Linguist Ahmar Mahboob on ‘Pakistani English’

The overview of “Pakistani” English (by the way the present piece would fall in this category) given by Dr Amir Mahboob, a (Pakistani) assistant professor of linguistics and TESOL (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages) at East Carolina University in the US, highlighted the English that is unwittingly (by error or mistake, or by both) is being developed in Pakistan. He also talked about the lack of a coherent policy on language in Pakistan.

SPO (Strengthening Participatory Organization) had arranged the lecture.

While generally Pakistani authors write the textbooks in English, the pedagogical standards applied in examinations are those of the standard British (sometimes American) English, resulting in the overall poor performance, he said.

What are the factors responsible for the kind of standards set, and the resulting performance? According to Dr Mahboob, as also Dr Tariq Rehman, another linguist who has done considerable research work in this field and is working as a professor of South Asia Studies and Linguistics at the Quaid-i-Azam University, who presided over the function, the problem was quite complicated. The linguistic “problem” (of one section speaking and writing one kind of English and the other of a different kind) was closely intertwined with the power structure in Pakistan. The varieties of English ( even within the Pakistani English) were many and the English that is “acceptable” changes according to corridors of various power structures. Then there is also an English that should be accepted in the “native” country; and for this, as Dr Mahboob pointed out, organizations like the British Council spend a lot of money to fly expansive teachers, who stay in five-star hotels, hold quick workshops and the money for which is ultimately paid by us.

Tracing the genealogy of the formation of various “Englishes” (pardon the formulation), Mahboob spoke of the five processes that led to the diversification and spread of English: internal colonization, external colonization with mass migration, external colonization without mass migration, pidgin and use of English as a foreign language. The “inner” circle comprised Britain, Canada, US and Australia’; in the “outer” circle were Pakistan, India, Ghana, Singapore, etc., and in the “expanding circle” the speaker included Japan, China, Argentina, etc. Research on Pakistani English has been carried out with some intensity since 1993, with regard to phonology, syntax, morphology, lexis, pedagogy and politics.

Dr Mahboob spoke of a survey based on the language in Pakistani newspapers of English and Urdu and New York Times, and said major differences were found in the language in which the events were described in these papers. He also gave examples from Pakistani English newspapers to show the obvious difference between the Pakistani English and the Standard British English: Where are you coming from? — becomes an equivalent to the British Standard English: Where do you come from? What would be medicines which are detrimental to health in British Standard English would become “detrimental to health medicines”; an office that deals with public would become a public dealing office. He also gave a number of examples about omission or otherwise of articles, and prepositions. One example was “to combat against poverty” where against is superfluous.

He referred to a study by Baumgardner, Kennedy and Shamim (1993) which listed 54 categories in which words from 54 categories had been borrowed from local languages into English. He gave the examples of haleem, daigs, purdah, shaddies, dullah, dulhan, goonda tax. In grammatical adaptation, the plural of chowkidar would become chowkidars. Urdu based affixes would include gadhagariwala, churi wali, etc. There are also English based affixes like de-loading, motorcycle lifter and words like ad-hocism and stop-gapism; and also compounds like “Flying coach and cent percent”. Then there were also hybridizations like double-roti Goonda-tax extortion, and adjectives were changed to nouns like another Gora telling us what we are...and nouns being used as verbs like: Are all traffic sergeants there only to challan the innocent; and, plans to aircraft the ailing Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan from New Delhi to Peshawar have been deferred...There is also a semantic shift or extension in words like patchwork (being used for repair of roads, for instance), and transport is mentioned as conveyance, as an example of colonial lag.

Dr Mahboob said he did not mean to speak of the development of Pakistani English, like development of English in other parts of South Asia, in a “pejorative” sense, but wanted to make us aware that this language was certainly developing along with its literature. Some questions were raised by participants about purists of the language in Pakistan. They also pointed out to the fact that works of Pakistani writers in English in America or England, who had been living there for many decades, were not considered part of English literature. Dr Mahboob said some of them were certainly mentioned in books on world-literature.

Dr Mahboob did his (first) masters in Linguistics from Karachi University, before completing a masters and a PhD in applied Linguistics and TESOL from Indiana University.

