This is a re-post but contains some improvements
During
these recent years of growing awareness of Indian cultural invasion of
Pakistan as well as language issues, a lot of Pakistanis have fallen
under the false notion that making Farsi and/or Arabic the national
language of Pakistan will solve the problem.
These same
people think the solution to de-Indianize Pakistan's masses who are
victims of Bollywood should be to Arabize-Persianize-Turkisize them, in
other words make Pakistanis think and seem like another Middle Eastern
nation and have the same origins as Arabs or the people of Iran or
Anatolia, Turkey.
In other words develop an inferiority
complex among Pakistanis to Middle Eastern Muslims and replace
Pakistan's indigenous culture with Arab or another Middle Eastern
culture.
This does not protect Pakistan's identity, history or culture from being endangered, but in fact does the opposite.
A
lot of arguments have been falsely propagated in favor of making one or
both of these languages the national language(s) of Pakistan. There is a
particular site called "the language movement of Pakistan" and uses
this false propaganda posted there to justify Arabic and Farsi becoming
the national language. Linked below is the site in question:
http://www.geocities.com/paklanguage/
This
post will take the arguments one by one and refute them. It will also
attempt to propose a solution for the language issue in Pakistan.
Argument:
Farsi was the national language of the Muslim Mughal (Mongol) Empire in
South Asia and used for inter-communication while people of the
Pakistani provinces continued speaking their native languages and had to
do with Urdu (Undri).
Rebuttal: During the days of the British Empire
English
was used as the inter-communication language for the people thought the
subcontinent and no longer had anything to do with Farsi (Persian) or
Arabic or Turkic languages during that time.
Another thing to remember is that Urdu is a Turkic word developed by the Turko-Mongols (Mughals).
This means Urdu (then known as Hindustani) was
developed
by the Mughals after Farsi was phased out as the court language. If
these people who propagate Farsi being the national language want it so
to imitate the Mughals, then Urdu is just the thing for them.
Argument:
Farsi was used by all Muslim majority areas in South Asia, Pakistanis
being majority Muslims should speak Farsi as their national language.
Rebuttal:
If speaking Farsi is part of being a Muslim, then all Muslims should be
learning it. Whether a Muslim convert in Europe or an Arab Muslim or a
Muslim in Malaysia. Why should only Pakistanis speak Farsi &
Arabic?
Argument: Urdu is almost the same as
Hindi; hence it should not be the national language makes Pakistanis
able to understand Indians and their propaganda.
Rebuttal: Punjabi is another language shared by both India and
Pakistan. In fact Punjabi is a first language to the majority of
Pakistanis. Should it be banned or removed to prevent Pakistanis being
able to understand Indian programs and/or propaganda broadcast in
Punjabi? Some of these new Pakistani "nationalists" and "patriots" argue
the fact that East and West Punjabi are separate dialects, but the same
can be said for Hindi and Urdu.
Furthermore a lot of Sindhi
"Hindus"
who left Pakistan for India speak Sindhi and broadcast their media in
Sindhi many times too. And knowing that a lot of Sindhi "Hindus" have
right-wing Hindutva views and agendas, should Pakistan protect it's
Sindhi population from being exposed to Sindhi-Hindutva propaganda
broadcast from India and ban Sindhi altogether? Imagine the outcry it
would cause.
Argument: Urdu is a foreign language to Pakistan.
Rebuttal:
The claim that Urdu developed entirely in present-day Northern India is
a big lie. Written Urdu poetry has been found in Lahore dating back to
the twelfth century. Urdu is basically a result of Sanskrit having
Turkic, Arabic, Farsi vocabulary attached to it by the Mughals. Where
the Mughals ruled, there was Urdu. So people whining about speaking the
language of the Mughals should know in the end it was Urdu that the
Mughals spoke.
Because the Mughals ruled mostly North India and
Bangladesh while maintaining their capitals in Pakistan, the number of
Urdu speakers in India is much higher.
