private sectors. Given the liberal
trends of globalisation, as the country wrestles to integrate in the
world economy, English would only foster its linguistic capital. Why
should people develop their skills in English language today? Simply for
pragmatic reasons. The state should allow markets conditions to
influence the choice of people. At the same time, it should make efforts
to popularise all major languages, including Urdu, to a degree that no
language is perceived to be superior to any other language. This would
diminish the apparent linguistic and class divide in the country. </p>
<p>No language can be imposed from above. Languages don’t need elites
and their decrees for survival and popularity. They need social
conditions to thrive. The voluntary shift to opt for a certain language
is only succeeded by the enabling environment. It has to be made popular
through culture. Hebrew was revived after it had extinguished. Great
efforts were made to popularise the historic language before it served
as the binding force for modern Israel. By no account a dying language,
Urdu can be further popularised too through literature, songs, poetry,
theatre and cinema etc before any strict time frames are given for its
usage for official and other purposes. And that was the intention of the
framers behind Article 251 of the Constitution. In this regard language
policies, a sole discretion of executive, can be formulated as they
have been around the world. For instance, the Court could have cited the
works of leading linguist Dr Tariq Rehman, Khaled Ahmed and Sahiba
Mansoor –to name a few, instead of relying on the letter of 1981 by the
National Language Promotion Department as possible state policy. Judges
are not trained to draft policies and every time, they overstep into the
domain of executive, despite noble intentions, they cause chaos. </p>
<p><strong><br>End piece: </strong></p>
<p>In Pakistan Urdu has been the official carrier of the reductionist
and regressive ideology of the state. After partition, the state
progressively removed Hindi words from Urdu language apparently to
purify it. With time large number of official discourses have been
disseminated and distributed in Urdu to spread schizophrenic worldview.
Languages don’t just reflect social realties; they also construct them.
Any effort to popularise the language today must also deconstruct its
unwarranted ideological baggage. </p> <a href="http://nation.com.pk/blogs/15-Sep-2015/supreme-court-s-urdu-verdict-no-language-can-be-imposed-from-above">http://nation.com.pk/blogs/15-Sep-2015/supreme-court-s-urdu-verdict-no-language-can-be-imposed-from-above</a><br></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">**************************************<br>N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to its members<br>and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner or sponsor of the list as to the veracity of a message's contents. Members who disagree with a message are encouraged to post a rebuttal, and to write directly to the original sender of any offensive message. A copy of this may be forwarded to this list as well. (H. Schiffman, Moderator)<br><br>For more information about the lgpolicy-list, go to <a href="https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/" target="_blank">https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/</a><br>listinfo/lgpolicy-list<br>*******************************************</div>
</div>