What prompted Mr. Jinnah in support of the language of a tiny immigrant minority was a political act more concerned with power than language itself.

As Pakistan came into being on the premise of Muslim separateness, it seemed logical that paramount importance be given what underpinned it; an arboretum of Muslim culture that alien aristocracy laid around their seat of power in Uttar Pradesh.

Bengal was thought to be cut off from the so-called Muslim cultural mainland. It was rather taken as Muslim majority region that had mélange of different Hindu cultural expressions ranging from language to performing art and from sartorial look to food. Uttar Pradesh and Punjab dominating coterie had a nagging doubt about Bengali society’s loyalty to such an ideological notion. They feared that Bengal contradicted what they had built on; Muslim exclusivity. Bengal proudly flaunted its indigenous way of life despite being Muslim. Mr Jinnah’s declaration was out of place to say the least as it ignored the new ground realities in the wake of emergence of Pakistan at a great risk to the new state he himself had helped to carve.

In the pre-partition period, it was ideals that drove the movement but in the post-partition era the ground realities would shape the realpolitik. Anybody with clear mind could see that the regions that constituted Pakistan were historically evolved entities with their distinct and diverse cultures and languages. Faith was an important but just one of the uniting links. Overemphasis on common faith was bound to backfire and it did backfire in a painful way. Consequently, the leadership failed to read the complex historical situation and paid the price.

Bengali language was accepted in 1954 as one of the national languages when language movement failed to subside despite its brutal suppression by the West Pakistan state machinery. Its acceptance was a great step forward for the Bengalis who were struggling to correct the power imbalance between two wings of the country. The issue of power sharing expressed in language conflict got finally resolved in separation and emergence of Bangladesh as an independent state but at a colossal human and material cost in the ensuing civil war. It may be called second partition which proved to be as bloody and ghoulish as the first one.

Yet another glaring example is that of Turkey which has been dominating and suppressing Kurdish minority in its uncontrollable imperialistic streak for long. The brutal display of Turkish hubris was so blatant that Kurdish language was banned in public and private life in 1980. Speaking Kurdish language and writing it was declared a criminal offence. People who dared to speak, write and sing in Kurdish would be arrested, tried and given jail term. The real purpose of suppression was the expression of Turkish power designed to break the spirit of the resilient Kurds who refused to summit to Turkish monolith. Language, one may assert, can act as a proxy for something else; power politics. It can be employed as a tool to express a group’s desire for dominance over others or a group’s expression of struggle to end the dominance of others. In other words, it is also an effective weapon in the war of hegemony which refuses to cease.

Hegemony has two important dimensions, political and cultural. Antonio Gramsci, a remarkable Italian thinker and theorist, who expounded his famous theory of cultural hegemony from jail has shown how the ruling elite manipulates and exploits value system, social habits and mores to perpetuate its worldview and maintain its dominance to the disadvantage of the non-privileged classes. Such cultural dominance signifies ruling class’s over-all dominance in power structures erected and monopolised by it. In our context the game of hegemony, power politics through cultural means, is now played by Punjabi elite coterie but with a difference. It does so with a borrowed cultural mask which it treats as its natural face in its false consciousness. With the passage of time as it gained power from its number and strong presence in the state institutions, it replaced immigrant dominance. Assuming such a role was not difficult as it had already adopted Uttar Pradesh’s language and culture introduced and imposed by British colonialists in Punjab in the aftermath of its occupation in 1849. This colonial imposition caused Punjab’s disconnect with its natural language, culture and history. Ensuing alienation was exploited by the colonial structure to strengthen its agenda. But in the wake of Pakistan movement and its transformation into a state, this alienation turned into a new tool that began to serve the interests of post-colonial state and the comprador elite in the name of faith and national integration. However, it has proved a stunningly spectacular false start as shown by the country’s political history.

For reasons not fully analysed, Punjabi clique fails to see the writing on the wall and in its naivety gets surprised by the hostile response of other nationalities to its power game presented under the guise of cultural nationalism aimed at creating homogeneity which is “Urduization or UP-ization”.

Punjabi elitist logic runs thus: we have abandoned our language and culture for the sake of Pakistan. Why can’t they do it? The counter argument from the rival side goes like this: Pakistan was created for the protection and promotion of our culture, not for its destruction. Other nationalities insist that Punjabi coterie must accede to the demands of historical diversity of the regions comprising present day Pakistan. Rejection of diversity will only create strife putting the fragile state under unbearable political pressure.

Politics of language in the wider context is the garbled message of game of power. Expression of power even when expressed in non-power terms doesn’t cease to reflect the nature of power. It can surely become more deceptive or deflective. In order to objectively study and analyse the politics of language we need to place it in the wider context of power structure with which it is organically linked. Let’s not forget that power relations that emanate from the power matrix define and determine the role of each concerned.

Language issue is more than the issue of language. As Thorstein Veblen shows us (in his ‘The Theory of the Leisure Class’) that an upper class gentleman’s walking stick is more than an aid to walking; it exhibits his power. So is language. It’s more than a means of expression; it reflects power politics. 

— soofi01@hotmail.com