Persian, Urdu, English or Arabic language in Pakistan?

Vinod2070

मध्यस्थ
Ambassador
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
2,557
Likes
105
Persian, Urdu, English, or Arabic language in Pakistan?

Guys, we do have a dedicated thread to discuss Pakistani ideology and identity but it has become somewhat a mixed up thread. I came across this article that again highlights some issues related to Pakistan's identity.

It's a very long article, so I am not posting the contents here. Please do read in full.

The key highlight is the sense of drift, hatred, the need to hang on to the coat tails of others to get their own sense of identity, the need to hate India just for the sake of it, the inability to look within to find their own identity and much more.

Fascinating!
 

Vinod2070

मध्यस्थ
Ambassador
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
2,557
Likes
105
Some excerpts.

[SIZE=-1] Why is Dari/Farsi a better choice than Urdu for Pakistan's national language?

1. Urdu has no historical basis:

Urdu has no historical basis in Pakistan region before the advent of British colonialists (the British further developed Urdu and promoted it) and was then imposed as Pakistan's national language in 1947 by the Muhajir-dominated Pakistani media/govt. On the other hand, Farsi/Dari has a solid historical basis in Pakistan region. It was the official language through out Muslim and non-Muslim rule before the advent of British colonialists... whether locally independent or part of neighboring empires.

2. Urdu represents an ethnic minority's domination:

Urdu is the mother-tongue of only Muhajirs in Pakistan who represent less than 7% of Pakistanis. On the other hand, Dari/Farsi is not the mother-tongue of any single ethnic group. It is spoken by Hazaras, Tajiks, Persians, Uzbeks, Baluchs, Pashtuns, Kurds, etc. in the Afghanistan-Iran-CASia region.

3. Urdu is a foreign language:

Urdu is only native to a part of north India (i.e. Delhi, UP, MP, Bihar, etc regions) and is a foreign language in Pakistan. On the other hand, Dari/Farsi was spoken by the ancestors of Pakistanis (pre-British era).

4. Urdu is responsible for Indian cultural invasion:

Urdu and Hindi are the same language (except for the script and some loan-words). This enables the mighty Indian media outlets such as TV, films, news, music to strongly influence Pakistanis. Pakistanis are being "Indianized" while their distinct identities are being destroyed. On the other hand, Dari/Farsi media is weak and the language itself does not belong to any single country. This language equally belongs to Pakistan just like it was in the pre-British era.

5. Urdu causes an identity crises:

Since Urdu and Hindi are the same language (except for the script and some loan-words), people falsely perceive Indians and Pakistanis to be the same people. On the other hand, Dari/Farsi ensures each country's identity to be distinct. An Afghan is not perceived as an Iranian, and vice versa.

6. Urdu contradicts the creation of Pakistan:

Since Pakistan's creation was meant to separate from British-created Hindu India. Urdu being an Indian language and similar to Hindi is forcefully making Pakistan closer to Hindu India and undoing partition. On the other hand, Dari/Farsi will ensure Pakistan becomes more different from India and make it closer to its western neighbor with whom it has close historical, racial, cultural and religious ties.

7. Urdu is disintegrating Pakistan:

Urdu imposition was mostly responsible for the loss of East Pakistan. And most Sindhis, Pashtuns, Baluchs, etc. strongly resent Urdu imposition. On the other hand, Dari/Farsi is not resented by any ethnic group of Pakistan because it does not belong to any ethnic group and has a solid historical basis in Pakistan.

8. Urdu is the language of the Hindus:

Urdu/Hindi is the mother-tongue of almost 400 million Hindus in India and only 10 million Muslims in Pakistan. On the other hand, Dari/Farsi is only spoken by Muslims.

