Diversity is natural to life. Nature composed of infinitely diverse elements presents elusive phenomena that still challenge human mind and imagination.

What we humans do not know is vastly greater than what we know with all our accumulated knowledge. It is not just the natural world that is diverse. Human society, a product of evolutionary process, is almost as diverse as nature itself. Even when things seem to be similar it is dissimilarity that defines similarity. Just take the example of our daily routine ‘to meet the faces that we meet’. Human faces while signifying the same thing are not same. In other words they are similarly dissimilar or dissimilarly similar. The huge network of life human and non-human marked by differences and distinctions is what compels us to understand it by exploring the inter-connections that exist between things we have to interact with directly and indirectly.

In human society the most prominent phenomenon that baffles our mind is that of diversity of human speech. It is not just that different societies are marked by differences in speech. Each society apparently homogeneous makes us to pause and ponder over the differences that confront us when we see a set of people using the same speech differently. Such differences have forced almost each society through a historical process to evolve a linguistic construct having a uniformity that can be committed to writing and can be read and understood by anybody who is trained to do so. Such a construct is generally called language by the linguists. Language as defined by academics is an abstraction. It does not exist except what it is written on. It is an artificial product created by a process of selection that appears to be natural due to the frequency of its repeated use. Its repeated use, if accepted, results in its standardisation that makes it accessible to whosoever learns it. A standard language means in fact a written language. The process that creates the arboretum of a standard language borrows from the dialects which have common roots! Dialect is a living thing; a language not standardised, a language as actually used by its speakers in their daily lives with all its messy impurities. A living organism by its very nature has to be impure as it is sustained by diverse and at times conflicting elements. So in actual life no one speaks a language. It is invariably a dialect that is spoken. Living speech is always dialect based.

The question of language and dialects has caused much confusion among the intelligentsia and middle and upper classes in Punjab due to the paucity of knowledge and politically motivated ideological considerations. Question of language, if and when, debated is not contextualised. The historical perspective of how foreign languages Urdu and English were imposed as medium of instruction in the aftermath of annexation of Punjab by the East India Company in 1847 as an act of colonial coercion is not taken into account. Pakistani state dominated by Punjabi and Urdu speaking elites safeguarded this colonial language policy. They further added to it an ideological dimension by brandishing Urdu as an important uniting link between different nationalities of the country which backfired and had dire consequences for national unity as was evidenced by the rejection of Urdu as the national language by the Bengalis of erstwhile East Pakistan.

Now whenever the question of introducing the Punjabi language as medium of instruction is raised we see a great turbulence in the echelons of power as if a conspiracy is being hatched to destroy the thread that holds us together. How Urdu pushed Pakistani Bengalis away and consequently how ‘things fell apart and centre could not hold’ is conveniently ignored. Another argument if at all it’s an argument employed against Punjabi by its intellectually bankrupt opponents, is that it is not a language; rather it is just one of the dialects. Let it be said loud and clear that when we say Punjabi we mean the written language employed by Punjab’s literati from early 11th century to early 20th century. This glorious literary journey started with the serene ‘Ginan’ (Hymns) of Kramatias of Multan and ended with haunting poetry of Khwaja Ghulam Farid and Mian Mohammad. This written language communicated all across Punjab which in linguistic terms was a huge area; from Peshawar and hills of Jammu Kashmir to Derajaat (D.I.Khan and D.G.Khan) and from upper Sindh to Delhi. A 19th century poet Maulvi Mohammad Suleman of Chakwal in one of his verses delineates for us the linguistic boundaries: ‘From Peshawar to Jumna and from Chamba to Dera Punjabi people understand and recite my poetry’. All the writers and poets without exception wrote in a standard language which we call Punjabi. It may surprise many that there is no dialect such as Punjabi. The standard literary language was called Punjabi expressing the connotations of its geographical parameters. What is Punjabi associated with today by various groups for various political reasons was called ‘Majhi’ the central dialect spoken in the central Punjab. ‘Majhi’ was and is one of the dialects. Other major dialects are Lendhi, Multani, Pothohari, Chhachhi, Hindko, Doabi and Gojri, to name a few. In short the literary language of Punjab during the last thousand years was consciously evolved by our classical writers and poets. They borrowed from all the dialects and fashioned a language that on the one hand served as a vehicle of creative expression and on the other communicated all across Punjab. It was a process of picking and choosing as well as that of mixing and matching. When 19th century poet Qazi Imam Bux of D.G.Khan said, ”Now I finish composing the ancient tales in Punjabi language” he did not mean Punjabi to be Majhi which is these days confused with Punjabi. What he meant by ‘Punjabi’ was the standard literary language of Punjab. Current Punjabi versus Seraiki or Punjabi versus Pothohari issue is of recent origins and has been exacerbated by unequal socio-economic development which demands a thorough analysis and remedial measures.