Mahboob, A. (2002) No English, No Future: Language Policy in Pakistan. In S. Obeng & B. Hartford (eds.) Political Independence with Linguistic Servitude: The politics about languages in the developing world. New York: NOVA Science.

NO ENGLISH, NO FUTURE: LANGUAGE POLICY IN PAKISTAN

Ahmar Mahboob

Introduction
 

The English language was introduced in the land that is now Pakistan during the colonization of India by the British. The British developed their language policies to replace Persian, which was the official language of the Mughal Empire, with English as the official language of government. This was done for what Rubin (1971, 1983) has termed extra-linguistic purposes. According to Rubin, extra-linguistic policies are changes in the local distribution of the usage of indigenous languages that are made for non-linguistic purposes. The role of Persian and other vernaculars in Pakistan was well defined in the pre-British era and there was no real linguistic need for a change in the distribution of functions of these languages. However, the British felt that by introducing English as the official language, they could introduce Western culture and values to India and thus ‘civilize’ them. The British believed that the natives lacked culture; this is why Kipling (1899), in his well known poem The White Man’s Burden[i], calls the natives of the colonies, “new-caught sullen peoples, / Half-devil and half-child”. Kipling, amongst others in his time, believed that it was the responsibility of the Whites to Christianize heathens and thus save them from eternal damnation. Thus, the purposes of introducing English were not merely linguistic but “extra-linguistic”.

A change in the distribution of usage of the local languages can also symbolize a corresponding change in the power structure. Persian was a symbol of the Muslim rule in India. The change in the official language in 1835 thus reflected the shift in the power dynamics and showed that the British had established their control over India. It can be said that the British planned their language policy carefully as it is defined by Cooper (1989, p.45), “language planning refers to deliberate efforts to influence the behavior of others with respect to the acquisition, structure, or functional allocation of their language codes.” If judged by this definition, the British policy was highly effective. Even today, over 50 years after the end of direct British rule in South Asia, the English language flourishes and grows as an indiginized variety with local norms, variations and uses. As was the case during the British era, the English language remains a passport to entry to high governmental, bureaucratic, military, and social positions.

At the time of independence, English was maintained as an official language in both India and Pakistan. English was the language of the state machinery in British India and the new government of Pakistan were used to working in this language. English was therefore kept as an official language in Pakistan for pragmatic and functional reasons. However, English was an exclusive language and used only by the educated and the powered classes. Thus to maintain its status was to protect the established hegemony (power structures).

During the gaining of Pakistan independence, Urdu was used as a symbol of Muslim unity. Thus, after the creation of Pakistan, the right wing political parties demanded that Urdu be the only national language. However, this was not possible for two major reasons: a) English had been the language of government in British India and therefore there was a lack of sufficient resources in Urdu to switch over to it immediately; and b) other ethnic/linguistic groups, e.g., Bengalis, did not recognize Urdu as the only national language; they wanted their own language to be recognized too.

In 1971, Bengal separated from what was then greater Pakistan to form Bangladesh. After the separation of Bengal, the demands for making Urdu the only official language increased. Finally, when the right wing Islamicists came to power in 1977, Chief Marshal Law Administrator General Zia-ul-Haq started imposing “Urdu only” policies. However, this “Urdu only” period, which will be discussed later, was unable to weaken the power of the English speaking elite. In fact, this “Urdu only” phase increased the gap between the “haves” and the “have-nots” and made it more evident that whatever the official policy for the masses might be, without English, chances for economic and social mobilization were minimum. By not having access to English, the general population was at a disadvantage compared to the elite, or people with means, who sent their children to private English medium schools or abroad. Most high paying jobs in the private sector required English. Graduates from English medium schools met this requirement and were hired, while graduates from non-English medium or Vernacular schools had to struggle to find a decent job. Thus, there was (and is) discrimination against people with a non-English medium education and against people with insufficient skills in the English language in the higher circles of the society.

In this paper I will discuss, based on a historical analysis of language policy issues in British India and Pakistan and on results from an attitudinal study, why an “Urdu only” policy can not eliminate this hierarchy; rather, adopting English as the language of education for all might be the only way to narrow the gap between the various social classes and give all citizens an equal chance to succeed. Literacy in English will also aid in attracting global investment.

