Re: Changing Pakistan’s national language?
Dividing the country is not the issue here.. rather we are trying to unite it by making the existing country a better/fairer one by changing the national language! If you want to divide based on ethnic/sub-cultural entities then ALL countries in the world should be divided, including our neighbors. I am sure no one wants to open a pandora box…
Re: Changing Pakistan's national language?
Dude I don’t want to argue. God I hate big headed people.
Just get over this god damn superiority complex you have in regards to Indians, it’s not healthy and it’s making me sick, people from Kashmir, Punjab and Sindh are pretty much the same as North Indians, I could never tell the difference between a Lahori or an Amristari, you're all the same, in fact I’ve seen Indians who will piss over Pakis looks wise and vice versa. only about -5% of Pakistani blood will be foreign. Most of them just have that Desi look, it's not about complexion, look more like north indians than iranians.
Only Paki people who can be truly classed as Iranian are Pashtuns (Pathans) and Baluchis. Allthough they’ve been part of Akhand Bharat and assimilated into Hindu society for a period of history they are still very different and have more in common with West Asians mainly Persians, Kurds, Uzbek, Tajiks etc.
The rest of us are pretty much associated with northern India, don’t worry there’s nothing wrong with that just accept who you are you’ll feel lighter trust me.
Re: Changing Pakistan’s national language?
when u say Pakistanis why r u so conviniently sidestepping the Pakistaniath of Bengal? Muslim League was formed in Bengal, it was the Bengalis who were at the forefront of mass agitation against the British Raj and favoring Pakistan. If anybody deserved to be called Pakistanis it was the Bengalis…Another thing, when u start drawing comparisons u sud be explicit and just say it the way u mean it i.e. Bengalis versus Punjab, Pakhtoon, Baloch and SIndhi. Now that we have jettisoned the Bengalis we can start differentiating the Punjabis, Sindhis, Balochis and Pakhtoons.
Re: Changing Pakistan’s national language?
Unifying factor was severed with the military takeover in 1958 and the continuous disenfranchisement of the Pakistani populace which included west and east. Single most unifying factor was the creation of a country which was supposed to be for the ppl and by the ppl. Unfortunately, we all know what happened, establishment being afraid to share power with the ppl made it sure that any dissent was suppressed.
As for Iqbal/Faiz being victims of their environment is rather simplistic and an insult to their intellect. You are trying to rationalize your argument by bending and twisting historical facts and malign the Muslims of Northern India…
Your assumptions that urdu is not spoken across Pakistan is incorrect statement. It seems u hv not travelled across Pakistan, I hv and ppl living in Gilgit, Quetta, Peshawar, Lahore, Multan, Nawabshah, Larkana can converse with each other provided they speak urdu, no other language. Ever watch the national and provincial assembly sessions, urdu is the language spoken.
Making assumptions do not prove anything, look at the facts on ground. Pakistan is a federation of four units of different ethnic populations, how do they commuincate with each other? Language of their choice, nobody imposed urdu, it was already the language of the Muslims of undivided India. As a natural outcome, urdu was chosen for Pakistan.
Iam surprised for someone so acutely aware of his historical roots, you can deny the significance of urdu in the creation of Pakistan and enabling its various ethnic populace to converse.
Re: Changing Pakistan’s national language?
No one is saying that Pakistanis are “superior” to Indians! Indian culture/language itself is rich and unique like any other country’s.. but very different from those of native Pakistanis! That does not equate to superiority complex!
Urdu/Hindi is not the language of native Pakistanis, and never was until the British promotion and then imposition as Pakistan’s national language!