9. Urdu lacks sophistication:

Most of Urdu literature is filled with wine drunken love affairs when the Muslim rule was steadily declining. It lacks science and modernity, even today. On the other hand, Dari/Farsi has plenty of books in various sciences and arts, was always the language of the sophisticated, and today has no problem adopting modernity.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] 10. Urdu is a legacy of British colonialism:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] Urdu/Hindi was never the official language during Muslim rule (it was always Dari/Farsi/Persian), and was first promoted and further developed by the British colonialists (Hindustani/Khariboli language was "communalized" at Fort Williams College giving birth to Urdu and Hindi). The British rejected Persian language in the region to de-link any Muslim connections with its western neighbors, and promoted Urdu/Hindi to engineer their newly created "Indian" colonial identity with Ganges region as its center.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] 11. Urdu is a slave language:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] Urdu/Hindi has always been a slave language. For example, its original/native speakers (north Indian Hindus) adopted much of Persian words/script when ruled by the Persian-speaking Muslims, and then adopted much of English words when ruled by the British (which continues today with Anglo-American global influence). On the other hand, Persian language was the language of Southwest/Central/South Asian Muslims who proudly ruled the whole region for many centuries. Today the remnants of Persian speakers are proof that Persian language does not bow down to foreign influence/occupation, and proudly utilizes its own words. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] [/SIZE]
 

Vinod2070

मध्यस्थ
Ambassador
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
2,557
Likes
105
Some more..

[SIZE=-1]I prefer Arabic over Urdu as Pakistan's national language when choosing between the two. However, the third and better option is definitely Dari/Farsi. Let's analyze a bit:

[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] Arabic [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]

1. Historically, Arabic was used as an official language in Pakistan region (excluding the north) only during the brief period of Arab rule (711-855/1010 AD). So, Arabic language has very little historical basis in Pakistan.

2. Linguistically, Arabic is a Semitic language unrelated to the Indo-Iranian languages of Pakistan. Thus, Arabic language is an alien language to Pakistan's native languages (minus the loan-words and script).

3. Geographically, the Arab world is detached from Pakistan, with no land linking them. Therefore, an Arabized Pakistan will be an isolated Arabic island in the middle of an Indo-Iranian regional bloc.

4. Arab extremists and their hatemongering ideologies (Wahabism/etc.) have caused instability in Pakistan with sectarian violence. Arabic as Pakistan's national language will further welcome those destructive elements and make the country unstable.

5. Arabic might be the language in which Quran was originally written, but the Quran is and can always be translated. Just because the Bible (New Gospel) might have been originally written in Aramaic language, it does not mean that all Christian countries should adopt Aramaic as their national language!

6. Arabic language is only the mother-tongue of ethnic Arabs, and except for the Quranic usage/purposes it is not used/spoken by non-Arabs.
[/SIZE]
 

Vinod2070

मध्यस्थ
Ambassador
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
2,557
Likes
105
[SIZE=-1]We are trying to distance ourselves from India, how the hell can that be unpatriotic? Must we be pro Indian to be patriotic? We are anti Indian and that's we we want to distance ourselves from India. We do not want to marry ourselves to India.

Of course any change has to take into account our history, our geography and our peoples. We can't just adopt any language in the quest to break free from colonial legacy, the British fostered forced gun marriage to India.

So Malay, Indonesian, Arabic are out since we are not geographically anywhere near these regions and have no historical links with them. The change has to take into account our history. That we have on our westerly side. For many centuries in the preceding thousands of years we have been linked to our westerly neighbors, been part of Persian empires. So the choice is limited, either we look east ( with whom we also have shared some of our history ) or the west. [/SIZE]
This shows the sense of drift.

Trying to clutch at any straw!
 

musalman

پاکستان زنده باد
Regular Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
923
Likes
134
Country flag
Persian, Urdu, English, or Arabic language in Pakistan?

Guys, we do have a dedicated thread to discuss Pakistani ideology and identity but it has become somewhat a mixed up thread. I came across this article that again highlights some issues related to Pakistan's identity.

It's a very long article, so I am not posting the contents here. Please do read in full.