Harris Khalique, chief executive of the SPO, while thanking the speaker, also spoke of the work being done by his organization. — Mufti Jamiluddin Ahmad

Nawaz Sharif couldn’t have impeached me: Leghari

ISLAMABAD: The following is the edited text of the Dawn dialogue interview with Millat Party chief Sardar Farooq Ahmed Khan Leghari:

Question: There is an allegation that you had some understanding with Nawaz Sharif and the PML-N before you dismissed the Benazir government and dissolved the assembly?

Answer: It was my duty as president to be open and accessible to the opposition, and Benazir was fully aware of that. She had been consulting with me, I had been telling her. Some time around early September before I left for an international conference in Zimbabwe, the opposition asked to see me. We fixed a date (for a meeting on my return), perhaps September 25 or 26, 1996. I informed the prime minister before I left that the opposition leaders were going to see me. She asked me, what I was going to tell them? I told her exactly what I subsequently told them. They told me that the country was on a downhill slide economically, Benazir’s government was corrupt, and it was necessary for me to use my powers under Article 58(2)(b) to dissolve the assembly.

I told Mr Nawaz Sharif very clearly that it had nothing to do with him — that is a determination that I would make — and I didn’t think the situation was such that warranted the use 58(2) (b). I also told him that it was a fact that the country was on a downhill slide economically and the way his party was behaving and the kind of constitutional and other political antagonism that existed between the two major parties, it would lead to a further deterioration of our economic situation. And even if I were to dismiss the assembly or if I were to hold elections after a year — Benazir had been saying that instead of five years we could think of holding elections a year earlier — Mr Sharif would not get any benefit because unless the two major parties decided on a bipartisan economic policy, we were headed for trouble. I said my advice to him was to go and meet the prime minister and agree on major fundamentals for Pakistan on the economic side and other important matters, specially accountability.

I was not inclined to throw out my own party’s government. That was the last thing, and I did it only after having exhausted everything.

Q: Why don’t you hold yourself responsible for what happened during the PPP government since you were a leading PPP member?

A: How do I hold myself responsible when I warned her at every point, when I tried to dissuade them, when I returned cabinet decisions, when I returned ECC decisions whenever I smelt foul play? How am I responsible when, even in Benazir’s first government, I go to her with Aitzaz (Ahsan) and Iftikhar Gillani and tell her about corruption? Then the second time again I go and tell her again that there is a very strong perception (about corruption). There were times when all we heard were rumours, general public reactions, perceptions — and very few people in the party would go and tell her what was happening.

Benazir at that time said that no, all this is propaganda of my enemies, and why should you people fall prey to that. We said it’s not a question of propaganda, it’s a perception and perceptions are important and we have to address them. But she would not relent.

Q: Even then you brought her in for a second time.

A: Ten or 15 days after we were thrown out, Benazir’s first reaction was that “it’s time for us to quit. This establishment will never let me work.” Begum (Nusrat Bhutto) Sahiba said Bhutto had been killed, (his son) Shahnawaz had been killed and whom do you want to be killed now? I said Begum Sahiba, it is not like that. Life and death are another matter, but we have a political party. If the president has thrown us out, it doesn’t mean this is the end. We will fight and Benazir has to lead. Then everyone said the same thing.

Q: Why did you say Benazir will have to lead when you knew she was corrupt? And what about charges that you conspired with Ghulam Ishaq Khan to oust the first Nawaz Sharif government ?

A: My judgment was correct because Benazir was the leader of our party. There was no other replacement for her at that time. It was necessary for her to lead. We could not ditch her at that time. For four or three months, she was dormant. We started trying to work up something against Nawaz Sharif. There was a matter that came to my knowledge regarding the cooperatives scandal. In fact, one of our MNAs, Asghar Khera from Kharian, came to me and informed me about it. I did some further research on it, it was a huge scandal.... We did our work and we did long marches and all that.

You said we conspired (against Nawaz Sharif)... in a remote sense (yes), in the sense that we were impressing upon the president the need to dissolve the assembly to hold fresh elections because the country’s institutions were being further corrupted, because the leading figures of the PML, specially Nawaz Sharif and his family, were almost robbing banks, people’s money and enriching themselves. We thought it was necessary to have another election.... We were going to the people, we were working at the grassroots, we were trying to influence their MNAs and to influence the president to dissolve the assembly, which he did. But within 39 days, it was restored by the Supreme Court. We did not stop and continued with public pressure, and a time came when Nawaz Sharif felt the pressure and he dissolved the assembly himself. So when the 1993 elections took place, I was elected president... I was not seeking to become president. I felt being kicked upstairs.