Punjabis and Sindhis have nothing in common with Indians. They have their own languages, histories, cultures, religions, geographies, and races.. yes even races! Except for the bordering regions in India like East Punjab, Kashmir, Rajasthan, etc. “most” Punjabis/Sindhis look very different from “most” Indians. Furthermore, most Punjabis in India (i.e. ONLY 2-4% of Indians!!) are Sikhs who consider themselves distinct from Indians and have aspirations for independence. Plus we know how Kashmiris have been waging war for independence. On racial differences between Indians and Pakistanis:
Most Punjabis/Sindhis have Iranian roots as well… they are descended from Iranic Scythian and other Iranian tribes… for example, according to scholars, “Jat” is derived from Massa “Gatae” … etc etc.
The ancestors of most native Pakistanis are not Hindu nor were they ever a part of “greater India” (Akhand Bharat):
Re: Changing Pakistan's national language?
Pakistan is one of the few countries that has a great deal of commonality between its various ethnic groups. Pashtuns, Baluchs, Punjabis, Sindhis, Seraikis:
Are linguistically Indo-Iranian with languages written in the Perso-Arabic script.
Are geographically based around Indus river and its tributaries.
Share a common history such as under Harappan, Aryan, Persian, Greek, Scythian, Parthian, Kushan, Hephthalite, Arab, and Turkic periods.
Share the same religion of Islam.
Are racially mostly Caucasoids mixed with others.
Are culturally based from the fusion of Islamic and Indo-Iranian roots.
Pakistan has existed in many different forms prior to the advent of British, e.g. the Indus Valley Cvilization, Sapta Sindhva, Gandhara/Sakastan, etc. As far as Afghanistan is concerned almost 25% of its population (Hazaras, Turks) is racially Mongoloid and 10% are linguistically Turkic (Uzbeks, Turkmen, etc). In Iran's case, almost 27% of its population is linguistically Turkic (Azeris, Turkmens). So I would say Pashtuns and Baluchs have more in common with Pakistanis than with Afghans and Iranians as a whole (except for same ethnic groups). Plus the rivalry between Tajiks vs Pashtuns and Shia Persians vs Sunni Baluchs is historic. Then Punjabis in India are only 2-4% of its population who happen to be Sikhs mostly wanting independece from India, besides Punjabis in Pakistan are culturally/linguistically/religiously slightly different from Punjabis of India.
If I were you... I would most definitely worry about India... a country created by the British... with NO linguistic, racial, historical, cultural, or religious commonality... NONE WHATSOEVER... except for being former-British colonies!
Re: Changing Pakistan's national language?
The fact that Urdu is the mother tongue of only Muhajirs, and is native to only UP/MP/Bihar/Delhi/etc region of India, thus a foreign language in Pakistan! This is what Encyclopaedia Britannica says: "Urdu originated in the region between the Ganges and Jamuna rivers near Delhi,..... 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 have travelled very much in Pakistan.. Urdu is very weak in rural areas. But you are missing the whole point here. Urdu was first imposed by the British and then as Pakistan's national language by the Muhajir dominated Pak govt/media. 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 (imposed) system of the country.
Re: Changing Pakistan's national language?
See it in very simple terms, what are the main native languages of Pakistan? Punjabi, Pashto, Sindhi, Baloch etc. Nobody can arque that Punjabi native language is Punjabi ... to claim otherwise is a lie!!!
By teaching and spreading Urdu what are you doing? In effect your creating a vehicle that enables Pakistani's to be able to communicate effectively with Indian's!!! Urdu has trans-national capability - With India!!!
Your enabling a Pashtun or a Punjabi to be able to speak with 98% effectivness with say Gujrati, Tamil, Orrisan, Telagu Indian's. Without Urdu the Pashtun would not be able to speak with any Indian and a Punjabi would be limited to North Western Indian!!!
Clearly the effect of this is your homogenizing divergent peoples of South Asia - Your creating uniformity with India, which is inconsistent with the whole notion of Pakistan. If people of Pakistan really do want homogenized into India then great go ahead and spread Urdu but then again why not re-unify with India? Would at least save lot of money!!!