The key highlight is the sense of drift, hatred, the need to hang on to the coat tails of others to get their own sense of identity, the need to hate India for the just sake of it, the inability to look within to find their own identity an much more.

Fascinating!
Fascinating indeed :) I saw it on you know what forum. :) Anyone has the right to say what ever they want that does not mean its something ppl think or talk about.
There has never been any move in Pakistan to replace Urdu with Farsi Dari or Arabic. :blum3:
People come up with ideas even my Grand Father wrote an article in Pakistan Times in early eighties to Romanize and simplfy Urdu by eliminating those words which are hard for other than Urdu speakers to pronounce based on Turkish model in 30s
 

Vinod2070

मध्यस्थ
Ambassador
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
2,557
Likes
105
Fascinating indeed :) I saw it on you know what forum. :) Anyone has the right to say what ever they want that does not mean its something ppl think or talk about.
There has never been any move in Pakistan to replace Urdu with Farsi Dari or Arabic. :blum3:
People come up with ideas even my Grand Father wrote an article in Pakistan Times in early eighties to Romanize and simplfy Urdu by eliminating those words which are hard for other than Urdu speakers to pronounce based on Turkish model in 30s
You are right. I am not claiming that all Pakistanis think so. It is just a part of the confusion about the Pakistani identity and what it means.

If you look at what he says, he is not wrong about Urdu for the most part. It is not the language of any Pakistanis except those who migrated from India.

He wants to replace it with another language from outside the Pakistani borders!
 

musalman

پاکستان زنده باد
Regular Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
923
Likes
134
Country flag
You are right. I am not claiming that all Pakistanis think so. It is just a part of the confusion about the Pakistani identity and what it means.

If you look at what he says, he is not wrong about Urdu for the most part. It is not the language of any Pakistanis except those who migrated from India.

He wants to replace it with another language from outside the Pakistani borders!
That is the reason I think that gentleman is stupid. However Arabic I know will be acceptable to all Pakistani but the problem is no one speaks or understand it. Same is in the case of Fasri / Dari only 1% are Dari speakers in Pakistan. So we have to live with Urdu coz now it is understood by all Pakistanis
 

Vinod2070

मध्यस्थ
Ambassador
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
2,557
Likes
105
That is the reason I think that gentleman is stupid. However Arabic I know will be acceptable to all Pakistani but the problem is no one speaks or understand it. Same is in the case of Fasri / Dari only 1% are Dari speakers in Pakistan. So we have to live with Urdu coz now it is understood by all Pakistanis
Why would an alien language be more acceptable rather than a language that is widely spoken within Pakistan?

Why does no other non-Arabic Muslim nation feel the need to use Arabic as their language, only Pakistanis?
 

musalman

پاکستان زنده باد
Regular Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
923
Likes
134
Country flag
Why would an alien language be more acceptable rather than a language that is widely spoken within Pakistan?

Why does no other non-Arabic Muslim nation feel the need to use Arabic as their language, only Pakistanis?
Coz its the language of our Prophet(PBUH)
 

musalman

پاکستان زنده باد
Regular Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
923
Likes
134
Country flag
Further no other non-arabic Muslim country have more then one major language. All Irani speaks Farsi, all Indonesian and Malyasian speaks Bhasah Indo/Melu. Here we have Urdu Punjabi Pakhtoo Baluchi Kashmiri Brauhi Farsi Balti Shani etc
 

Vinod2070

मध्यस्थ
Ambassador
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
2,557
Likes
105
What you are effectively saying is that you need to invent a common language/identity for yourself as you have none.
 

Flint

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,621
Likes
154
Most countries use their ancient history to create a national identity. Iran, inspite of being an Islamic republic, does nothing but encourage its citizens to appreciate its pre-Islamic history and the Persian Empire.

Indonesia too, inspite of being a muslim-majority nation, does nothing but glorify its pre-Islamic (Hindu/Buddhist) past. A visit to Jakarta will confirm this .

