Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Changing Pakistan's national language?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Changing Pakistan's national language?

    http://www.geocities.com/paklanguage/

    #2
    Re: Changing Pakistan's national language?

    Various opinions: http://www.geocities.com/paklanguage/opinion.html

    Comment


      #3
      Re: Changing Pakistan's national language?

      Please include your views and share them here, lone links dont do much good for a thread or discussion. thanks!

      Comment


        #4
        Re: Changing Pakistan's national language?

        Should Urdu continue as our National Language?

        Language is the most important aspect of culture. It is the dominant feature in determining nationality or ethnicity. It is the binding force that unites a people, and makes them distinct from others. Language represents a people’s heritage and identity. However, the imposition of Urdu as the national language of Pakistan has been disastrous to the country.

        Urdu language evolved during the declining period of Muslim rule in South Asia. But Persian (Farsi) always remained the official language of South Asia during the Muslim rule. 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. 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. 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 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.

        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 English occupation of India 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 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, 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 Pakistan.

        Since north India (Delhi, UP, etc.) was the base of Muslim and British empires, the Urdu-speaking north Indian Muslims had an environmental advantage in better education, jobs, and businesses. The result being that the Urdu-speaking north Indian Muslims dominated in 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 descendents, 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. There were language riots in Sindh during the 70s. 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 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.

        National language is suppose to unite a country, but in Pakistan, Urdu as the national language has caused division and resentment among most Pakistanis. 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 India. And with this linguistic imperialism, also comes other aspects of cultural invasion. For example, north Indian music/TV/film dominates in Pakistan, whereas native Pakistani music/film/TV is largely ignored by the Urdu dominated media.

        We Pakistanis are grateful to Quaid-e-Azam for his efforts in the creation of 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. Criticizing 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. This will ensure the preservation of our 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!

        Comment


          #5
          Re: Changing Pakistan's national language?

          Urdu is only the mother-tongue of a ethnic minority (Muhajir) in Pakistan and is seen as cultural domination of one ethnic group over the others. But even worse, it is dangerously destroying the distinct identity of Pakistanis, constantly inviting Indian cultural invasion (since India's dominant Hindi language is the same language as Urdu minus the script) from India, resulting in the "Indianization" process of Pakistanis. Urdu has no basis in Pakistan region prior to 1947 when it was imposed as the national language. Urdu/Hindi language belonging to only UP, MP, Bihar, Delhi, etc. regions was first promoted and developed by the British colonialists as an instrument in their efforts for creating the imperial "Indian" empire/identity.

          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).

          So let us undo what the British colonialists had started.. by rejecting this bitter and brief British legacy... and "de-Indianizing" ourselves... reverting back to our natural independent/distinct status.

          Comment


            #6
            Re: Changing Pakistan's national language?

            Arabic

            Comment


              #7
              Re: Changing Pakistan's national language?

              Originally posted by Pakistan4ever
              So let us undo what the British colonialists had started.. by rejecting this bitter and brief British legacy... and "de-Indianizing" ourselves... reverting back to our natural independent/distinct status.
              how are you going to change your blood and dna? what's coursing in your and your forefathers bodies are good old Hindu blood ....you will never be anything other than that! you will never be an arab...human or camel!

              Comment


                #8
                Re: Changing Pakistan's national language?

                Since u hv written in such great detail, there are many aspects which can be discussed. But, lets get some factual errors out of the way.

                1. Language riots in Sindh were not because Urdu was being imposed, it was the other way around. Bhutto's PPP Govt made Sindhi the official language of the Province, rightfully so, but without taking into consideration the sensitivities of urdu speaking population of Karachi and Hyderabad.
                2. East Pakistan was not lost because Urdu was imposed, Bengalis left us cause we did not honor them as equal citizens, period. General misgiving Bengalis had was with the Poonjaabi (Bengali accent) leadership, not the muhajirs.
                3. Urdu was born during the Mughal empire, your slanted aspersion that it was born during the decline is weak and opportunistic statement.
                4. Your 7% ratio ignores and dishonors the contributions of the great poets and writers from Punjab, Sarhad. Allama Iqbal, Faiz Ahmed Faiz, Ahmed Faraz, Ahmed Nadeem Qasmi, Ibn Insha etc etc. List is much longer and real than implied.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Re: Changing Pakistan's national language?