In those years between 1993 and November 1996, when I dissolved the assembly, I did my very best to try... and guide Benazir so she should not repeat the mistakes of the past.

Q: You resigned when you had difficulties with Nawaz Sharif, but why didn’t you resign when you had problems with the Benazir government and instead dismissed it?

A: The Constitution allowed me to dissolve the assembly. I used 58(2)(b) when I was absolutely certain that the (situation) could endanger Pakistan’s integrity and would lead us into default. It was with great difficulty that we saved Pakistan from default. I don’t want to go into the details of that, but there were certain repayments that had to be made, we had to create confidence to stop the haemorrhaging and bleeding taking place in our foreign exchange reserves.

But more than anything else, the removal of a government that was seen as corrupt, wayward, and not in control of the economy in itself produced an effect where the bleeding stopped and we were able to rebuild our foreign exchange reserves. We did a number of reforms in our banking and economic restructuring that Nawaz Sharif should have continued but unfortunately he again slowed down on those, and which led to again fairly disastrous consequences a couple of years down the line.

About the reason why I did not resign, I was not required to resign. I felt if my stewardship was not there and if I were to leave things to the acting president, Mr Wasim Sajjad, it would lead to even more disastrous consequences.

Q: What about the talk that you were facing impeachment (for which Nawaz Sharif had the numbers in parliament)?

A: There was just silly talk of impeachment which they dared not do. Numbers were not important. There was no one from Nawaz Sharif down to his close henchmen who dared to question my accounts. When Nawaz Sharif and the judiciary got into a tangle, I had no serious problem with Nawaz Sharif — he did not have any problem with me. He came to me before he introduced his special parallel set-up of laws against terrorism and said he had decided to do this. I said... strengthen the existing laws... (and) don’t set up a parallel system. He said this is what the chief justice also tells me. I said the chief justice tells you the right thing.

Then he comes to me (some time in September 1997) saying the time had come to remove the Supreme Court chief justice. He gave me some reasons which were identical to the reasons that Benazir had once given me (about her plans about the judiciary). So I related to him the whole story of my conversation with Benazir and my request to her not to take on the judiciary. In that meeting, he was accompanied by Punjab governor Shahid Hamid as his advocate who also said it’s about time to remove the chief justice. I asked Shahid Hamid, didn’t you tell the prime minister what my answer was to Benazir on an identical thing? Why did you think my answer would be different? He said your answer would be different because at that time the judiciary was united, now the judiciary stands divided, and we can easily do it. I said so the affairs of state, the question whether the chief justice should remain or not remain, is now going to be decided on whether we can do it or we cannot, not on legal, constitutional or moral grounds?

Then I told the prime minister that he was on a course to acquire more and more powers in his person which would create a disastrous situation for him. You got a heavy mandate, you have got all the four provinces with you, why are you bent on trying to acquire more and more power? I said when you acquire too much power, after you conquer the judiciary, you will try and conquer the military. And once you have done that... you know your value will be eight annas (50 paisas), the price of a Kalashnikov bullet. I said if we continue to fill gas in this room, it will explode.... and you are doing something similar.

Q: Why did you resign?

A: After the judgments of the Quetta and Peshawar benches of the Supreme Court against chief justice Sajjad Ali Shah, Nawaz Sharif came to meet me at my residence at midnight or about half an hour after midnight accompanied by (Senate chairman) Wasim Sajjad, (National Assembly speaker) Illahi Bukhsh Soomro, Law minister Khalid Anwar, chief of the army staff General Jahangir Karamat, and ISI DG General Rana. The law minister said: ‘Sir, in all this judicial crisis, you were right and we were wrong. You gave us good advice and we did not heed it. But now we have done things according to your wishes. We are not asking you to do anything that is perceived by you as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court benches in Quetta and Peshawar have said the chief justice is no longer the chief justice. And if any bench of the Supreme Court gives a judgment, it is the judgment of the Supreme Court. The prime minister has brought advice that you kindly agree to the appointment of Ajmal Mian, who is the next senior judge, as chief justice.... There will be no blame on you. This entire crisis which has gripped the country for the past four months or so will be over and we can proceed with the government’s work.’