Pakistan has one of two options - use Islam as the unifying factor, which it has been doing all these years, or go further back in history to find it, which would unacceptably bring it closer to neighbouring India.

Unlike India, which has used all of its history (Colonial, Islamic, pre-Islamic) in order to find commonalities among its people, Pakistan's founding ethos limits it to the Islamic period, especially the Mughal period.

The irony of this, is that the Mughal empire was ruled from Delhi, and so ultra-nationalists in Pakistan have always dreamed of "re-conquering" Delhi to complete their identity.

India also faces this problem, but to a lesser degree than Pakistan, because the sources of its own identity are largely located within its boundaries, with certain exceptions. For example, Taxila, a major center of Hindu and Buddhist learning is located in Pakistan, and a number of major Indus Valley sites are also located there.
Also, Lahore, which is one of the most ancient cities in the subcontinent, whose history dates from the Mahabharata, and also flourished during the Mughal period (when it was one of the greatest cities on earth) and played its own part in shaping Indian culture.
However, the loss of Lahore is certainly compensated by Delhi and Lucknow.
 

Vinod2070

मध्यस्थ
Ambassador
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
2,557
Likes
105
Yes indeed. Many of the challenges that Pakistan faces were also faced by India. Perhaps to a larger degree.

However, India has been much more successful in overcoming these challenges mainly because of the democratic ethos and wisdom of our leaders, something that Pakistan failed to get.
 

musalman

پاکستان زنده باد
Regular Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
923
Likes
134
Country flag
What you are effectively saying is that you need to invent a common language/identity for yourself as you have none.
Yes coz we do not have a common language acceptable to all.

So? How does that matter?
Islam is common to all Pakistanis plus since we are "jazbati" ppl so yes it matters

Most countries use their ancient history to create a national identity. Iran, inspite of being an Islamic republic, does nothing but encourage its citizens to appreciate its pre-Islamic history and the Persian Empire.

Indonesia too, inspite of being a muslim-majority nation, does nothing but glorify its pre-Islamic (Hindu/Buddhist) past. A visit to Jakarta will confirm this .

Pakistan has one of two options - use Islam as the unifying factor, which it has been doing all these years, or go further back in history to find it, which would unacceptably bring it closer to neighbouring India.

Unlike India, which has used all of its history (Colonial, Islamic, pre-Islamic) in order to find commonalities among its people, Pakistan's founding ethos limits it to the Islamic period, especially the Mughal period.

The irony of this, is that the Mughal empire was ruled from Delhi, and so ultra-nationalists in Pakistan have always dreamed of "re-conquering" Delhi to complete their identity.

India also faces this problem, but to a lesser degree than Pakistan, because the sources of its own identity are largely located within its boundaries, with certain exceptions. For example, Taxila, a major center of Hindu and Buddhist learning is located in Pakistan, and a number of major Indus Valley sites are also located there.
Also, Lahore, which is one of the most ancient cities in the subcontinent, whose history dates from the Mahabharata, and also flourished during the Mughal period and played its own part in shaping Indian culture.
However, the loss of Lahore is certainly compensated by Delhi and Lucknow
.
Yes I agree to that
I do not agree with this. We are not very much fond of Mughals
LOL I wonder where you Indians come up with this. No we do not want Dehli
Lahore Lahore ai :D However I would really love to have Old ppl of Lahore coming back to it
 

musalman

پاکستان زنده باد
Regular Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
923
Likes
134
Country flag
Yes indeed. Many of the challenges that Pakistan faces were also faced by India. Perhaps to a larger degree.

However, India has been much more successful in overcoming these challenges mainly because of the democratic ethos and wisdom of our leaders, something that Pakistan failed to get.
True indeed
 

Flint

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,621
Likes
154
I do not agree with this. We are not very much fond of Mughals
Well, you personally might not like them, but I am quite convinced that the vast majority of Pakistanis consider the mughal era as their "golden age".

