DEBATE: Urdu’s future: hopes and fears

KARACHI: “Urdu is a living language, its future is bright and it is set to spread all over the world,” said Prof Dr Gopichand Narang, the scholar and critic visiting here from India. He was speaking at a literary gathering organised at the Arts Council of Pakistan, Karachi, the other day.

Dr Narang is a well-known scholar and linguist and he commands respect of both the younger contemporaries and scholars of his stature alike. He is a messenger of peace and love and one must appreciate his unbiased and non-communal approach towards the study of Urdu language and literature. His commitment to Urdu is beyond any shade of doubt.

That said, one feels that either Dr Narang’s stance on Urdu has changed or he is, for reasons known only to him, not saying about Urdu what he normally says or what he has expressed in his writings.

For example, while speaking on the occasion he said “whether written in Deonagari script or Persian script, Urdu is gaining popularity in India”. But he has written that Urdu’s script should not be changed because script is to a language what skin is to a body.

Once, while condemning those who advocate discarding Perso-Arabic script of Urdu, Dr Narang, in one of his articles wrote that one should cry over the wisdom of those who think the script of a language is like a dress that can be changed, (Urdu Rasm-ul-Khat, published by the National Language Authority, page 335). So saying that “whether written in Deonagari script or Persian script, Urdu is… ” is an explicit departure from the written word and implies that now Dr Narang is of the opinion that Urdu can be or should be written in a script other than its own.

This writer, a student of Urdu, would humbly submit that script is to a language what spirit is to a body. In fact, script is the language. Take its script from Urdu and it becomes anything but Urdu. “Urdu” written in Nagari is not Urdu but Hindi. Nagari script is used to write Hindi, a separate language that has many things common with Urdu, including the origins. Dr Narang himself has written that the roots of Urdu and Hindi are one “but they have developed in such a manner that they are two separate and independent languages now”, (Lughat Navisi ke masaael, page 54).

As any student of Urdu knows, in the beginning there was one common language written in one script, ie, Perso-Arabic script modified to accommodate the local sounds that do not occur in Arabic and Persian. Thanks to the British colonial designs, the communal and religious feelings of Hindus were whipped to instigate the adoption of Nagari script to write the common language which was then renamed Hindi. A scholar of Dr Narang’s stature would appreciate the fact that there was no separate language called Hindi and there was a common language spoken by the masses, albeit having a dozen or so different names such as Hindvi, Hindustani, Rekhta, Urdu and Hindi etc. It was the zeal and dogmas of the “born-again Hindus” that gave birth to a “new-fangled” language called Hindi, having the grammatical traits of the common language but written in Nagari script and loaded with obscure Sanskrit words. This ‘reincarnated’ language, perhaps a result of ‘Karma’, was then pitched against Urdu which was labelled as ‘the language of the Muslims’ by Hindu fundamentalists.

It logically gave rise to the sectarian feelings in both the communities and Sir Syed Ahmed Khan came up with the idea of the two-nation theory, declaring Hindus and Muslims two separate nations and paving the way for the creation of Pakistan.

What India and pro-India circles are trying to prove these days is that Hindi and Urdu are but one language and, at the same time, suggesting that Urdu should discard its script and adopt Nagari or Roman script. While one cannot forget the reality that Urdu is the language that paved the way for the two-nation theory and played a vital role in the creation of Pakistan, it is equally important to remember that Urdu has a vast and rich body of literature, both secular and otherwise, dating back to as early as 14th century AD (and is much much more rich than Hindi). Favouring or promoting another script for Urdu is tantamount to depriving the coming generations of this treasure that includes original scholarly works on Islam as well as translations of Islamic, Sufi and liberal works from Arabic and Persian. I often laugh at conspiracy theories, but depriving a nation of its past, religion, traditions and its own language -- its identity -- is nothing short of a callous conspiracy.