                  Originally posted by fartguru
                  Since u hv written in such great detail, there are many aspects which can be discussed. But, lets get some factual errors out of the way.

                  1. Language riots in Sindh were not because Urdu was being imposed, it was the other way around. Bhutto's PPP Govt made Sindhi the official language of the Province, rightfully so, but without taking into consideration the sensitivities of urdu speaking population of Karachi and Hyderabad.
                  2. East Pakistan was not lost because Urdu was imposed, Bengalis left us cause we did not honor them as equal citizens, period. General misgiving Bengalis had was with the Poonjaabi (Bengali accent) leadership, not the muhajirs.
                  3. Urdu was born during the Mughal empire, your slanted aspersion that it was born during the decline is weak and opportunistic statement.
                  4. Your 7% ratio ignores and dishonors the contributions of the great poets and writers from Punjab, Sarhad. Allama Iqbal, Faiz Ahmed Faiz, Ahmed Faraz, Ahmed Nadeem Qasmi, Ibn Insha etc etc. List is much longer and real than implied.
                  fartguru bhai they wont understand....naam pakistani4ever rekhliya magar national language khatam karwaaney ko hein...these people dont know that one of the main factors of creation of pakistan is related to urdu...
                  ....
                  It was Sir Syed Ahmed Khan who predicted to Commissioner Shakespeare, at the fin de siecle, when the Urdu Hindi controversy first emerged in the United Provinces, that this divide would lead to two nations. In his address to the 1930 session of the All India Muslim League, Allama Iqbal spoke about a separate state as the final destiny of the Muslims at least of north India.

                  It is no longer a secret that Jinnah authorized Suhrawardy, the Muslim Premier, to try for an independent undivided Bengal. As independence approached, the Hindi-Urdu controversy reached its climax at the 1936 session of the All-India Congress at Nagpur which declared that Hindi or Hindustani would be the state language of an independent India. A very good account of this event and the reaction of progressive Muslim writers is contained in Dr Akhtar Hussain Raipur's autobiography. In an oft-quoted statement Jinnah emphasized the linguistic and cultural differences which were the ingredients of the two-nation theory. It is a fallacy that this misunderstood theory rested upon religion alone.Jinnah was aware that linguistic linkage is the bedrock of a modern state. It was this recognition that made him declare "Urdu, and Urdu alone will be the national language of Pakistan." Urdu was not his mother tongue. There is no evidence that he was fond of quoting Mir or Sauda. We all know about the tastes and preferences of a singularly modern man. Jinnah understood that Pakistan was the cradle of the Muslim civilization of India and Urdu the essence of the one-thousand year Muslim rule of India.

                  Urdu as a written language is on the verge of extinction in India. Osmania University in Hyderabad State was probably the first university to introduce Urdu as a medium of instruction. A former student of Osmania University recently visited his alma mater and was shocked to discover that the children of his class fellows, Muslims included, did not know how to read or write Urdu. The same applies to the Muslim youth of Delhi and Lucknow.

                  A sea change has taken place in the last half century. Lahore, Karachi, Peshawar and Quetta are the new centres of the Urdu renaissance. The poems of Faiz are the emblem of this half century of adversity. As Faiz predicted, a refreshed and revitalized Urdu would emerge from the pluralism of the Indus Valley the symbol of unity within the diversity of Pakistan. Today, the most popular living Urdu poet hails from Peshawar.