I said, Anwar Sahib, even if the judgment is mala fide, still do you think, I will do it. He said, but, Sir, I knew that you would ask this question. I brought such and such authority and judgment that even if there are any faults in a judgement, the judgment is not vitiated. There is no other way for you ... I said what if I tell you, who took not a briefcase, but a suitcase (of cash) to Quetta and in which plane. He listened to it and kept silent. Then I said, no, it will not be like that. I said I have a solution to this. I said this crisis was brought upon the government by Mr Nawaz Sharif. I said in such and such a situation and on such and such a day, he came to me and said this. I forewarned him not to do this. The next time again I warned him not to do this. We had meetings between the prime minister, the army chief and the DG, ISI. The prime minister requested me to involve the chief of army staff to act as a go-between between him and the chief justice. I said I had nothing to do with that. But if we don’t have an independent judiciary, if we don’t have supremacy of law, this country cannot work. You will be destroyed.... your heavy mandate has gone. I said the army chief’s involvement was made on your request. You said all this when you were upset, when you said ‘For God’s sake, save me from that person (CJ).’ Then I called the chief justice to my office.

KARAMAT TO CJ

The moment he came, Karamat talked to the chief justice about Nawaz Sharif’s (contempt of court) case. The chief justice said, who are you to tell me this? I have not come here for this purpose. I can’t discuss what decision I will take. I will give a verdict according to my conscience and the prevailing situation. I have to show that justice is being done. I have come here only because the president asked me to. I said, yes, chief justice, I have asked you over, but not to influence you to give a judgment this way or that way. I have called you because in my view, as head of state, Pakistan is in a very critical situation. Our nuclear and missile programmes are at a very sensitive stage. I don’t want our government, which has been elected less than a year ago, to be destabilized because of some legal mistakes the government and the prime minister have made. I just wanted you to kindly give time and don’t announce any judgment in a hurry. He said all right, how much time do you want? The prime minister said one week, he (the CJ) said he would take it to two weeks. One week now and then when your lawyer will come, one more week then. By the way, I didn’t know at that time what was cooking, what the prime minister was planning to do. We got this time for him in good faith. Then after this, Shahbaz Sharif comes to me with Chaudhry Nisar and says we never had such a good president like you and we want you to be the president for the next term as well. I said I did not want a next term.... They said, no, we can swear upon the Quran that we... will elect you for the next term, and we will give you a guarantee for that through a head of state of a friendly Arab country who is also your friend. This offer they made when there was talk about impeachment. I told them that I don’t want any extension and I don’t want to be re-elected a second time. I just wanted the whole matter to be resolved.

At that time, when all this was taking place, they had no courage to impeach me, because the army did not want me to be impeached. They could do it with a majority, but they were afraid of the army. When they said all this, I said there was a very simple solution. Everyone got excited. I said I will resign tomorrow. Then I said Mr Wasim Sajjad, who favours the law minister’s view,... will have no qualms of conscience in signing this.... I said then appoint Ajmal Mian, but I will not do it.

On this, Illahi Bukhsh Soomro says, Sir, why should you resign for the sake of a ... (adjective deleted) judge? I said I am sorry that you are using these terms, Illahi Bukhsh. ... Immediately after I said that, Nawaz Sharif says President sahib, why should you pay such a heavy price? There is no dispute with you. I said because, Mr Prime Minister, there is a big difference between your political philosophy and mine. You calculate everything in terms of money, I don’t. After this, the army chief starts: “ We will not allow you to resign, Mr President. Pakistan cannot afford that you should resign at this time. You cannot resign. We will try and settle this matter in some other way.” The ISI DG also said something along those lines. I said no. By the way, it was around 4.30 in the morning. It was a winter’s night. Three to four hours had passed. At last, I got fed up. I had decided to resign. I said, look, I am tired. You must be tired now. I have to resign at nine in the morning. Now please, all of you go, thank you very much for all your concern for me, but I have to resign. Then all of them went away together from the room.