Its this basic contradictory nature of Urdu that I am having problems rationalizing and is at the heart of my disgust with this 'language of indianization' which in the long term will rip up any precious local identity we have and end up getting emulsified into the greater India.
This effect can be seen in Ireland where the Irish fought for centuries to free themselves from their English masters and rallied around their Celtic roots/culture. However their own language - Gaelic over time was wiped out by English. The effect of this can be seen now in present day Ireland. Despite now being a independant country their culture has been wiped out by English/American influence ... indeed Ireland now is just a extention of UK bar the slight differance in accents!!!
Indeed I wonder what was the point of centuries of troubles? I fear the same will happen in Pakistan.
So the question Pakistani's should ask is 'do we want to be homogenized into India'? I know what my answer is!!!
Re: Changing Pakistan's national language?
Interesting views from another forum
[QUOTE]
For me the question is simple. What was the purpose of Pakistan? Was it to chart a destiny differant from India? Or was it just to have a separate political unit but that would just follow India like a dog?
In my view the purpose of Pakistan was to follow a differant destiny. If Pakistan was somewhere in middle of India, or had peoples that were 100% the same as Indian's I would not even begin to support a change of language or attempt at re-orientating the country. It would be a excercise in futility, I would accept the inevitability, that we are just Indian and there is no point in wasting time deluding ourselves.In fact I would arrive at he rationale that independance was a mistake and would advocate immediate unification and save all that money on defence and save any more lives lost in defence of our independance. But that is not what I believe.We are differant but we have to rid oursevles of British legacy.
What I see is our geographic location, our peoples and our history contains sufficient substance and differance to service a genuine change of direction. Indeed it follows naturally from our independance. If we don't change direction all I can say is then let truth express itself - Join India, confederate with it. Or else the only excuse I can see for Pakistan is to provide a platform for a small native elite, the Mahajir elite and the Mullah to enrich themselves.
I don't know how the hell I can be accused of being unpatriotic, I am trying to put real distance between us and India, I support fortifying our identity and anchoring our identity.
In the preceeding centuries it was us who in the sub continent took the brunt of influences derived from the West, it was us who were invaded by the Greeks, it was our lands that saw the Ghandara Greco-Bactrian Kingdoms, Taxila today is a living testimony to this. It was our lannds that saw the flourishing of Indus Valley civilization. No doubt we have been sometimes the easternmost satrapy of Persia, or under the influence of 'Indian' based empires, and sometimes independant made up of small kingdoms. But by large, Pakistan region was has a distinct history from India and this is explained in detail on the website: www.geocities.com/pak_history
Whats certain is we sit on the margins of Central/South Asia and we broke of from the British colonial empire that had welded us to Calcutta and then Delhi - Even that experiance was for less then a century.
Today we are still struggling with British colonial legacy, the stamp left on us of being 'Indian' that was imprinted on us by the British. But as Peacemaker said we are in a 'swing status' we can tilt either way.
55 years after having thrown off the British colonial yoke we have yet to undo its legacy and language is central to that. Clearly had the British not taken over Punjab ( 1850 ) and NWFP ( 1880 ) we would not have had Urdu as our language, we would not have been so 'connected' to the Indian heartland - the Ganges plains.
Al we have done since 1947 is sever our links with British colonialism but kept the donated blood flowing in our system. Ask yourself this simple question, which is the language that India is spreading through its diverse peoples? Which is the language that all Indians will speak in the future? It is Hindi of course!!!
Now Urdu is same as Hindi, if anybody disagrees please let us know. Clearly having Perso Arabic script and more Persian words is not enough to create a distinct language. At end of day Hindi and Urdu are very similar.
So do Pakistani's want to 'Indianize' themselves? Does Pakistan want to become the common cultural realm of India? I and some others oppose this, we see inconsistancy with having Pakistan and then trying to make it another India.
We are trying to distance ourselves from India, how the hell can that be unpatriotic? Must we be pro Indian to be patriotic? We are anti Indian and thats we we want to distance ourselves from India. We do not want to marry ourselves to India.