It really sounds good to declare the rise and rise of Urdu but practically, both in India and Pakistan, Urdu is meted out a treatment that can only be described as “step-motherly” in the vernacular. Take the example of India where the leaves were watered in the name of “Urdu academies” but the roots of Urdu were cut by not teaching it at school level, making sure there would be nobody in, say, 20 years to read and write Urdu. This policy has produced the desired results and now the new generation of authors of Urdu is indifferent to Urdu. When Dr Narang says that Shabana Azmi, the film-star daughter of noted Urdu poet Kaifi Azmi, cannot read Urdu script and uses the Roman script to read her lines, one feels Dr Narang is advocating the case for Roman script. Instead of quoting such examples to emphasise the use of Roman script for Urdu, or Nagari script for that matter, the learned man may please use it to stress that the writers of Urdu in India should teach their children Urdu script so that they can enjoy their forefathers’ creative works in the original. Dr Narang Sahib would do a great service to Urdu by adding some suggestive words, with such anecdotal evidences, for the Indian government to make Urdu easily available in the Indian schools so that the students who wish to offer Urdu are not put off and are not forced to offer Hindi instead.

As for Pakistan, alas, we are killing our national language so mercilessly that it would make even the supporters Nagari and Roman scripts hang their heads in shame: Urdu is used as a medium of instruction only in government schools; Urdu’s status as a compulsory subject is being ridiculed and it is being chopped off at graduation and intermediate level; the standard of language in Urdu newspapers is ever falling; TV channels are butchering Urdu by using Roman script most of the time and blaring in a language that is neither Urdu nor English but an ugly hybrid of both and quite meaningless for the majority of Pakistanis who do not know English.

Even the state television PTV now rarely shows timings and days of the programmes (to be telecast) in Urdu, they are in English -- in a country where hardly half of the population can read the national or a regional language, let alone English. Most TV channels now prefer English titles for their Urdu programmes (stop laughing, it’s all true) and if Urdu titles are chosen at all, it’s normally written in Roman script. All this boils down to the assumption that Urdu is being slaughtered in a systematic way. Aaack…disgusting!

So saying that Urdu is becoming more and more popular and, to put it in Dr Narang’s words, “set to spread all over the globe” sounds strange. There are many scholars who see a brighter future for Urdu but they have other reasons for being optimistic about Urdu’s future rather than relying on a strange and alien script.

There were times when, in the Indo-Pakistan sub-continent, there was one language with one script, then it was one language with two scripts but now it is two languages with two scripts. One has an eerie feeling that anti-Urdu forces are out to transform that situation but as long as there is even one person who writes Urdu in Urdu script, the language will live on.

The writer is chief editor of the Urdu Dictionary Board.

Where angels fear to tread

Karachi, which sees an outbreak of violence all too often, once again witnessed bloodshed on May 12, 2007. Hundreds were arrested in pre-dawn raids. Dozens were shot dead while the best possible security arrangements remained in place. Scores were shot and wounded under an unannounced curfew for a complete day. Vehicles were torched. Ambulances were attacked. Sharea Faisal was blocked with containers and trucks. Lawyers were beaten up. Mediamen were threatened. The offices of a private television channel were attacked and the staff was harassed. Guns kept on rattling in every nook and corner of the city. And all this happened for the cause of justice, as both the opposition and the ruling coalition partner claimed to be the standard-bearer of justice. In this charged atmosphere, opposition parties, labour unions, students and lawyers failed to appear on roads leading to the airport to welcome the Chief Justice of Pakistan on his arrival. However, there was no street, locality or road where the flags and banners of the ruling party were not hoisted. The ruling coalition partner also managed to bring thousands of people in its rally, which was addressed by its self-exiled chief on telephone.— H.A.

On demise of a bookshop

“Sahib! Aap kabhi kabhi is dukaan pe aaya karo. Aap log nahin ayega to ye dukaan bhi band ho jayega.” This was not a request but rather an SOS call by a desperate soul, which made me recall when I had bought a book last time: months ago.

I looked at Agha and noticed stubble on his face and worn-out collars of his shirt. Still I am sure he was the owner of Almas Kitab Ghar, in Saddar. The plot on which the bookshop stood was worth millions of rupees.

