Pakistan: War of Words

[Harold Schiffman]

War of words



Arfa Mirza


The UN General Assembly has declared 2008 as the 'International Year
of Languages'. Language issues are central to the UNESCO's mandate in
education, science, social and human sciences, culture, communication
and information. The UNESCO invites governments, civil society
organisations, educational institutes, professional associations and
all other stakeholders to celebrate the International Year of
Languages. The main purpose of all the activity is to protect all
languages, particularly endangered languages, in all individual and
collective contexts.

Pakistan is a multilingual country. While multilingualism is not
denied, though the 1981 census contained not a single question on
language, the state denies the multinationality thesis endorsed by
ethno-nationalist leaders. The thesis argues that there are four main
nationalities in Pakistan: the Punjabi, Sindhi, Pakhtun, and Baloch
(Bangladesh, former East Pakistan, has been left out here). To this
list, Siraiki was added in the 1960s. The official point of view is
that there is one Pakistani nation united by the bonds of Islam and
the national language, Urdu.

However, Urdu is the native language of only seven percent of the
country's population. Urdu's imposition has caused 'language riots'
since the establishment of Pakistan, and language-focused unrest was
at the centre of struggles that resulted in the formation of East
Pakistan into Bangladesh in 1971. Other struggles about language
policy have continued since that time, especially with respect to the
role of Sindhi language.

As Alyssa Ayres points out in the article, 'The politics of language
policy in Pakistan', "Conflicts over language identity are not merely
about language: They are intertwined with struggles over power and
access to it. The vast majority of Pakistan's rulers and policymakers
have been Punjabi and Mohajirs (settlers), while the military has been
ruled by a Punjabi-Mohajir-Pathan nexus. The story of Pakistan's
Sindhi language movement (and language riots) parallels that of the
Bengali language movement from partition in 1947 through Benazir
Bhutto's first regime (1988-90). During Benazir Bhutto's first term in
office, tension between Karachi's numerous ethnic groups exploded.
Sindhi, like Bengali, enjoyed regional hegemony throughout the time of
the British Raj. It has a literature and a widespread presence both
colloquially and administratively. Sindh had been a separate province
during the Raj. This was due in part to the Sindhi language movement
of the 1930s, which had resulted in Sindh separating from the Bombay
presidency in 1936. This institutionalisation of a Sindhi ethnic
identity linked directly to language was therefore in place even
before 1947. Partition would trigger Sindhi ethnic mobilisation for
two reasons: cultural insensitivity and economic subjugation."

The privileging of Urdu by the state has created ethnic opposition to
it. However, as people learn languages for pragmatic reasons, they are
giving less importance to their heritage languages and are learning
Urdu. It is observed that a powerful majority in Pakistan does not
want to teach their heritage language to their children because they
think that would be overburdening the children with far too many
languages. For instance, Sahibzada Abdul Qayyum Khan reported in 1932
that Pashtuns wanted their children to be instructed in Urdu rather
than Pashto. Even in 2003, the MMA government chose Urdu, not Pashto,
as the language of the domains of power, including education in NWFP.
The same phenomenon was noticed in Balochistan.

Perhaps the most important result of resistance to Urdu has increased
the importance of English. A relatively worse situation has been
observed regarding the language or lingo-style of few big political
leaders of Pakistan. Benazir Bhutto's Urdu was notoriously poor
"Benazir's poor Urdu inspires many a joke" a headline claimed in
Express India and Pervez Musharraf's Urdu is apparently also often
criticised, though Urdu is his native tongue.

The state's use of Urdu as a symbol of national integration has had
two consequences. First, it has made Urdu the obvious force to be
resisted by ethnic groups. This resistance makes them strengthen their
languages by corpus planning, i.e. writing books, dictionaries,
grammars, orthographies, etc., and acquisition planning, i.e. teaching
languages, using them in the media, pressurising the state to use
them. Secondly, it has jeopardised additive multilingualism as
recommended by UNESCO. As Urdu spreads through schooling, media and
urbanisation, pragmatic pressures make other Pakistani languages
retreat. In short, the consequence of privileging Urdu strengthens
ethnicity while, at the same time and oddly enough, threatens
linguistic and cultural diversity in the country.

The writer is a freelance columnist

 http://thepost.com.pk/OpinionNews.aspx?dtlid=146620&catid=11

-- 
**************************************
N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to
its members
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. (H. Schiffman, Moderator)
*******************************************