Of course any change has to take into account our history, our geography and our peoples. We can't just adopt any language in the quest to break free from colonial legacy, the British fostered forced gun marriage to India.
So Malay, Indonesian, Arabic are out since we are not geographically anywhere near these regions and have no historical links with them. The change has to take into account our history. That we have on our westerly side. For many centuries in the preceeding thousands of years we have been linked to our westerly neigbours, been part of Persian empires. So the choice is limited, either we look east ( with whom we also have shared some of our history ) or the west.
If it was the east we wanted then why the hell 1947, the British had given us free off cost a ready made union but we separated. So the only natural consequence is a look westward and language is the key component of this.
Finally the differance between us and India is not just religion. India is a vast country made up of many 'nations' of differant ethnicity. There is no Balochistan, Pashtun or Sindh in India. The exclusive homeland of Sindhi, Pashtun and Baloch is Pakistan only the Punjabi are found in India but as mentioned before they are some 5% of India. That 5% is hardly descriptive of the vast country called India, which is a continent in itself.
Take a look at your environment, you live in a land thats either mountains or semi to full desert, now find out what most of India is? You are in the easternmost arid zone that extends from Iran, whereas most of India is well watered, tropical region.
There is some Baloch in Iran as well but nobody ever thinks that Pakistan is same as Iran!!! Or there are large numbers ( largest minority ) Pashtun in Afghanistan but that does not make Afghanistan same as Pakistan. The provinces ( peoples ) Punjab, NWFP ( Pashtun ), Baloch and Sindh that make up Pakistan is a mix and a matrix that is unique to Pakistan.Religion is but one marker of our identity. We are not Bengali, Tamil, Etc moslems, our lands are not tropical/delta swamps!!! Ours are harsh dry desert or lofty mountains creating difficult conditions and a hardy people, traditionaly poor but proud. It was not a co incidence that the British looked to our lands to fill up their armies. We were a simple people.
Time we undid the British colonialism and marked our own identity.
[/QUOTE]
Re: Changing Pakistan's national language?
so someone who does not know how to speak urdu would now be someone who does not kno how to speak farsi :D
Baycahara madhanee made some sense but no one listened to him.
waisay why go backwards, why not look forwards and just go with english :)
Re: Changing Pakistan’s national language?
As long as Urdu ceases as Pakistan’s national language.. then that’s what matters. Any way, you cannot deny that Urdu is increasingly becoming popular because of national language imposition and the Indian cultural invasion.
On English:
Should English continue as our Official Language?
All languages of Pakistan are oppressed, and the ruling elite Anglophones continue to deny them their rightful role they deserve as the official languages of Pakistan. Fifty three years after the so-called independence English continues as the official language and graduates from non-English medium schools face a job market in the control of these colonial forces bent on the total destruction of all Pakistani languages. The fact is that in 1947 we inherited an elitist ruling class bureaucracy tenaciously clinging to power and owing allegiance to Britain alone and seeking a strengthening of Anglo-American interests and cultural subversion, the destruction of Muslim/Pakistani values and lifestyles throughout the country. The plain fact is that as long as English remains as the official language of Pakistan it will be difficult to create a vibrant national spirit or culture The status of national language is meaningless; unless it is allowed to assume the role of official language, and as the medium of universal instruction within the country. Language is a potent force in the promotion of nationalism and national cohesion.<<<
Indeed, after more than a half century of the so-called independence, majority of Pakistanis are still in a state of mental slavery. You have accurately pinpointed the causes and agendas behind the far more potent danger to our culture and identity—the English domination in Pakistan; which is led by the British-installed Anglophile elite of Pakistan, to serve the interests of the Anglo-Americans and their own.
Widespread ignorance among the masses is being exploited, with the false propaganda of English as the “global” or “better” language. Also, the promotion of English is misleadingly justified as the heritage of Pakistanis, or on the basis of linguistic evolution.