LOL I wonder where you Indians come up with this. No we do not want Dehli
I wouldn't know how many people in Pakistan want Delhi back, I have not conducted any poll, but I have had enough exposure to ultra-nationalist Pakistanis to know that those who are deeply nationalistic, often dream of that.
 

musalman

پاکستان زنده باد
Regular Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
923
Likes
134
Country flag
Well, you personally might not like them, but I am quite convinced that the vast majority of Pakistanis consider the mughal era as their "golden age".



I wouldn't know how many people in Pakistan want Delhi back, I have not conducted any poll, but I have had enough exposure to ultra-nationalist Pakistanis to know that those who are deeply nationalistic, often dream of that.
No ppl says Ayub Khan time was the golden era. Frankly ppl don't know about the mughal era.
Regarding taking Dehli , tu janab not even Jamat Islami says they want it
 

Vinod2070

मध्यस्थ
Ambassador
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
2,557
Likes
105
Some more gems. This guy is terrified that all Pakistanis will be able to communicate with all Indians. That in itself is a dreaded scenario for him. He dosn't even need to explain why this is a problem.

[SIZE=-1]1. Pakistan came into being in 1947 and I don't really care how it came about much less that we should forever be locked into the reasons, the basis or the idealogy that gave birth to it.

2. 1947 event was a historical determinant which just undid what had happened in another historical determinant of 1847 when this region ( Indus Valley ) had been fabricated into the British India. Was there any fundamental reason in 1847 which lead to this ( Indus Valley region ) to become wedded to British India? No there was not, it was just a historical accident motivated by British greed. Yes greed had brought us under the colonial British India.

4. I don't treat the events, forces or the ideologies that gave birth to Pakistan in 1947 as holy or feel obligated to them beyond the fact that 1947 event was historical in that it undid the 1847 event, the former neutralizing the latter. It corrected a anomaly caused by colonial lust!!!

5. Colonialism forced us into British India and colonialism created forces ( the English educated predominantly Mahajir ) who were the force majeaur behind Pakistan. Why should I thank the latter? Without British colonialism there would have been no Jinnah, no Muslim Leaque but then again there would have been no need for 1947 because the region that is Pakistan now would have evolved on its own.

6. Prior to the British interfering in our region ( Indus Valley ) this area had independent Khanates, Emirates and Kingdoms ( Mirs of Sindh, Khans of Balochistan and Sikh Kingdom of Punjab ) and we would have evolved naturally without third party dictation - British. I do know though that the evolution of this region probably would have ended up with either states or state somewhat different from what we have now but the solid realities on the ground would have impacted on the evolution - the foremost being that this region has and had a solid Moslem majority, probably greater than 80%. Today there would either have been states or a state in the area that is Pakistan ( geographic Indus Valley ) that would be colored by two ground realities - the peoples, Punjabi, Pashtun, Sindhi, Baloch and predominantly with a Islamic flavor.

7. At end of the day its 'the boots on the ground' that makes the real difference as indeed it did in 1947, had this region not had a Moslem majority whose numbers carried the weight to give substance to the dreams of Muslim Leaque. It was this region ( the four provinces ) that elected to join the federation without which the combined votes and intellectual vigor of all the Moslems scattered all over India ( UP, Bihar, Madya Pradesh etc ) would have produced zilch.

8. So one set of historical circumstances ( British colonialism ) created a negativity for us but at the same time gave birth to another set of circumstances ( British education and ideas flourished in what is now India on account of having been colonialized much earlier with the populace have imbibed modern concepts which would help to counter the British with the Muslim Leaque/Congress being the manifestation of this ) which neutralized the negativity. Without one the other would neither have existed or been needed. So put it simply 1947 was just a reaction to the action of 1847 - Like I don't need to try to rationalize or find the deep motives, philosophies or higher ideals for the 1847 event I don't need to for 1947 either other then look at them both as very significant historical determinants that altered and realtered the land of my forefathers, in both which my people slept through or had very marginal input.