                  ...
                  http://www.hvk.org/articles/1000/50.html

                  I am deeply dissapointed that now pakistanis want to change the language of pakistan...what is going to happen next? make four countries so that each province can have their own language?
                  Oh, everything's too damned expensive these days. This Bible cost 15 bucks! And talk about a preachy book! Everybody's a sinner! Except this guy.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Re: Changing Pakistan's national language?

                    Originally posted by Atlantis
                    how are you going to change your blood and dna? what's coursing in your and your forefathers bodies are good old Hindu blood ....you will never be anything other than that! you will never be an arab...human or camel!
                    "Hindu" is not a race! The issue of race is a whole different topic, and even then Pakistanis "by large" are racially distinct from Indian Hindus. Any way, just because a Caucasoid Turk might have racial commonality with a Caucasoid Irishman, it does not mean they are the same people... far from it. On the issue of religion of Pakistani ancestors:

                    • Before the advent of Islam, the majority of people in the region of Pakistan practised Buddhism, Zoroastrianism (and its derivatives like Mithraism, Saurism, Manichaeism, etc.), Animism (nature worship), Paganism (Hellenic and other deities), and Shamanism. Harappans ate beef, buried their dead, had no Hindu temples/idols/deities, etc. RigVedic Aryans forbade idolatry, ate beef, sacrificed cows, had no caste system, were culturally closer to ancient Iranians, etc. Under Persian rule, Zoroastrianism started to spread. Similarly, Greek Paganism (Hellenism) spread under the Greeks. Ashoka brought Buddhism, which was later also propagated along with Zoroastrianism, Animism, Shamanism, Hellenism, etc.under the Bactrians, Sakas/Scythians, Parthians, and Kushans for many centuries. Hephthalites/White Huns were not very fond of Buddhism, but it still remained popular among the masses. Brahmanists and Shaivites were a minority in Pakistan. Kafirs of Kalasha, the only people in Pakistan who have retained their ancient religion are an example of the non-Hindu religions practised by the ancestors of Pakistanis. Gangetic holy Hindu texts call Pakistan region as outlandish, sinful, outcaste, mlechas, etc.The pre-Muslim ancestors of most Pakistanis never called themselves Hindu nor practised any religion similar to present-day Hinduism.Thus, the pre-Muslim ancestors of most Pakistanis had nothing to do with Hinduism.

                    • The word/term “Hindu/Hinduism” is a recent construct. It were the Muslim invaders who for the first time in history imposed the foreign term “Hindu” in South Asia to the countless distinct local religions. The term “Hinduism” was given by the British colonialists. Not a single pre-Muslim/British era Brahman, Buddhist, Jain, or any other South Asian scripture/inscription mentions the word “Hindu/Hinduism”. Similarly, “Sanata Dharma” was a term invented in the 19th century AD by Brahmanist scholars in their desperate attempt to replace the Muslim/British term “Hindu/Hinduism”. Such terms are artificial in nature because of its origins and meanings. Just because we call all Europeans or their descendents as “Goras” it does not make them one people as they have many racial, religious, linguistic, cultural, and historical differences. By the same token, if the Ghorid Muslim invaders imposed the foreign word/term “Hindu” on the non-Muslim peoples of south Asia it does not mean that they were one people since there were/are countless different religions, cultures, histories, languages, and races in south Asia. Besides, by the time of Ghorid invasions (12th century AD), Pakistan region was already mostly Muslim. Most of Pakistan region was a part of Arab empires previously and Arabs called them as Sindhis. So the Ghorid imposition of the artificial term Hindu was mostly for present day north India for their ruled non-Muslim subjects. The bottomline is Pakistanis were not Hindus because they never called themselves Hindu nor practised Hinduism.

                    • A significant minority of Pakistanis are descendents of Arab, Iranian, Turkic, Mughal and Afghan invaders/migrants, who just like the rest of the ancestors of Pakistanis were Zoroastrians, Animists, Pagans, Shamanists, and Buddhists before Islam. It was mostly due to Islamic Sufism that the ancestors of Pakistanis converted en masse to Islam.


