Kind of sad really, while i understand the need for a link language and the importance of Urdu in that regard, destroying cultural diversity is not the way to promote a link language.
Mother tongue as a medium of instruction
By Ali Ahmed Rind
When the British conquered Sindh in 1843, Persian was the court language of Sindh. However, the British being clever imperialists, decided to address the natives in their own language thus ensuring an enduring, trouble-free rule over the colony. Moreover, Sindhi language had its roots in thousands of years and had been in vogue as a medium of instruction in primitive educational system prevalent in the region.
Accordingly, Sindhi was made official language of Sindh (then part of Bombay province), and all the civil servants posted in Sindh were required a certificate of proficiency in Sindhi by the education department. A committee of Sindhi academics, headed by a B H Ellis, then assistant commissioner Sindh, agreed upon the Arabic script for Sindhi and standardised a 52-word Sindhi alphabet, which still is in vogue. Sindhi was also made language of revenue and judicial business and medium of instruction. All laws and acts issued in English would be translated in Sindhi. As renowned educationalist Dr Tariq Rehman writes in his book, Language and Politics in Pakistan, during this period 87 Sindhi newspapers came out in the province.
However, the tables were turned on Sindhi when the Muslim League took reign of power after the division of the Sub-Continent. Urdu had been there as official language of the Muslim League, save for Sindh province. Brushing aside all voices favouring the inclusion of all indigenous languages as national language and helping them to establish as medium of instruction at least at primary school level, the Muslim League leadership declared Urdu–not indigenous to any part of the incipient state-as the national language, thus infuriating the Bengalis (56% of the total population) and other nationalist groups, who wanted the same accolade and position as Urdu, for their mother tongues. According to the 1951 census report, Urdu had been the mother tongue of 2.37% of the total population of the united Pakistan.
In the words of one historian, Urdu made millions of enemies overnight, by being imposed on the indigenous people, against their wishes. Subsequent political developments showed the Bengali language movement succeeding in forcing the ruling coterie of civil-military bureaucracy to rethink over their policy of so-called ‘one nation one language’, and made them to incorporate Bengali as ‘another’ national language thorough the 1956 Constitution. The Bengali language movement gave way to the subsequent Bengali nationalistic fervour, which, many political historians think, culminated in the Bengali independence movement in the early '70s.
Another issue that is linked with the language policy is that of ethnic polarisation of Sindh. In the early days of Pakistan, besides declaring Urdu as the national language and officially patronising the same at the cost and peril of Sindhi, new masters of the state arbitrarily separated Karachi from Sindh. Thus, as an intellectual observed, a serious blow was dealt to the already not too satisfactory pace of assimilation of Urdu speakers with indigenous Sindhis.
** Qasim Bughio, present chairman of Sindhi Language Authority, in his detailed study on the language question, has described that within a year of partition 1,300 Sindhi medium schools were closed in Karachi alone. A year later, Karachi Municipal Committee passed a resolution making Urdu official language of the municipality and ordering to erase Sindhi names from schools, roads etc in line with the decision. **
In 1956, the syndicate of Karachi University decided to exclude Sindhi from being a medium of answering examination papers. The decision invited mass student protests and when the students approached High Court through Z A Bhutto, who had just started his law practice, the court dismissed the petition on the grounds of autonomous position of the Syndicate to take decisions on its own. Two years later, the country saw a full military rule with full denial of existence of various ethno-lingual groups.
In 1959, the Sharif Commission report on education proposed that ‘for the sake of national unity we must do everything to promote the linguistic cohesion of West Pakistan’. To achieve this ideal, the Commission deemed promotion of Urdu and obliteration of Sindhi from schools, where it had survived as a medium of education as mandatory.
On 6 November 1962, Sindhi nationalists observed ‘Sindhi Language Day’ to press the ruling junta not to go ahead with the Committee report, and they succeeded in their goal. Here it would also be pertinent to note that contrary to the wishful thinking of ideologues of ‘cohesive’ and thus peaceful social fabric of Pakistan, social scientists insist that cultural uniformity fails to bring peace; on the contrary, it is more likely to bring totalitarianism as such a unitary system is easier for the privileged few to dominate.
The early seventies brought violent clashes in urban Sindh on the language question. The introduction of the so-called Language Bill in the Provincial Assembly became a catalyst for turmoil. Two decades down the road, the status quo prevails. The question of reorganisation of indigenous languages as national languages, at par with Urdu, remains a dream yet to be fulfilled. While the indigenous languages of two federating units, Balochistan and Punjab, have not been developed as mediums of instruction at any level, at present Pushto medium schools could be located in some rural parts of NWFP and Sindhi medium schools are continuously declining in the urban centers of Sindh.
The question is: why shouldn’t a child have the right to learn in his/her mother tongue? Why is the state patronising Urdu and English as the only languages, which can assure future jobs and power while discriminating against indigenous languages?
** Unesco had long ago established the fact that the only practical and sound way of imparting education to pupils is through their mother tongue. In its report, “The Vernacular Languages in Education” of 1953, it had stated: “It is axiomatic that the best medium for teaching a child is his mother tongue…educationally, he learns more quickly through it than any other unfamiliar linguist medium.” **
Again, this year, the same global body reminded the international community of the peril of overlooking mother tongue as a medium of education in its report titled ** , “Education In A Multilingual World: Unesco Education Position Paper”. The report observes: “Studies have shown that, in many cases, instruction in mother tongue is beneficial to language competencies in the first language, achievement in other subject areas, and second language learning.” The report can be presented as an evidence of absurdity of the education policies that our rulers have advocated and patronised for years. **
** In the words of Dr Tariq Rahman, “This (imparting education to a child in non-mother tongue) is cruel towards children because by denying their mother tongue we are denying them the easiest means for understanding the world.” **
Here it would be pertinent to bring up that many academicians are of the view that Pakistan’s poor performance in mass literacy programme is due to its irrational policy of discouraging mother tongues as medium of education. They cite the example of two African countries, Tanzania and Ethiopia. The literacy rate of Tanzania had been 75% in 1961, which dropped to 21% in 1981 after the ruling classes tried to gain ‘national cohesion’ through imposing Swahili on other language-speaking people as a medium of education. Likewise, in Ethiopia, where the Amharic-speaking minority had honoured their own language as official language for decades before recognising 15 other languages equally worthy, in 1979, an increase in literacy to 90% has been reported since.
“What is important about education is not simply the mechanism of expression in a language, but the ability to understand ideas, ask questions and reason rigorously,” says Professor Gul Agha, an ex-pat Sindhi, living in the US. “It does not make sense to teach these things in a foreign language, when a child is struggling to learn the mechanics of foreign language–be it English, Urdu or Arabic.” He thinks that the practice of denying education to a child in his/her mother tongue is a recipe for developing an inferiority complex in the child.
Globally, there is a push towards recognising diversity of culture and lingual plurality as a blessing rather than the other way round. Pakistan, an aspirant to find a respectable position in the international community, cannot remain detached from the emerging reality for too long. Sooner or later, our rulers have to concede to the reality that Pakistan as a state is not a monolithic, homogenous entity. And that it is a multinational, multilingual state, home of numerous ethno-lingual, cultural groups, honouring of whose rights can only guarantee the integrity and prosperity of Pakistan and enrichment of its human resource.