9. Since 1847 the land of my forefathers has gone through a rollercoaster with my people as helpless occupants but reality is today we have a Pakistan, the sovereignty belongs to the 'sons of the soil' again. My concern today is with them and which direction we go to now. Although a citizen of Britain and having the deepest respect for the English people I detest the colonial era and all its attendant ills/effects/legacy.

8. The colonial era cemented us with rest of India ( geographic ) more efficiently then any other power had done, its administrative ability, its economic power, its modern rail network 'Indianized' us more effectively then had we evolved free from British interference. In short they wedded us to the greater India and by default to the countries that inherited the British Indian Empire - India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.

9. Although I have a healthy respect for many Indians ( indeed I would count some as friends ) I loath the idea with every sinew of my body that we are a extension or just a offshoot of Bharat. I want us to have a solid identity exclusive of Bharat and based on our own peoples.

10. I look at the Mahajirs as carriers of the 'Indian vector', now you might say what about the Punjabi's? After all they are also a 'bridge' to India but its important to note that Indian Punjabi's are a minority. Yes there are other sub groups of Pakistan ( Kashmiri or Sindhi ) who also happen to be found in India but again their numbers are a drop in the ocean that India is. Whets more these groups do not form the gravitas of the Indian state.

11. The Indian state has adopted the language of the Ganges plains ( Hindi ) as its national tongue and will over time homogenize all the divergent peoples of India into one block under the overarching label 'Indian'. All states do this, they adopt one particular brand ( often the one belonging to the majority/most influential ) and over time create a homogenized block out of variety of cultures/peoples. Modern states tend to do it faster and more effectively on back of better administrative structures/economics and technology ( TV etc ) the effect of this over time will bring together the Telagu, Tamil, Punjabi, Assamese, Ladaki, Malaylam, Orrisan and all other strange peoples - I say strange because bar the Indian Punjabi/Rajasthani most Pakistani's have not had any deep contact with or knowledge of. This will eventually ( it already is well on the way ) create a solid block of over a billion people speaking Hindi going under the banner 'Indian'.

12. In Pakistan the imported Mahajir group also predominantly comes from the Gangetic Valley and from the same source that Bharat ( India ) draws its gravitas from. Thus Urdu and Hindi are essentially the same languages bar the scripts - clearly a Hindi speaker can speak with ease to a Urdu speaker. Not surprising since both languages were fashioned in the same furnace - the Ganges Valley.

13. The British standardized Urdu/Hindi to serve as their common pan India language and act as the interface with the host of different peoples. India has adopted Hindi and we have adopted Urdu so in essence we are continuing on the British mission .... to construct a sub continental realm call it India if you want.

14. Just to prove my contention go back to 1850 and ask yourself how many peoples of present day Pakistan could have communicated in their 'native' language with a Tamil, a Bengali, a Telagu, a Assamese, a Kanadese etc? Not many I suspect!!!

15. But now fast forward to say 2050 and we have a Pakistan that has 100% literacy which would mean over time Urdu as native tongue to 100% .... Whilst in India all Indians would have achieved 100% proficiency in their national language Hindi ............... Given this scenario in 2050 100% of Pakistan could communicate in their national language with 100% Indians in their native language. We would have created a sub continent that would be uniformalized and finished off the project launched by the British.

Is that what we want? Is that why we broke off at great expense in 1947? To become part of the ocean of humanity with just a script to identify us? This thought terrifies me!!! [/SIZE]
 

Flint

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,621
Likes
154
Jamaat is not ultra-nationalist, it is religious-fundamentalist. The distinction is subtle, especially so in Pakistan, but recognizable all the same.

No ppl says Ayub Khan time was the golden era. Frankly ppl don't know about the mughal era.
Regarding taking Dehli , tu janab not even Jamat Islami says they want it
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top