Agha must be a bibliomaniac otherwise he could have switched over to another business long ago. If he was unable to do that in old age, he could have sold out the shop, invested the money in a safe business or at least deposited it in a bank and spent the rest of his life with no worries.

But the imploring tone of his request clearly said he did not want to close the shop.

Till when?

After a couple of months, on my way to the press club, I found shutters of the bookshop down. It made me nostalgic. I remember a few bookshops in close proximity of the Almas which had been closed over the past two decades.

First among them was Kitab Mahal on Zebi (Zaibunnisa Street) or Elphi (Elphinston Street.) The bookshop had been replaced by a garment store. Then there was the Pak-American Book Incorporation, a super market of books, which turned into a jewellery shop. Sassi Book Store met the same fate. Last at the lane was Standard Publishing House, now replaced by a fast food outlet.

It seems as if Karachians only want burgers and jewellery; they are no more interested in books. But remember, what Jerry Seinfeld once said, “A bookstore is one of the only pieces of evidence we have that people are still thinking.”— Abbas Jalbani

Speed-breakers

People show little wonder when a newly carpeted road or street is defaced with ugly and asymmetric speed-breakers.

It is a common sight that three or more speed-breakers are constructed in a stretch of street not longer than 30 metres.

It appears as if it has become mandatory for a contractor to construct speed-breakers after the work on a street he is actually contracted for carpeting completes, remarks a citizen.

Understandably, the municipalities have added no clauses to their contracts for the construction of speed-breakers but the contractor finds himself obliged to meet the popular demand of the particular area.

People generally demand speed-breakers to save the residents, especially children, from rash drivers. “We are not happy to damage the beauty of our streets and roads but our children are more beautiful and dearer to us,” says Mohammad Kazim of Liaquatabad.

Certainly, speed-breakers stop and discourage rash drivers but excess in anything is bad. At various places, motorists find it is too difficult to drive as they find breakers next to the one they have just crossed.

The drivers say a six-inch-high breaker could give the desired results and help save lives but often they find speed-breakers high enough to damage cars.

“Speed-breakers are good but what we are coping with these days are virtually the axle-breakers,” complains a local lawyer.

The municipal officials who supervise the city’s development say they have nothing to do with the phenomenon.

“Development could not be achieved without the consent of inhabitants of the particular area and our contractors do this on the demand of the people,” says a city government official.—Hasan Mansoor

Bad odour

A top official checking in at Karachi airport last week twitched his nose in disgust as the functionary on duty there smelled awful. The irked official reportedly ordered that the seized smuggled in deodorants, body sprays and perfumes be used on these employees of the airport to make their presence pleasant.

One does not have the right to suspect the intention of the airport employee’s intention. He might not have used this trick only to get a free access to the precious perfumes and might be genuinely smelling as he smelled. In the humid climate of Karachi, where water is scarce, many people have foul body odour. What the mix of sweat and cologne will smell like is another question.—Naseer Ahmad

Compiled by Syed Hassan Ali

Email: karachian@dawn.com

DIPLOMATIC NOTES: Reconciling with Taliban factor

ISLAMABAD: On the Afghanistan front recognition of the reality of the Taliban factor seems to be gradually sinking in. That it is not tenable to marginalise a politically active and military powerful group enjoying support of an important section of the population. This not withstanding the death of their key commander Daudullah. There is a growing realisation that the Taliban have to be brought into the mainstream political process to meet the growing challenges of security and peace in Afghanistan.

Significantly within 24 hours two somewhat contrasting and strong policy statements have emanated from two key players involved in the management of Afghanistan's volatile security situation. One came from the Afghan Senate on Tuesday (May 8th) and the other from the Nato secretary-general Jaap de Scheffer during his first ever visit to Pakistan the same day.

The Afghan lawmakers passed a resolution for a ceasefire, asking the government to hold direct peace talks with the Taliban and other opposition forces. This also explains the omission of a clause pertaining to the threat of Taliban and Talibanisation, apparently suggested by the Turks in the Ankara Declaration, issued after the Musharraf-Karzai summit last month.