                    Pakistan from 3000 BC to the present:


                    1. Indus Valley Civilization: 3000-1500 B.C. i.e. about 1500 yrs. Independent, separate from India.

                    2. Aryan period: 1500-522 B.C. i.e. about 978 yrs. Independent, separate from India.

                    3. Small semi-independent states: 522-326 B.C. i.e. about 196 yrs. Under the suzerainty of Iran's Kayani (Achaemenian) Empire.

                    4. Conquered by Alexander and remained under his successor: 326-300 B.C. i.e. about 26 yrs. Under Greek rulers, not part of India.

                    5. Province of Mauryan Empire which included Afghanistan: 300-200 B.C. i.e. about 100 yrs. Part of India, mostly Buddhist rule.

                    6. Graeco-Bactrian period: 200-100 B.C. i.e. about 100 yrs. Independent, not part of India.

                    7. Saka-Parthian period: 100 B.C.- 70 A.D. i.e. about 170 yrs. Independent, separate from India.

                    8. Kushan rule (1st phase): 70-250 A.D. i.e. about 180 yrs. Pakistan-based kingdom ruled over major portion of north India.

                    9. Kushan rule (2nd phase): 250-450 A.D. i.e. about 200 yrs. Independent, separate from India.

                    10. White Huns and allied tribes (1st phase): 450-650 A.D. i.e. about 200 yrs. Pakistan-based kingdoms ruled over parts of north India.

                    11. White Huns (2nd phase--- mixed with other races): 650-1010 A.D. i.e. about 360 yrs. Independent Rajput-Brahmin Kingdoms, not part of India.

                    12. Ghaznavids: 1010-1187 A.D. i.e. 177 yrs. Part of Ghaznavid empire, separate from India.

                    13. Ghorid and Qubacha periods: 1187-1227 A.D. i.e. about 40 yrs. Independent, not part of India.

                    14. Muslim period (Slave dynasty, Khiljis, Tughlaqs, Syeds, Lodhis, Suris and Mughals): 1227-1739 A.D. i.e. about 512 yrs. Under north India based MUSLIM govts.

                    15. Nadir Shah and Abdali periods: 1739-1800 A.D. i.e. about 61 yrs. Iranian and Afghan suzerainty, not part of India.

                    16. Sikh rule (in Punjab, NWFP and Kashmir), Talpur rule in Sind, Khanate of Kalat in Baluchistan: 1800-1848 A.D. i.e. about 48 yrs. Independent states, not part of India.

                    17. British rule: 1848-1947 A.D. i.e. about 99 yrs (1843-1947 in Sind). Part of India under FOREIGN rule.

                    18. Muslim rule under the nomenclature of Pakistan: 1947-present. Independent, not part of India.

                    The above table reveals that during the 5000 years of Pakistan's known history, this country was part of India for a total period of 711 yrs of which 512 yrs were covered by the MUSLIM period and about 100 years each by the Mauryan (mostly BUDDHIST) and British (CHRISTIAN) periods. Can anybody agree with the Indian 'claim' that Pakistan was part of India and that partition was unnatural? It hardly needs much intelligence to understand that Pakistan always had her back towards India and face towards the countries on her west. This is true both commercially and culturally.

                    More on the land/people of Pakistan's distinct past: http://www.geocities.com/pak_history
                    Last edited by Pakistan4ever; May 24, 2005, 11:06 AM.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Re: Changing Pakistan's national language?

                      Originally posted by fartguru
                      Since u hv written in such great detail, there are many aspects which can be discussed. But, lets get some factual errors out of the way.

                      East Pakistan was not lost because Urdu was imposed, Bengalis left us cause we did not honor them as equal citizens, period. General misgiving Bengalis had was with the Poonjaabi (Bengali accent) leadership, not the muhajirs.