It is true, Urdu was popularized due to the arrival of
some
Urdu-speaking Indian Muslim immigrants (remember not all Indian
immigrants spoke Urdu), it had a strong presence in Pakistan much before
that for at least eight hundred years, mostly in the Punjab province.
This
again is due to the Mughals having their capitals there, while ruling
over other parts of South Asia. A map of the Mughal Empire:
What's
more is that Farsi is much more foreign to Pakistan much more than Urdu
is. Urdu's parent language Sanskrit on the other hand was spoken in the
Indus Valley Basin/Pakistan for thousands of years so Urdu has it's
roots more so in Pakistan than in North India or Nepal.
Sanskrit thrived in the Indus region, where the Vedic people (
who were not "Hindu"
by the way) used it in their spiritual activities. Sanskrit poetry
thrived even in the Iranic speaking areas of Pakistan's northwestern
areas during Pinani's era.
Even today linguists cannot pinpoint the exact origin point or time period where Urdu/Undri started as it is known today.
The same cannot be said for Farsi which evolved somewhere in the Iranian plains, not the Pakistani Indus Valley Basin.
In
addition Urdu, being Indo-Aryan has a more close relationship to
Punjabi, Sindhi than does Farsi (see the linguistic chart on the top of
the page for reference) which is a central Iranic language.
Argument: Urdu was
imposed on the masses of Pakistan and was treated as the "more Muslim" and more "superior."
Rebuttal: What is being proposed for Farsi is
no different
as if it is the "more Muslim" "more superior" language. And as argued
Urdu's parent language Sanskrit was spoken in the Indus region for
thousands of years so Urdu does have roots in Pakistan, not Farsi.
Argument: Urdu is the language of the Muhajirs and not the first language of the rest of the population.
Rebuttal: The "Muhajirs" are diverse people. Northern India was a
melting pot of many cultures including Turkic-Turanoid, Semitic-Arab,
Persian and others. Alot of them might speak Urdu as a common language,
but it does not mean they have common ancestries. Alot of them trace
their ancestry to Arabia, the Iranian plato, central Asia and others
also into present-day Pakistan. Additionally,
not all of them speak Urdu as a first language.
For example there are "Muhajirs" who speak/spoke Bengali as a first
language, there are "Muhajirs" who also migrated out of South India and
speak/spoke Tamil and other Dravidian languages as their first
languages.
Little is known about exactly how or where
the modern-day Urdu language developed. But what is clear it is derived
from Sanskrit, again a language that was spoken in Pakistan for
thousands of years. Sindhi and Punjabi are derived from Sanskrit too.
Furthermore is not Farsi the language of the Fars (Persian) people in Iran?
Argument: The imposition of Urdu has caused resentment in the population.
Rebuttal:
And what will the imposition of Farsi cause? Overjoy? Even within Iran,
the imposition of Farsi has caused resentment and rebellion amongst the
non-Persian population which constitute about 49% of Iran's population,
so why pretend that Farsi will create unity and harmony in Pakistan
when it is causing tension and rebellion in it's home?
Argument: Urdu a "North Indian" is destroying Pakistan's 'local' languages.
Rebuttal: Farsi will do much worse damage than Urdu to Pakistan's local languages than Urdu has been accused of doing.
And
for those who argue Urdu's close relationship to Hindi, doesn't the
name Hindi itself originate in Pakistan? The name comes form Hind, which
in term comes form Sindh/Sindhu which was on of Pakistan's many names
in ancient times.
What's more is those who call Urdu a
"North Indian" language are extremely ignorant and illiterate in the
field of linguistics. A language is not given a name based on the
Geographic location it was officialized or popularized in!
Plus Urdu poetry records have been found in Lahore going as far back as the twelfth century.
Turkish
(Turkche') for example is not called an Anatolian language despite that
it is spoken in Anatolia, Turkey. Turkish is called an
Altaic
language because from what linguists have found so far is that it's
roots are in the Altay mountains in present-day Mongolia. If one goes
back as two-thousand years, Turkish has no roots at all in present-day
Turkey.
Hungarian is spoken in central Europe, nobody calls it a central European language but a
Uralic language because it's origins can be traced back to the Ural mountain region in Siberia.
