By Asif Ezdi

The News   July 28, 2014

About two weeks ago, on July 16, the National Assembly’s Standing Committee on Law, Justice and Human Rights rejected a private member’s bill for an amendment in the constitution to declare nine of the country’s regional languages as national languages in addition to Urdu. The bill had been proposed by Marvi Memon of the PML-N. A similar bill moved by her was also rejected by the committee in May 2011.

When introducing the present bill in the National Assembly last February, she said that it was part of the PML-N’s election manifesto. Minister for Science and Technology Zahid Hamid, who is the de facto law minister, told the house on behalf of the government that he did not oppose it and he proposed that it should be sent to the law committee. 

But when the committee took up consideration of the bill, the special secretary of the law ministry opposed it strongly. According to the National Assembly’s press release on the meeting, he “informed [the committee] that the bill will not serve any purpose” in view of an existing provision in the constitution (Article 28) which guarantees the preservation of the language, script and culture of all sections of citizens. 

By opposing the bill, the special secretary not only went against the PML-N manifesto, he also clearly misunderstood the purpose of the bill, which is not to preserve the main regional languages of the country but to elevate them to the status of national languages. The secretary also made the sweeping generalisation that a nation should have only one national language and asserted that East Pakistan had separated in 1971 as a result of the decision to declare Bengali as a national language together with Urdu.

A common language is no doubt an important positive element in creating a national identity but it is not an essential condition if there is a common national will among people with different mother tongues to live together as one country. In Europe, Switzerland is a successful example of a state with four national languages co-existing in harmony. On the other hand, Belgium is a country with linguistic fault-lines which has been on the brink of a split for decades.

Seen in the correct perspective, the foremost reason for the breakaway of East Pakistan was geographic separation and the resulting divergence of political and economic interests and different historical experience. Differences of language also played a large part, compounded by the fact that Bengali was written in a style common to north Indian languages rather than the modified Persian-Arabic script used in the then West Pakistan, a difference emblematic also of the varying cultural orientation of the two “wings”. 

The split certainly did not come about because Bengali was declared to be a national language. In fact, the decision to make it a national language was a step that was intended to bridge the gap but it did not prove enough, given the other, more powerful, divisive factors.

As the example of Yugoslavia’s break-up shows, a threat to national unity arises not when the state recognises or formalises linguistic diversity but when one ethnic or linguistic group – the dominant one – tries to impose its hegemony on the others. Yugoslavia remained a united country as long as its leaders had the good sense to respect the rights and political autonomy of the different component nationalities and linguistic groups. The county split apart when after Tito’s death the Serbian-speaking Orthodox majority sought to impose its supremacy over the Catholic Slovenes and Croats and the Muslim Bosniaks. 

It is typical of the lack of interest or seriousness of our lawmakers in the task for which they have been sent to parliament that only eight of the 19 members of the Law Committee attended the meeting to deliberate on the bill on national languages. Following “detailed deliberation”, the committee rejected it by a vote of four to one. The only vote cast in favour was that of a PML-N member. The PPP man demanded that Sindhi be declared a national language but nevertheless voted against. PTI and JUI-F members reportedly termed it as unnecessary and also voted against, while the MQM member abstained.

There is also another pending private member’s bill on declaring some regional languages as national languages. This one was introduced in the Senate, also last February, by Adeel, an ANP member. Contrary to some press reports that this bill too was rejected by the National Assembly, the fact is that it has not yet been referred to that house or even considered by the Senate. A meeting of the Senate Law Committee which was called last month to deliberate on it was postponed because the mover was on an overseas trip.

The basic thrust of the two bills, which is to give the status of national language to the major languages of the country, is right. Pakistan is a mosaic of several sub-national linguistic and ethnic groups. The mother tongues spoken by them are a very important expression of their respective collective identity. Any perceived attempt to deny or suppress it would be counter-productive. Far from encouraging separatism, as the special secretary suggested, giving due recognition to regional languages would promote national integration by assuring the sub-national groups that they can assert and take pride in their separate identities within the wider national framework.

Establishing criteria for determining whether a regional language qualifies to be given national status will not be easy. Adeel’s bill proposes five additional national languages, two from Punjab and one each from the other provinces. Marvi’s list is longer. It suggests nine, including two from Gilgit-Baltistan (Shina and Balti), while inexplicably leaving out Kashmiri, the main language of Jammu and Kashmir. It is also not clear why she excludes Khowar, which has more speakers than Shina and Balti. Also, Hindko which Marvi lists is very similar to northern Punjabi and is not considered by most experts to be a distinct language.

The fear expressed in some circles – that giving the status of national language to regional languages would be at the expense of the position of Urdu – can be easily addressed. Urdu has a unique position as the language that serves as the medium of communication between people of the country speaking different mother tongues. That position is irreplaceable. 

The role of Urdu as lingua franca is a very valuable asset. It is something that other multi-lingual countries like Switzerland, Belgium and Canada do not have. It is to a great extent because of Urdu that, despite its linguistic diversity, Pakistan has today become a more united country than it was in 1947 and it would be sheer stupidity if we fail to make full use of its potential. While the regional languages are given national status, Urdu must therefore retain a special position and become the country’s official and business language as early as possible.

Urdu derives its strength largely from the fact that it is not in competition with the regional languages. In fact, Urdu and the regional languages are necessary allies against the hegemony of English imposed by a class mainly descended from the toadies created by British colonialists to give sustenance to their rule. This class has been the main obstacle in the adoption of Urdu as the official language and in its development as a language of business, commerce, learning, science and technology. 

The pressure for the recognition of regional languages as national languages will not of course go away with the negative vote of the National Assembly’s Law Committee. The National Language Commission, whose establishment was recommended last March by the National Assembly’s Committee on National Heritage and which the government has now decided to set up, will be unable to avoid addressing this demand. 

Marvi has hinted that the government itself might introduce legislation on our regional languages. It is to be hoped that the Nawaz government will formulate a coherent policy on this subject that treats the country’s linguistic diversity as an asset and harnesses it to strengthen national unity.

The writer is a former member of the Pakistan Foreign Service.

Email: asifezdi@yahoo.com