Historical Overview

English language in British India from 1835-1947

The British came to India to conquer and rule it. However, there were differences in the way that the officials and advisors to the government thought it should be governed. During the early British period there were two major schools of thoughts: the Orientalists and the Anglicists. One school of thought, the Orientalists, appreciated the past greatness of the natives and knew that there was much to learn from the Indians. They believed that Indian history, languages, religions, and traditions needed to be studied and that Indians should be ruled in accordance with their own traditions and culture. The Orientalists established schools to study the vernacular and classical languages of the region and maintained the established norms of the society. Persian, the official language of the Mughal Empire, was maintained. In contrast to the Orientalists, Anglicists believed in the “supremacy of English and Western culture” (Rahman, 1996: 33) and held “oriental learning in contempt”(ibid.). The Anglicists felt that it was their duty to civilize the native Indians by introducing Christianity and other English values and traditions. Introduction of the English language and English traditions was also considered to be of economic value to Britain. The Anglicists wanted to promote English by teaching European “literature and science through the medium of the English language” (Lord Bentink, 1835, in Spear 1965: 127).

The Orientalists, after an initial reign of power, lost their control and the Anglicists took over. The significance of 1835 is in this symbolic victory of the Anglicists over the Orientalists. Macaulay’s Minute of February 2 of that year was the argument that was approved by the Governor-General of India, Lord Bentinck. The purpose of Macaulay’s Minute was to create “a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste and character, in morals and in intellect” (Curtin, 1971). On March 7, 1835, Lord Bentick (in Rahman 1996, p.34) announced that:

The great object of the British government ought to be the promotion of European literature and science among the natives of India; and that all funds appropriated for the purpose of education would be best employed on English education alone.

This change from an Orientalizt to an Anglicist viewpoint did not occur without strong criticism from the Orientalists. Mackenzie (in Basu, 1952) predicted that such policies would antagonize the Indians and might lead to problems; however, his views were ignored[ii]. Although the Orientalists strongly opposed this step, they had lost their influence and their views were not taken into consideration. Macaulay recommended that publication of books in Arabic and Sanskrit should be stopped. A number of people lost their jobs and financial security as a result of this policy. This Anglicist philosophy led to the establishment of English medium education in British India. And according to the Dictionary of Languages edited by Dalley (1998),

‘With the establishment of the first university… English for all practical purposes became an Indian language’ (S. Mathi). By the time British rule in India had flourished and declined, to end with independence in 1947, the English language was so solidly entrenched in education and in communication among speakers of the various indigenous languages that it was impossible to do without it. Its constitutional position has varied- but English remains, in practice an essential lingua franca…

Spring (1998) has elaborated the economic reasons[iii] behind the shift in language policies in the British government. According to Spring the colonization was grounded in a combination of psychological motives which included,

… a desire for wealth, civilizing less-than-human barbarians, and converting pagans to Christianity. What better situation could there be then to make money and do good at the same time… Europeans could return with wealth while feeling bathed in the glory of God and with the knowledge that the uncivilized were being civilized. (p. 32)

Spring further states that in the early days of colonization, the colonizers were engaged in exporting goods from the conquered lands to their home countries; and then later, with industrialization, to finding new markets for their produced goods. The industrial revolution in the West influenced a change in the administrative and educational policies in the colonies as well. To create a market for European goods, the switch in the policies was toward an integration of the indigenous people of the colonies to the European views; and education was seen as the most powerful instrument for accomplishing this. Spring cites Charles Grant who said that “to introduce the language of the conquerors, seems to be an obvious means of assimilating a conquered people to them… this is the noblest species of conquest, and wherever, we may venture to say, our principles and language are introduced, our commerce will follow” (p. 15). Thus, Spring argues that the debate between the Orientalists and the Anglicists was essentially a reflection of the industrial revolution and the economic changes in Britain.

In 1837 Persian was abolished from the courts. However, instead of replacing Persian with English, the Governor-General replaced it with Indian vernaculars. This policy had significant results. A single official language had united the people who spoke different languages. This language functioned as the official language, the national lingua franca, the language of science and education, and the language of high literature. It was a symbol of the Mughal rule in India. By destroying this symbol of unity and by replacing Persian with other vernaculars at the local level, nationalistic sentiments in the these linguistic and ethnic groups grew. The replacement of Persian by local vernaculars at the micro level (in local courts etc.), gave rise to nationalistic sentiments and the development of language allegiance and use of language as an identity marker. The British used this rise in nationalism to their advantage by adopting a policy of “divide and rule”. The deposing of Persian also created a gap: there was no other local language that could be used as an internal lingua franca or as the language of education. English was therefore a natural replacement for Persian. It was the language of the new rulers who brought with them new sciences. The divide and rule policy increased the differences between Urdu and Hindi speakers and was exploited by the British (see Rai, 1991; Beg, 1996; and King, 1994 for a detailed study of the origins and development of Urdu and Hindi). Urdu was used as a symbol of Muslim nationalism during the independence movement by the All India Muslim Leagues and served as a symbol of Muslim unity[iv]. Urdu was marked as being different from Hindi even though they share the same grammar and an overwhelming number of lexical items. The difference between the two languages lies in their scripts; Urdu uses a script based on Persio-Arabic characters, and Hindi employs the Devanagri script[v].