Dozens
of similar cases such can be presented, that a language is not
necessarily native to the country or region it's spoken in.
In
fact, few languages are native to the lands they are spoken in. What's
more is if we go to the roots of most of Pakistan's "native languages"
(Urdu included!) then almost all of the languages spoken in Pakistan
today are not native to the country! Pakistanis who are overwhelmingly
Indo-European speaking people will have traced their languages back to
the Black Sea region where ALL Indo-European languages originate.
This
truthfully means any nation that speaks an Indo-European language and
is located outside the Black Sea region speaks a language not Native to
the land they inhabit.
Argument: Making Arabic and/or Farsi the national language will give
Pakistani Muslims to be closer to their Muslim brothers in their
western borders.
Rebuttal: A lot of Arabs especially from the Gulf States UAE,
Bahrain, Oman as well as Iranian nationals are fluent in Urdu. So to be
closer to them, why not ensure all Pakistanis are also fluent in Urdu?
Argument: English will destroy the heritage of Pakistanis and has given an inferiority complex to Pakistanis over the West.
Rebuttal: Farsi or Arabic will do no different, however English will
offer a lot more global inter-communicative advantages than Farsi or
Arabic does. But in the end, neither should English be officialezed.
And
knowing that many Pakistanis do have an inferiority complex to Arabs
and Iranians (thanks to radical Islam), officializing Farsi and Arabic
will only strengthen this complex.
Argument: It was the British colonizers who officialese Urdu as the national language for their political gains.
Rebuttal: Likewise it was the Mughals (Mongols) had adopted
& officialized Urdu over Farsi in order to communicate with the
native population by deriving it from Sanskrit.
Another note to
add before moving on to the national language question is that Sindhi
& Punjabi have been more badly been affected by outside
influence than has Urdu.
Though Sindhi is an
Indo-Aryan
language inside the Indo-European language family, it does indeed show
heavy signs of Dravidian influence in it's consonants to a much higher
degree than Urdu and perhaps Punjabi. This is a feature hardly found in
any language belonging to the Indo-European family.
This influence is so high that it is common for people to mistake Sindhi for a Dravidian language.
This
is a point Pakistani language preservists and purists need to take into
consideration. Additionally Sindhi is said to also have been influenced
a higher Semitic vocabulary and grammar (most notably in the suffixes
added to the pro-nouns) even more than it's than it's parent, Sanskrit.
People
can further research the Sindhi or any other language of Pakistan of
their liking to learn of it's history. Here is a bit of information on
the Sindhi language:
http://www.sindhishaan.com/articles/sindhilanguage.htm
This
is another point needed to be taken into consideration by the same
"nationalist" Pakistani language preservists with their bigoted
black-and-white attitude to Urdu.
Argument: Farsi/Persian was spoken in Pakistan since the times of the Achaemenid Empire.
Rebuttal:
The Farsi spoken in Pakistan during the Achaemenid Empire ages was an
ancient form of Farsi. The modern-day Farsi is a distinct language
descended from the ancient one.
Modern Farsi descends from middle Farsi, which in turn descends from ancient Farsi.
By this same token,
Sanskrit
gets another point because it is to Urdu/Undri what Achaemenid Farsi
was to modern Farsi (modern was never spoken in Pakistan by the way save
for traders in parts of Pakistan having links to Iran).
As
already stated Sanskrit was spoken in Pakistan much before the
Achaemenid period going back almost 1500 BC. Even a lot of Pakistan's
pre-history was written in Sanskrit. Even Pakistan's ancient name Sapta
Sindhu (land of the rivers) is a Sanskrit name.
Urdu,
Sindhi, Punjabi and all other Indo-Aryan languages are derived from
Sanskrit. The same way ancient Farsi gave birth to middle Farsi, which
in turn gave birth to modern Farsi is the same way Sanskrit gave birth
to Hindustani, or Urdu.
Now that these false arguments
have been refuted, what should be the national language of Pakistan
without creating inter-lingual conflicts and at the same time providing
good inter-communication?