The argument of English being a global language holds no weight, as you know these so called global languages come and go, depending on a nation’s politico-economic influence in the world. At different time periods, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, Persian, and Arabic served as global languages. Sure, it is good to learn the global language or any other language, but not at the cost of losing your own. And what is more important is that while these transitions in the balance of world power take place, other nations should cling on to their language/culture in order to ensure their long term survival.
The claim of English as a better language is simply hogwash. Linguists and cultural anthropologists agree that language is independent of the mental level in people. There is no correlation between a people’s language and their level of sophistication. For example, the once barbaric Germanic-speaking people, who were far less civilized than others, are today one of the most sophisticated people in the world. Languages that lack the essentials of today’s constantly changing modern world can simply be further developed to meet the demands via proper linguistic institutions. Out of national pride, the once rarely spoken and ancient Hebrew language was revived and further developed as Israel’s national language. Today, Israel is one of the world’s leading countries in technology, and its Hebrew language proudly satisfies their demands. Japan, China, Korea, Russia, Latin and Arab countries, Iran, and many others are proof that national pride of language can overpower against any odds.
English language, as the heritage of Pakistanis is another bogus claim. The very fact that the British imperialists invaded South Asia, looted and enslaved its people, and then fled back to their country thousands of miles away does not make them part of our heritage. Unlike the Aryans, Sakas, Huns, Turks, and various other invaders, the British did not settle permanently in South Asia, nor did they intermarry with the South Asians. Therefore, the British and their English language are not the true heritage of Pakistanis, but instead they are the bitter legacy of foreign subjugation and plunder.
It is true that language is in a constant natural process of evolution, dependent on the sociopolitical circumstances. As different peoples interact or merge, they influence each other, thereby bringing change. This is a slow natural process, independent of external factors. Unnecessarily using a foreign/colonial language, or purposely substituting the words in your language from it, is nothing more than slave-mindedness, and stands against the very principles of linguistic evolution. A proud Arab, Iranian, French, Chinese, Japanese, etc. would never unnecessarily prefer to speak English, nor replace words in their language from English.
The greater part of the blame for the continuing dominance of English language in Pakistan lies within us, the common Pakistanis. We blame others, particularly the elite and foreign powers, but at the same time it is very hypocritical of us to send our children to English medium schools, lavishly using English language/words instead of our own, and basically giving a godly status to everything English/Western. This slave-mindedness and inferiority complex is so deeply rooted in our psyche, that we don’t even want to acknowledge or fight it. We are so much consumed with careerism and materialism that we continue to ignore the infection of slavery in our minds, like a deadly disease slowly destroying our identity and culture.
Re: Changing Pakistan's national language?
LOL @ Pakistan4ever's bogus sources and statistics
"Pakistanis are all tall and fair and look just like Middle-Eastern people"
Re: Changing Pakistan's national language?
P4E - I admire your passion and the huuuuuuge posts about history anthropology and a few other things. Unfortunately reason is not one of them.
Let's keep it simple:
Hence there's no way for you to be ever de-Indianized.
Re: Changing Pakistan’s national language?
so u have an issue with urdu… but what happens to punjabi speakers, or sindhi speakers, they have been speaking these languages for generations, why take away one language and impose another one on them.
and as far as english goes, the world has moved, english is the de facto language of world business, stepping away from it will only hurt people not help them.
anyways.. how about we even go back farther than urdu and farsi…i mean there were languages prior to that, whether you look at languages of this region or languages of the regions wherefarsi is now spoken.
in the end what does it solve. zilch
Re: Changing Pakistan’s national language?
BTW. My suggestions to you all would be:
In my case,…I love Urdu the most,…here are 6 funny reasons,..for it..