The political parties in British India made use of non-linguistic differences between Urdu and Hindi for their own purposes[vi]. This was similar to the use of language as an identity marker in the development of national identities in contemporary Europe. Thus, it can be argued that the mobilization of attitudes of the masses to develop and change their religious and ethnic identities in India based on so-called linguistic distinctions was engineered in the fashion of 19th century Europe. In this sense, the ethnic and linguistic nationalism in South Asia today is a result of imported western notions of linguistic identities.

Cobarrubias (1983) identifies nationalism as one of the four major ideologies that can motivate language attitudes. He points out the significant role language can play in national identity development. However, he is careful in pointing out that in their own turn such use of a particular language can lead to policies that suppress other regional and ethnic languages. This is clearly the case with Urdu, has suppressed the other vernaculars in Pakistan.

English was adopted as one of the language of education in 1847 after considerable debate. The Governor-General did not believe in the total elimination of vernaculars from education, therefore, two different types of schools were created: English schools and Vernacular schools. Job opportunities for natives who had a good command of English were excellent and their pay

scale was higher than those educated in vernacular schools. However, admissions to the English schools were restricted to people with money. The moneyed class comprised of the rajas and feudal landlords who were loyal to the British authority. Hence only people who could be depended on to be loyal to the government were given access to education in English. The Vernacular schools were not as expensive as the English medium ones: the average cost of sending a child to an English school was from twenty to seventy five times higher than that of sending him/her to a Vernacular school (Rahman, 1996). The amount of money spent by the government on the different students was also very different, the government spent from two to ten times as much on students who went to the English schools. This dual system of education created two different classes of educated natives who were trained for different purposes. According to Rahman (1996, p.55) the vernacular schools served at least two purposes: “the policy of spending less money on producing subordinate staff and generating the political support of the nationalists”. The English schools, on the other hand, served Macaulay’s purposes of creating an Indian elite, which would be educated in English and be employed by the British in the government as local representatives.

Modern Politics of the English language in Pakistan This section is further divided into sub-sections representing time periods that coincide with major political changes in Pakistan. These political changes influenced the language policy of the country. Daoust (1997, p.440) realizes these effects of political changes on language policies and states, “language planning policies sometimes seem to develop as an afterthought following a period of sociopolitical turmoil such as when a country gains independence or when a political party is overthrown.”

1947-1958

At the time of Independence, Pakistan, like most other ex-colonial countries, was faced with the problem of developing a language policy. Like many other countries, the problems in designing and implementing such a policy were complicated by languages and language groups competing to be recognized as national languages. Among these languages, the two dominant native languages were Urdu and Bengali. Urdu was used as a symbol of Muslim unity. Bengali was the native language of East Pakistan or Bengal (modern Bangladesh). Bengal was the largest and most populous province of Pakistan. According to the 1951 census, Bengalis made up 54.6% of the total population of Pakistan. Bengal also produced the most revenue. However, the prominent leaders of the Pakistan movement, including Muhammad Ali Jinnah (the first Governor General of Pakistan) and Liaquat Ali Khan (the first Prime Minister of Pakistan), supported Urdu as the only national language. Jinnah, in a speech he delivered in English in Bengal said, “… it is for you, the people of this Province, to decide what shall be the language of your Province. But let me make it very clear to you that the State Language of Pakistan is going to be Urdu and no other language. Anyone who tries to mislead you is really the enemy of Pakistan” (Jinnah, 1948: 183). While this speech recognized Bengali as a provincial language, it also made it clear that Bengali was not to be officially recognized as a national language. Furthermore, it labeled those who wanted Bengali to be recognized as a national language as anti-state elements giving them negative stature. The Bengalis protested against this speech and friction was created between the two units of Pakistan: East and West Pakistan. The Pakistani leaders believed that there had to be only one national language and that more than one national language could not hold the nation together. In trying to develop a national identity for Pakistan, the Urdu committee, which was set up by the Advisory Board of Education to cultivate the Urdu language in Bengal, even tried to introduce a uniform script for all languages spoken in Pakistan. Needless to say, this policy was highly criticized by Bengalis and people of other linguistic groups who had their own scripts and literary traditions. This policy of the government towards Bengali was symbolically treated as a sign of suppression of the Bengali culture and was therefore used as a symbol during the Bengali nationalist movement that eventually led to the separation of East Pakistan to form Bangladesh in 1971.

