0
IT goes without saying that Urdu has truly become Pakistan’s lingua franca. But then there are other aspects as well.
Memon Abdul Mejeed Sindhi in his book Lisaniyaat-i-Pakistan has premised that there are as many as 72 languages and dialects spoken in Pakistan (National Language Authority, Islamabad, 1992). So the Pakistani society is a multilingual one. But Urdu has become a thread that binds them all. The language of the mainstream media, print or otherwise, is Urdu. The language in which political leaders address the rallies, often televised live nationwide, is Urdu. Citizens visiting other parts of the country communicate with each other in Urdu as it is understood in every part of the land. Even some Sindhi language TV channels have to use Urdu when interviewing some personalities not well-versed in Sindhi. Some provincial language channels air many advertisements in Urdu. Interestingly, a couple of English language TV channels that began their broadcasts in the country either had to switch over to Urdu or close down for good.
But all along the 65 years of independence, there have been a lot of voices of dissent against Urdu and/or its so-called hegemony. The first few of such voices rose from former East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). Many individuals and some political parties of the western part of the country, too, notably the regional ones or the ones having an ethnic-nationalist approach, had been opposing Urdu. Till recently, many intellectuals and some political leaders from Sindh had been labelling Urdu as ‘the language of the imperialists’. Though this has subsided considerably now here in Sindh, whatever the reason may be, this tag is now being applied to Urdu in Balochistan where ethnic or regional sentiments are rapidly transforming into the separatist philosophy.
Do Pakistan’s political parties have ever given any thought to the language issue? Do they have their specific preferences about a particular language? And, most importantly, what do they think of Urdu? Ilm-o-fun, the new research journal brought out by Muqtadira Qaumi Zaban (or national language authority), includes a very interesting article that investigates and analyses these questions. Written by Dr Mujeeb Ahmed of Islamabad’s International Islamic University, the article is titled Qaumi zaban Urdu aur Pakistan ki siyasi jamaaton ke manshooraat: aik tajziyati mutala (National language Urdu and the manifestoes of Pakistan’s political parties: an analytical study).
According to Dr Ahmed, some of the measures taken by the government in the years immediately after the independence made people feel that Urdu was pitted against the regional languages, especially Bengali. The 1956 constitution declared both Urdu and Bengali Pakistan’s national languages. Muslim League, a political party credited with the creation of Pakistan, presented this constitution and in a way it deviated from its long-standing point of view on Urdu.
Then Dr Ahmed goes on to analyse the manifestoes of different political parties. Here is a gist of what he has researched: When Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz issued its manifesto during the October 2002 general elections, it said the national language, Urdu, would be the medium of instruction for basic education. It also promised to give due importance to English and regional languages. It said the competitive exams for government posts would be given both in Urdu and English. But the manifesto of the same party issued in December 2007 says nothing on the issue. The manifesto of PML-Q issued in August 2002 is also silent on the issue. The PPP’s 1967 manifesto says that Pakistan cannot forever depend on a foreign language and local languages sooner or later are to replace it. This manifesto sees the promotion of the regional languages as a catalyst for the country’s development. Though PPP’s manifestoes issued in 1993 and 1998 say nothing on the issue, it is the party that presented 1973 constitution — the one which says Urdu is Pakistan’s national language and it is to replace English as official language within 15 years — and got it approved the elected houses.
The Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf’s manifesto favours “Urdu or mother tongue” as medium of instruction at primary level. It says that at the high school level, Urdu will be the medium of instruction and English will be taught as a compulsory subject. Muttahida Qaumi Movement’s manifesto favours a medium of instruction that is equal for all, and says that the difference between Urdu medium and English medium will be eliminated. ANP’s manifesto says Punjabi, Sindhi, Pashto, Balochi, Seraiki etc will be declared national and official languages. Medium of instruction will be the mother tongue and Urdu the ‘link language’, it says.
In its 1969 manifesto, Jamaat-i-Islami had accepted both Urdu and Bengali as the national languages. It says Arabic will be taught as a compulsory subject, Urdu and Bengali will replace English as the medium of instruction, regional languages will be promoted and English not to remain the official language. The party’s 1997 manifesto reaffirms this view (naturally, minus Bengali).
The manifesto of Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam-Fazl says that the basic education will be given in mother tongues, English will be optional, Arabic will be compulsory, regional languages will be promoted and Urdu will be the medium of instruction at the higher education level. JUI has to its credit the implementation of Urdu as official language in NWFP, now Khyber Pakhtunkwa. When it formed a government in that province in 1972, its chief, Maulana Mufti Mahmood, made Urdu the province’s official language. JUP’s manifestoes were approved of Urdu as the national language, Arabic as a compulsory subject and English as an optional subject, though its 1986 manifesto does not mention anything regarding the official language.
The article analyses manifestoes of many other parties, such as Pakistan Democratic Party, Jamhoori Watan Party, PPP-Sherpao, Pakhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party, Khaksaar Tehreek, Tehreek-i-Nifaz-i-Fiqh-i-Jafria, Balochistan National Party, Social Democratic Party, Pakistan Communist Party, Pakistan Socialist Party etc but for want of space details cannot be given here.
Dr Ahmed says student organisations are very sensitive to the language issue and many of them favour mother tongue as the medium of instruction at the primary level.
He says that one can see that there is a marked difference between the points of view of religious parties and nationalist parties. Religious parties have well-defined views on the language issue and they favour a status for Arabic almost on a par with Urdu. Many parties do not have a clear view on the issue or at least their manifestoes do not say anything about it. Nationalist and ethnic parties want to give the regional languages the status of national languages and do not consider Urdu anything more than a language that works as a link to communicate amongst different ethnic groups.
Muqtadira Qaumi Zaban Chairman Dr Anwaar Ahmed and ‘Ilm-o-fun editor Muhammad Islam Nishter deserve acclaim for this journal that has many other interesting and worthwhile articles. One of them is on Urdu euphemism. Written by an Iranian student, Laila Abdi Khujeste, who is doing her PhD on Urdu dictionaries, the article is perhaps the first on the topic.
Another section deals with coining Urdu terms, the real work that the national language authority should be doing. An index of Urdu research journals, the need of the hour, has also been included in the first issue of this biannual publication.