                      Your 7% ratio ignores and dishonors the contributions of the great poets and writers from Punjab, Sarhad. Allama Iqbal, Faiz Ahmed Faiz, Ahmed Faraz, Ahmed Nadeem Qasmi, Ibn Insha etc etc. List is much longer and real than implied.
                      Urdu imposition certainly started the Bengali separatism:

                      The Muslim League decided to make Urdu the sole state language of Pakistan, although only 3 per cent of the population of Pakistan spoke Urdu and over 56 per cent spoke Bangla. Since Urdu was the language of the dominant class in Pakistan and hence the language of upper echelons of the Muslim League leadership, the ruling party decided that Urdu was to be the sole state language of Pakistan. The explanation provided by the Pakistani ruling elite was that, since Urdu had more similarity with Arabic and Persian, it was a more "Islamic" language and since Bangla was derived from pre-existing Indian languages, primarily Sanskrit, it was a "Hindu" language.

                      For Bangalis, Urdu was an alien and unrelated language. Thus, the Bangali intelligentsia and political leadership proposed that both Urdu and Bangla be declared as the state languages. On March 11, 1948 a province-wide strike was held to protest the central government's chauvinist policy of rejecting the language of the majority of the people as unfit to be a state language.Student demonstrations took place all across East Bengal. In his first trip to East Bengal on March 21, 1948 at Dhaka (then Dacca) the Governor-General "Quaid-I-Azam" (literally, the Great Leader) Jinnah declared (in English!):

                      "Let me make it clear to you that the State Language of Pakistan is going to be Urdu and no other language. Anyone who tries to mislead you is really the enemy of Pakistan...so far as the State Language is concerned Pakistan's language shall be Urdu."

                      The Bangalis did not accept Jinnah's claim and continued their resistance to the imposition of Urdu language. Subsequent attempts by the Pakistani rulers to replace Bangla script, first with Arabic scripts, and later with Roman scripts, failed due to the public outcry and popular mobilization led by the students and the intellectuals, supported by the middle class and by some sections of the workers and the peasants.

                      The protests on the language issue culminated on February 21, 1952, when police fired on a student demonstration and killed several students and bystanders. Politically, the killings led to the formation of the United Front. The killings also led to the emergence of a new literary and cultural tradition of protests and secularism among the Bangali bourgeoisie. The cultural tradition that arose was "sigh of oppressed" against Pakistani elite's use of religious nationalism. We cannot underestimate the importance of this event in emergence of the Bangali nationalism. The Bangalis viewed the Pakistani elite's attempt to impose Urdu as the state language as a design to prevent them from full participation in the state rule. Hence, the death of students while protesting the language policy became an event to rally public support for the Bangali cause. This day was, and still is, celebrated by Bangalis as Eukushey February (martyr's day on February 21). Indeed, this event has become ingrained in the Bangali national political consciousness.

                      ..................
                      The Basic Principle Committee (BPC) of the National Constitutional Assembly published its report in February, 1950.

                      The upper house was to be indirectly elected. The governmental mechanism would be a combination of presidential and parliamentary systems, with a substantial executive power and the choice of selecting the Prime Minister being retained with the President. The BPC called for declaring Urdu as the state language. The Bangali political leadership was outraged at the proposals of the BPC, particularly the language issue. The Bangalis viewed the proposals as a scheme to perpetuate West Pakistani political hegemony over the central government. The proposals evoked indignation among Bangalis because their numerical strength would be reduced in a joint session of legislature, which was to settle any disputes. Moreover, the scope of arbitrary use of autocratic power by the President could enable the Pakistani ruling class to secure support for itself and counter any Bangali schemes for changing the status quo. For Bangali bourgeoisie it was clear that the BPC proposals would further reduce their already limited role in the state.