The purpose of the reference to the Urdu-Bengali controversy above was to show how complex the situation in Pakistan was after independence. In addition to the political problems associated with an Urdu only policy, lack of materials (corpus planning) was listed as a handicap for having Urdu as the only official/national language. Thus, in order to run the government smoothly, English was maintained as the official language; Urdu was recognized as the national language; and, one local language from each province (Bengali, in case of East Pakistan) was recognized as the official provincial language. This gave Pakistan a three-language structure. A three-language structure is not unique to Pakistan. Nadkarni (1983, p.152-3) investigating linguistics problems in a multilingual country states that:

Most multilingual countries have consequently evolved a language policy which has a three-language structure with a distinct major communication role or function assigned to each language. Nida (1971) identifies these communication roles as follows: (a) communication with people of the in-group (the language of each cultural group), (b) communication with people of the out-group (common or national language), and (c) communication involving specialized information (a world language such as English). An individual member of a multilingual society who wishes to participate at all levels of communication is obliged to acquire the necessary communication skills in all these three languages. It is the responsibility of the educational system of each country to provide him with the opportunity for acquiring these skills.

In Pakistan, the vernacular fulfilled the first role; Urdu, the second role; and English, the third role. And in order to be fully functional at all levels, a person has to be multilingual.

Another option for the young Pakistan would have been to adopt an approach of linguistic pluralism. Cobarrubias (1983) has pointed out that linguistic pluralism can be a successful policy in a multilingual society. According to Cobarrubias (1983, p. 65), linguistic pluralism is the “coexistence of different linguistic groups and their right to maintain and cultivate their languages on an equitable basis” and can help to foster a feeling of equality between various ethnic and linguistic groups in a country. However, such a pluralistic policy was considered negative by Pakistani politicians because it was contrary to the ideal Pakistani image that they wanted to create. As a result of the complexity of the language situation and to not make Urdu the only language of the state machinery, English was maintained as an official language in Pakistan. The people running the government were trained to do their work in this language, and therefore it was not hard to convince the people of its usefulness as an official language. Haque (1993, p.14) states that:

The use of English was inevitable for system maintenance: the ruling elite were trained to do their official work in English. English perforce continued to be the official language of Pakistan. It also had the compromise candidate, at least for the interim, since the adoption of one of the two languages of indigenous origin, Urdu and Bengali, as the national language could have meant the alienation of large sections of the populace, especially in an atmosphere charged with political activism generated by Bengali nationalism. And the switch to both would have meant confusion, not least for being premature.

Thus, English was anchored in Pakistan and was ready to play a crucial role in the structures of power and dominance in this new country.

The situation on the educational scene reflected the general feelings of the government towards Urdu. The government wanted Urdu to be the language of education. As early as 1948, Urdu was declared the language in which instructions should be given at the primary level. However, the role of English was not specified. In general it was decided that Urdu would be developed to take over the functions that English fulfilled and that Urdu would replace English within 10 years. The argument that there was a need for corpus planning before vernaculars could be used in education or in an official capacity was not a new one. Rahman (1996) reports that in 1867 the secretary to the Government of India, E. C. Bayley, used a similar argument. Bayley stated that materials were not available in the vernaculars to be used in higher education, and their role should be restricted to primary education[vii].

In addition to the Urdu medium schools, English medium schools were maintained. Thus, there were two systems of education. The policy of the government to continue the two mediums of instruction in education side by side reflected the British policy. It also served the same purpose: to create two classes of people, one that was to be trained to govern and the other to produce subordinate staff. The elite preferred sending their children to the English medium schools, while the rest send their children to government schools or other non-elite English medium schools.

1958-1971

1958 saw the first martial law government in Pakistan. Ayub Khan, the Commander-in-Chief and the military ruler, believed that the army was superior to the politicians and also that the most qualified personnel acquire their knowledge in English medium schools. Ayub Khan was openly pro-English, something that the previous governments were afraid of stating. All training for military officers was in English and cadets were not allowed to use ethnic languages. However, at the same time, due to increased activities of the pro-Urdu right wing groups, English was not introduced as the medium of instruction in government schools where the majority of the people sent their children.