When I went upstairs, my military secretary informed me that General Karamat had left a chit for me. Karamat had asked my M.S. to give this chit to the president after he had gone. In the chit, he wrote, “If you resign, then I will also resign”. It took him some 20 to 25 minutes to reach home. I rang him up and I said, what have you written? I said if you also resign, then a monkey will get hold of a razor. Who will take care of the missile programme, who will be the new army chief, what will happen then? He said I request you not to resign in the morning and I want to see you before you resign. At nine in the morning, he brought Justice Sajjad Ali Shah and the ISI DG with him. He said we can’t afford, Pakistan can’t afford, that you resign. Sajjad Ali Shah said the dispute was between him and the prime minister, why should he resign? Don’t worry, we will resolve the problem. We will come to some settlement. So the army was playing the role of preventing this thing leading to further crisis or my resignation. Then after one or two days, the chief justice was attacked. Then I decided to resign and informed the army chief. The army chief came again with the ISI DG the next morning, but this time without the chief justice. He said why are you resigning when this matter can be resolved? By this time, Nawaz Sharif had heard the rumour that I was going to dissolve the assembly because the Supreme Court had authorized me to dissolve the assembly. This was done by Sajjad Ali Shah.

Actually, I came to know from some MNAs that Sajjad Ali Shah was in a foul mood and he was about to write a judgment removing the 13th Amendment, which had scrapped the eighth Amendment. I asked the army chief late at night that he should ask the CJ not to do this as this would further aggravate the crisis and that if he (CJ) does this, I will not use my powers under 58-2(B) and then I will resign. He went to the chief justice early in the morning and said he had heard that he was going to do this. The CJ scolded the army chief.The army chief telephoned me and said the CJ has gone mad. In the meantime, the CJ gave the verdict. As soon as the CJ announced his verdict... the prime minister got upset. I called the army chief and said that I had already told you that if the CJ will restore article 58(2)(b), I will not use it and I will resign. At that time I had not done so because of you. This time, no way will I stay and I am resigning. You go and tell the prime minister that Farooq Leghari is resigning and there is no need to worry. He said they could not afford my resignation. The DG ISI was also with him. They took 30 minutes and repeatedly asked me not to resign. I told them, in fact, I was fed up with such people and could not stay with them. I had already decided that I would go to the public against both Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto.... It was in these circumstances that I resigned. The army was not allowing them to impeach me. I could stay, I could have another term, but I chose to resign.

Even when the Supreme Court chief justice and his bench had empowered me with 58-2(b), you can ask why did I not use it then. Because, frankly, I thought that Pakistan at that time, because of three or four months of near paralysis of government due to judicial and political crises, I thought this could lead to military intervention if I again dismissed the government. And this would create a very serious situation.

PRESIDENT IN UNIFORM

Q: Do you think the president should continue as army chief for an indefinite period?

A: No, I don’t think that he should continue for an indefinite period. Our viewpoint is different and this is what we have been urging upon the MMA and other parties also. I would look upon this whole situation currently as a transition period from military intervention to a to return of democracy. Pakistan unfortunately has never had true democracy. The best we have had is electoral democracy, and unless we proceed from electoral democracy to developing very strong political parties, a strong civil society, supremacy of law, freedom of the press and information, we will not be able to fully consolidate democracy. In order to achieve that we have to do everything possible not to create obstacles in the transition to democracy. We fear that given the present objective international situation, if we seek confrontation with the military and the way things are moving, it might lead to reimposition of military rule.

Q: Do you think that in the presence of the LFO, there could be real democracy?

A: The move towards democracy, or the pressure that has to be built up, or kept up in an inexorable manner, will definitely lead to changes in the situation down the line.

Q: Who should keep the pressure on?

A: The public, the political parties. We feel that right now the situation is that we can slide back. Musharraf, unlike Zia, has kept his promise of holding general elections.

(The interview panel comprised Raja Asghar, Ihtasham-ul-Haq, Ahmad Hassan and Amir Wasim).

Not since Bradman has a player made such impact

OUT of the blue comes Graeme Smith and he raises the bar, not only of batting but of captaincy and not since Don Bradman has a player had such an impact on Test cricket. He is only 22-year-old and has a gargantuan appetite for runs but more than runs, he has a captaincy style that can be only be described as inspirational.