According to Senate secretary Aminuddin Muzafari, the motion passed by the upper house of the Afghan parliament reflects the lawmakers’ belief that negotiations with militants would be more effective than fighting.

The motion in the Senate was made at a time when disenchantment with the Karzai government has peaked over the rising civilian casualties caused by both Taliban attacks and the US-led coalition forces in Afghanistan. It also coincides with the announcement of the grand peace jirga that Afghanistan and Pakistan will hold in the first week of August on the Taliban insurgency. The joint peace jirga, the first of its kind, has been dismissed by the Taliban as an attempt to ‘deceive’ ordinary Afghans.

For the Senate motion to become law it has to be endorsed by the lower house and President Karzai.

The Nato chief after his meetings with President Musharraf and foreign minister Khurshid Kasuri noted at a press conference here that fight against the militant Taliban must continue. However, he emphatically declared:

"The final answer in Afghanistan will not be a military one. The final answer in Afghanistan is reconstruction, development and nation-building."

The chief of the alliance that has more than 35,000 troops in Afghanistan, maintained that Pakistan, Afghanistan and Nato were all in the same boat, fighting terrorism and extremism. He warned that consequences of a failure in preventing Afghanistan again becoming a failed state would be felt in the region and globally. On a more optimistic note he asserted: "We will prevail."

He distanced himself from the key question regarding calls for political reconciliation in Afghanistan on the pretext that Nato should not be directly or indirectly involved in the political process of the country.

However, in the foreign policy circles and the diplomatic community here there is growing recognition of the fact that any progress and eventual reconciliation with all groups including political and moderate elements in Afghanistan is imperative. The EU envoys based in Kabul and Islamabad have also been concerned about the Taliban issue and in the past couple of days have discussed it with the foreign minister and representatives of key security institutions here. This will be high on the agenda when foreign ministers of Italy and Germany visit Pakistan later this month.

In September 2006, a detailed UN Report on Afghanistan listed the stronghold of Taliban inside Afghanistan. The report by a neutral organization reiterated with evidence the internal nature of the Taliban challenge to the Karzai government. Karzai himself has been mindful of the necessity to comprehensively engage the Taliban in an effort to bring political stability within Afghanistan. Beginning from his arrival in Afghanistan to take over as the president of the war-torn country, Karzai had stated his intention to open dialogue with the 'good' Taliban. Subsequently on numerous occasions in public statements Karzai reiterated his desire to engage the Taliban. In fact there were reports of a former Taliban foreign minister (Mutawakkil) having met Karzai and other members of his government. But the American officials have known to publicly and privately question, if not reprimand Karzai, for wanting to open dialogue with those the US has come to identify as enemy number 2 of its list of adversaries, second only to Al Qaeda's Osama Bin Laden. However, reportedly at other levels the Americans, who see the wisdom in it, have established contacts with sections of the Taliban through Pakistani mediation. Pakistan government has consistently been underscoring the need to engage with the Taliban and stands vindicated by the resolution passed by the Afghan Senate.

Even Lakhdar Brahimi, former UN's special representative for Afghanistan now concedes that one of the biggest mistakes he and others made was not to include Taliban into the mainstream political process as early as 2002.

The gravity of the current situation in Afghanistan can hardly be overstated. The country is still struggling with warlords, drug mafia, rampant corruption, bad governance and internal strife that continues to undermine all efforts at peace and stability. This year more than 1000 people have been killed so far, many of them civilians. While the much dreaded 'spring offensive' by the Taliban may not have occurred, isolated attacks continue to claim innocent lives. Nato which came to Afghanistan on an UN-mandated peace mission is now in combat.

There are now clear signs of a move towards much talked about need for national reconciliation inside the war-torn western neighbour of Pakistan.

Finally there appears to be a reckoning that the surest way to restore peace in Afghanistan is to make non-militant Taliban stakeholders in the Afghan government. Perhaps just as warlords were after the fall of the Taliban regime in late 2001.