In 1959 a commission was set up to look into the language issues in Pakistan. The Sharif Commission, which looked into the language in education issues, stated that Urdu and Bengali should be the mediums of instruction in secondary schools (class 6 to matric) in the government schools. The Commission predicted: “in approximately 15 years Urdu would reach the point of development where it could become the medium of instruction at the university level” (in Mansoor, 1993; p. 10). Thus the lack of corpus planning card was played once more. This was a convenient method of maintaining the status quo and satisfying the right wing parties. During a discussion in the Punjab assembly, the Minister of Education said that, “I would like to say that in the year 1972 the President shall constitute a commission to examine the report on the question of the replacement of English language for official purposes” (LAD-P 8 Aug 1964: 465). Thus, he endorsed the conclusions of the Sharif Commission.

The Commission clearly stated that until such time as Urdu was ready to replace English, “English should continue as second language since advance knowledge which was in English was only needed for advanced study and research” (Sharif, p. 281). The demands for using vernaculars as the language of higher education were thus brushed aside. However, Urdu was instituted as the language of instruction in government schools, with English taught only as a compulsory subject. Elite English medium schools were allowed to flourish. According to Rahman (1996, p.234) there were at least 19 private English medium elite schools in West Pakistan alone during this time,

…to which Rs 2,477,285 had been given in 1964-65, and on whose governing bodies there were 73 senior civil and military officers… There was some protest against Lahore Corporation’s donation of Rs 1,000,000 to the Divisional Public School, whereas the corporation’s own schools were in an impecunious condition. However, nothing was done to make amends, and a motion concerning this was not even allowed to be moved in the provincial legislature…

These figures show a bias of the people in power in favour of elite English medium schools. The government schools were ignored and the limited funds available were allocated to elite schools non-proportionately.

Based on the conclusions of the Commission, Urdu was introduced as the language of instruction in all the government schools. Although this was not an issue in Baluchistan, NWFP, or the Punjab, in Sindh it was the root of the division, which put Urdu-speaking Mohajirs (people who migrated to Pakistan from India at the time of partition and who mostly lived in the developed urban centers) against Sindhi speakers (mostly living in the under-developed rural areas). Sindhis were very conscious of the Sindhi literary heritage and felt that it was being undermined by the dominance of Urdu. Sindhi was also the medium of instruction in pre-partition Sindh and they resented Urdu for replacing it in their homeland. This problem was ignored by the government and has since become the root of violent Sindhi-Mohajir clashes.

In 1969, Nur Khan proposed that “the medium of instruction at all levels of education should be changed to Bengali in East and Urdu in West Pakistan” (PNEP 1969: 17). He stated that the differences created by the two educational systems, i.e. English and vernacular, were almost “caste-like”. Although his proposals stirred some debate, the education policy of 1970 did not change the status of English and left the language issue to be decided by a commission to be set up in 1972. Thus, the trend of creating two different classes of people continued.

1971-1978

1971 signifies the divorce of East and West Pakistan and the emergence of Bangladesh as an independent nation. As East Pakistan separated to form Bangladesh, Bhutto gained power in the new-Pakistan. According to Haque (1993), the “separation of East Pakistan also ‘simplified’ the language situation in the two remaining provinces” (p. 14). By “simplified” Haque was referring to the Bengali language problem. However, it is interesting to note that Haque only mentioned two provinces, Sindh and the Punjab, in discussing the language situation in West Pakistan, and not the other two provinces, Balouchistan and the N.W.F.P. The “simplified” situation, by which Haque means the Bengali language issue, did not result in a change in the language policy in the new-Pakistan. In fact, it is debatable whether the situation had “simplified” at all because the status of the regional language in the new Pakistan didn’t change. Bhutto had run for elections with the popular slogan of “bread, clothing, and shelter” for all, and it has therefore been questioned why he did not replace English by Urdu. One possible reason for this might have been that Bhutto’s political rivals supported Urdu. Rahman (1996, p.238) supports this view:

… Urdu was supported by Bhutto’s political enemies. In Balouchistan and the NWFP… the NAP-JUI ruling parties opted for Urdu as the official language in 1972. In the Punjab, the Islamicists… were more enthusiastic about Urdu than any other language. Thus, Bhutto found himself unable or unwilling to do away with English.