He leads from the front, is the team’s cheer-leader and for someone so young has a wise head on his shoulders. Every cricket expert at Lord’s crawling with them was of the opinion that the captain winning the toss would say a silent prayer and bat first without hesitation.

Smith won the toss and put England in and then bundled England out for 173. The experts explained it away by saying that a cloud-cover had suddenly appeared. South Africa batted under the same cloud-cover and by the close of play on the first day had the Test match by the throat.

England didn’t bowl badly though the catching bordered on the disgraceful but Smith carried on from where he had left off at Edgbaston. Herschelle Gibbs missed out but not Gary Kirsten and records went for bargains, as if they had been put on in a fire-sale.

The highest honour that can be bestowed on a batsman is to be compared to Bradman. He is the Mount Everest and though others have scaled it, Edmund Hillary and Tensing were the first to do so. And so it is with Bradman. It is much too early to say whether Smith can reach Everest but he seems well on his way to doing so.

I hope he can retain his stupendous form for the rest of the series but since South Africa will be touring Pakistan after its tour of England, one hopes too that he will leave his form behind. Of course, Pakistan has a better bowling attack than England but in his present form, Smith seems unstoppable.

But Smith was only one of the stars in South Africa’s thumping victory of an innings and 92 runs. There was Makhaya Ntini, the barefoot boy from the Bush who was discovered at a village match at Mdingi outside King William’s Town.

Apartheid had been dismantled and the blacks in South Africa had reclaimed their rights as human beings. But he came from the backwoods, more disadvantaged than the urban blacks and you couldn’t get more disadvantaged than that.

And here he was Lord’s on a brilliant summer’s day being given a standing ovation. Who says dreams don’t come true but even a dreamer has to have character and has to work hard, extra hard. Ntini gives away runs but he takes wickets and when he takes a wicket, he shares his joy with his team-mates and his smile is as broad as Smith’s bat.

If Pakistan’s cricket think-tank had planned their strategy against South Africa, they had better throw those plans in the dust-bin and start afresh. This a re-vitalised and re-energised South African team and we will have to match it for inspiration and self-belief.

What comes through loud and clear is its single-mindedness. For all intents and purposes, it played with a key bowler short, Dewald Pretorius made only a token appearing have done his hamstring and the bowling load was that much greater.

Shaun Pollock, Ntini, Andrew Hall and Paul Adams did not complain and though Adams bowled rubbish, he did pick up Andrew Flintoff and five smart catches. Nor should we forget that the team was without Jacques Kallis. Pakistan will have to get it right. And if it does, it will be a helluva Test series.

Test cricket is the real thing, the genuine article and it needs a game-plan. Pakistan’s cricket think-tank should be looking at the videos of Smith over and over again and at the pictures of the South African team celebrating its win at Lord’s. Not at just the exuberance but at the pride as some of players draped themselves with their country’s flag.

Nasser Hussain resigned from the captaincy after the Edgbaston Test. Did he jump or was he pushed? I have never met him and, do not know what sort of person he is? As a cricketer, he comes through as being very competitive. This is a good quality provided one does not sacrifice one’s dignity. There was a small incident in which words were exchanged between the bowler James Anderson and the batsman, Gary Kirsten.

Almost, as if, by street-instinct, Hussain jumped in the fray and one did not have to be a lip-reader to know that he was mouthing some choice verbals, not normally heard in polite company. It was unnecessary as it was uncouth. I get a feeling that he accentuates his Britishness rather like the Anglo-Indians did during the British Raj.

I am in complete agreement with Sunil Gavaskar about sledging. One must never lose sight of the fact that children are watching the matches on television and if they see someone swearing, they are likely to feel that it not only the done thing but the expected thing. Cricket needs to clean up its act.

Dennis Lillee, to the contrary, notwithstanding, I am told that in Australia, for Kids cricket, the umpires are empowered to send a kid off the field, given a yellow or red card, for sledging. It means that the Australians know that sledging is harmful to the upbringing of a child.

One final note. Obscenely high figures are mentioned in the buying and selling of footballers, David Beckham is a case in point. Compare these sums of money with the salaries of teachers and government doctors and nurses get.

I would not grudge sportsmen their riches but it seems to be a cock-eyed world that teacher should earn in a lifetime what a footballer earns in a day. No wonder that young people want to be sportsmen and not teacher or doctors.