Urdu has no CAPITAL LETTERS= That make easy to use keyboard etc= One save time AND AVOID A LOT OF BULL**** REMBERING THIS AND THAT WORD BEGINS WITH CAPITAL LETTER ETC ETC
In urdu one use the # 1= ek. In englisk A and AN= One need not to rember difficult grammer in urdu regarding this matter.
In urdu one only use BT for BUTT etc etc = One saves ink and time.The ink and paper last longer. This way money and environment is saved. Less paper= Ferwer trees are cut.
Urdu has ek letter for every voice= Again one saves ink and time.The ink and paper last longer. This way money and environment is saved. Less paper= Ferwer trees are cut.
In urdu one always write logical= The way u speak, u write.
Then again, urdu allows pakistanis to keep one leg in pakistan and one leg in the hindi heartland, it allows them to watch and understand bollywood movies .
Re: Changing Pakistan’s national language?
For a simple, idiotic mind like yourself, the above suffices and yes let’s keep it simple. But don’t force your simple minded views on others. It is clear you are not intelligent enough for huge posts.
Re: Changing Pakistan's national language?
If we lose urdu, then we start experiencing the same problems as Bangladesh. Not having a workforce familiar with English is a liability in the global marketplace.
Pakistan has a much easier time getting inflows of money from abroad than Bangladesh does because are workers and government are easier to deal with.
English in schools, universities and government has been a blessing for Pakistan's economy.
And little reasoning has been given why having English as an official language leads to westernisation. Westernisation has been happening is plenty of arab countries that don't use English as an official language. And it's been happening in China, and in Japan, and in Latin America......
Re: Changing Pakistan’s national language?
You are distorting on what I had quoted:
Re: Changing Pakistan’s national language?
If you have comprehension problems with facts/reasoning then that is not my problem. By the way, responding to your “simple” (“ignorant” is more appropriate) points:
The land and people of Pakistan has recorded history dating back to 6000 BC. Almost all present day countries are recent creations dating back to a few decades or centuries. Even your India was created one day after Pakistan in 1947 out of British Raj. So what matters is the land and its people… and their history!
Ancestors of most Pakistani Muslims were converts from Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Animism, and Paganism. Shaivites and Brahmanists (i.e. Hindus)were a very small minority in Pakistan. And all Muslims through out the world are converts from other religions.
The foreign term “Hindu” was first imposed by the Muslim invaders (Ghorids in 12th century AD) on the non-Muslims/etc of present day India region. The foreign term “India” was first imposed on present-day India region by the British colonialists. In conclusion, the so called “Hindus” and “Indians” of today should thank their former masters for giving them their identities!
Re: Changing Pakistan’s national language?
I have a problem with Urdu because:
It has no historical basis in Pakistan region before the British occupation.
It is native to only north India and continues to welcome cultural invasion from India
It is the mother-tongue of only 7% Pakistanis (i.e. Muhajirs), and is resented as cultural domination of one ethnic group over the others.
It is almost the same language as Hindi (minus the script & loanwords), and thus Indian films, tv, music, news, etc. are brainwashing Pakistanis with Indocentrism and Hinduism
It has caused an identity crises in Pakistan because many people falsely perceive Indians and Pakistan as the same people because their national languages (i.e. Urdu-Hindi) are the same.
It is undoing (contradicting) the creation of Pakistan by forcing the distinct native peoples of Pakistan to be “Indianized”
It is responsible for starting the Bengali separatism leading to dismemberment of East Pakistan.
… the list goes on and on…
By the way, I am not against English! English should be definitely taught in schools as an optional subject for foreign student or global economy purposes. But I am against making English our national language since we are not under British occupation/slavery any more, nor are we stooges of the Anglo-Americans. Plus, with English as our national language, we will be still stuck with dilemna of identity between the English-speaking Indians and English-speaking Pakistanis!
Also, local/native languages of Pakistan should still be protected and promoted. Dari/Farsi language will just replace Urdu as our national language.. for inter-provincial communication and a stronger distinct national identity!