                      The anti-BPC political maneuvers of Bangali politicians led to the Grand National Convention (GNC). Although some West Pakistani opposition leaders participated, the GNC was primarily an initiative of Bangali bourgeois leadership. According to the GNC proposals, the power of the central government would be limited to foreign policy and defense. The proposals at the GNC called for a unicameral legislature, with seats being distributed among the provinces on the basis of population. The GNC also proposed that the federal capital be established in Islamabad (West Pakistan) and every other session of the federal parliament be held in Dhaka (East Bengal).

                      These proposals reflected the popular Bangali demand that both Bangla and Urdu should be the state languages of Pakistan. In essence, the GNC proposals were an attempts to ensure the political participation of the Bangalis in the state's decision making process. The counter-proposals assume that the national interests of the Bangalis could be safeguarded if the Bangalis were able to exercise their due political rights within the framework of a bourgeois democratic polity.

                      .........................
                      By the way... Although many Pakistanis regret the East Pakistan tragedy and should apologize to the injustices perpetrated by our ruling elite to them, nonetheless I believe that the independence of Bangladesh was a good thing for Pakistan. Bengalis have nothing (or very little) in common with Pakistanis.. whereas the different ethnic groups of Pakistan share a great deal of commonality in culture, geography, race, history, and linguistics with each other. Only religion as a unifying factor did not last long with the Bengalis. Plus the burden of extreme flooding in Bangladesh, and outrageous distance with an enemy in between was too much for Pakistan to handle. Founding fathers of Pakistan like Mohd Iqbal and Rehmat Ali also envisioned an independent Bengali Muslim country separate from Pakistan. With barely any unifying factors between Pakistanis and Bengalis, the political/economic/cultural oppression of the Bengalis was magnified many times more.. along with an enemy's interference.. which resulted in their independence struggle. Coming back to Pakistan, even though the different ethnic groups of Pakistan have many commonalities, let us not downplay the injustices done to them such as their resentment of Urdu imposition.

                      And.. Allama Iqbal and others were more in love with Farsi. As I had stated before, if a few educated/elite from Pakistan region learnt Urdu because British India's Muslim politics/education was dominated by Urdu-speaking Muslims of UP/Delhi/etc. then that was just the environment of that period in which he was forced to adopt. Any way, nations evolve with time, creation of Pakistan was to separate from India so it is contradictory to impose this Indian language (Urdu) on Pakistan. Since we rejected the notion of united British India, it is only logical that we should reject Urdu, a language associated with the British period and is only native to UP/MP/Bihar/Delhi/etc in India.
                      Last edited by Pakistan4ever; May 24, 2005, 10:22 AM.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Re: Changing Pakistan's national language?

                        Although we Pakistanis are greatful 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.


                        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 immigrants from India after the 1947 partition—speak it as a first 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 Anatolia 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.

                        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 neighbors 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.


                        I will get back to the issue of language riots in Sindh during the 1970s

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Re: Changing Pakistan's national language?

                          Originally posted by Atlantis
                          Arabic
                          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

                          1. Historically, Arabic was used as an official language in Pakistan region (excluding the north) 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.

                          Dari/Farsi

                          1. Historically, Dari/Farsi was used in Pakistan region through out most of its pre-British history. 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.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Re: Changing Pakistan's national language?

                            Yeah like everything else realized 100 years after the fact in Pakistan, it is quite timely that we have realized that an error in judgment was made by making Urdu the national language of Pakistan.

                            You don’t correct a mistake by making other mistakes. The right thing to do is to keep Urdu as National Language, but also give the regional languages more credence and importance, by making them official too. It is stupid for an Urdu speaking person to automatically assume that everyone will honor their tongue, as it is stupid for a Punjabi to assume such a thing. The solution lies in making learning of a regional language (other than one’s own) required to graduate from High School.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Re: Changing Pakistan's national language?

                              ^^ Good point but graduate from HS meaning 10th grade or FSc? While we are changing a language, might as well increas the 10th to 12.
                              Can you Hear me Now!! Good

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X