The best and first proposal would be Sanskrit revived.
Here are my following points for doing this:
-It does not belong to any language or cultural group; hence it will not be seen as "the language of the other."
-It
is the parent of the majority of Pakistan's present-day Indo-Aryan
languages, most notably Punjabi, Sindhi, Urdu, Saraiki (a Punjabi
dialect).
-It has a much more historical place in
Pakistan as it was spoken in the Indus region for thousands of years
especially in Vedic times.
-It will not alienate
Pakistan's Iranic speaking populations most notably Balochis and Pathans
since it is even closer to Proto-Indo-Iranic than it's modern-day
descendants. The ancestor has closer roots to the close relatives than
the descendant. Each descendant are always one step/generation distant
from the roots and relatives it goes for both living beings as well as
languages.
Two cousins are a generation distant from one another. Their off springs will be a third step from one another and so on.
Some problems of reviving and officializing Sanskrit:
-Reviving a dead language is no easy task, and the question of reviving Sanskrit is not a when, but an if.
-As
mentioned in another post, because Pakistanis have been badly
Islamitized, any attempt to revive their pre-Islamic culture would be
resented. Islamitized Pakistanis see Arabic language and culture as a
'connection' to their own.
This in the meantime has given Indians "Hindus" to hijack Pakistani heritage as "Indian" or "Hindu" heritage.
Whether
it is their claim of Pinani as an "ancient Indian" poet or Sanskrit as
the "sacred 'Hindu' language" none of them are true and inspired by
false propaganda.
To counter this, Pakistanis need to
be educated and taught their history properly, instead of being taught
western or Arabic Islamic history.
Once they are more educated, Pakistanis will see the good of reviving and speaking the language(s) of their ancestors.
In
case there is not enough support for Sanskrit because the Indians and
Hindutvas have hijacked it and it would be then seen as "theirs,"
causing mass public resentment, then the next best option after that
would be
Burushaski; the language of the Hunza people.
Little
is known about this mysterious language, except that it has no known
relatives. No records on this language can be found outside the region,
as it had no written form of it's own.
Burusho recently escaped being included in a proposed Proto-Balkan and Dene'-Caucasian hypothesis.
A
good guess is that this language is the last language indigenous to the
Pakistan region. Most historians and linguists agree, that the
language(s) of the Indus Valley was non-Indo-European. The Indo-European
languages arrived during the Aryan invasion according to them, giving
further credit to Burusho being the last of a dead language family once
native to Pakistan.
And due to their extremely remote location in
rough terrain, the Hunza people managed to evade invading nations and
tribes and preserve their language. Of course, this cannot be proven
correct, but it's a good guess.
If the languages of
pre-Islamic Pakistan are revived or at least analyzed, it might prove
so. But the fact is even if Burusho is not part of this dead language
family, it is still native to Pakistan from what's been found so far and
it is not something the Indians have hijacked yet.
They haven't even bothered to learn it.
What's more is Burusho is not spoken in any neighboring country's, another chance to preserve something Native to Pakistan.
Another
option would be for skillful Pakistani linguists to come together and
construct a language based on Pakistan's Indo-Aryan languages in
grammatical structure and use words from Baloch, Sindhi, Punjabi,
Pashto, Siraiki, Baltistani, Burusho, Kashmiri and other indigenous
languages of Pakistan.
This is perhaps the only way to
unify speakers of various languages. Urdu is already taking an evolving
phase in Pakistan by adopting words from the various provincial
languages.
It is the best option for now, however should
Pakistan's population reject it, then the best option is construction of
a local language.
It has been done before. Linguists have created
languages for Lord of the Rings movie series or Klingon for the Star
Trek movies/series or Star Wars movies.
Either of these
options is better than imposing a languages spoken by invaders (mainly
Persians and Arabs) who oppressed our people for decades. Today a
superiority complex towards Pakistanis is deep-rooted in their culture.
Some interesting links on language construction:
http://www.eskimo.com/~ram/essays.html
http://www.zompist.com/kit.html
http://fridaynightlinguistics.org/languagecreation/