Views on the issue of national language in Pakistan

[Neo]

Views on the issue of national language in Pakistan

Contributed by various authors via e-mail/forums


************************************************** ********

Persian was the official language of Pakistan region for many centuries... during pre-British Muslim and non-Muslim periods! Urdu/Hindi language belonging to only Gangetic valley was first promoted and developed by the British colonialists.

What made the British choose Urdu rather than Persian is revealed by the available documents of that period. For instance, the Commissioner and Superintendent of the cis-Sutlej states wrote to the Secretary, Punjab Government, on 17 June 1862:

"In 1853 when I first took charge of the Commissionership the language of the Courts was Persian; and I altered it to Oordoo for two reasons. Firstly the extreme slipperiness of Persian, and extreme Provision of Oordoo as a Judicial language. 2ndly the Political advantage of hastening the amalgamation of our provinces."

The idea that the peoples of Pakistan region should look towards India, where Urdu was predominant, and not towards Afghanistan/Iran/Central Asia, certainly influenced the choice of the vernacular in this region.

This is further supported by the following letter of 22 July 1862 from the Director of Public Instruction to the Secretary of the Punjab Government:

"Persian may be considered the vernacular of the educated classes rather than Urdoo, .... I would recommend that Urdoo be continued as the Court Vernacular. On the annexation of the Punjab political motives, I dare say, had a great share in giving the superiority to Urdoo over Persian, which was commonly used in the Courts, and the desirability of making the union of the wild tribes with the adjoining population in our territories more complete, and their intercourse more convenient, by the use of a common tongue, is obviously very desirable. All our Education efforts tend to this object among others and they will be greatly aided by the currency of Urdoo, in all our Courts, as the standard language."

Reference: See the letters between British officers in the book, Development of Urdu as Official language in the Punjab (1849-1974), Nazir A. Chaudhry (Lahore: Government of the Punjab, 1977).

It is a fact that the British imperialists replaced Persian with Urdu in order to destroy Pakistan's close cultural/political links with its Persian-speaking Muslim neighbors on its west/north, and to engineer/promote their newly invented "Indian" colonial identity with Urdu/Hindi-speaking Gangetic (eastern/Hindu) region as its base. So let us undo what the British colonialists had started.. by rejecting this bitter and brief British legacy of Urdu/Indian language/cultural imposition.... by "de-Indianizing" ourselves and reverting back to our natural independent/distinct status.

[Neo]

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.

10. Urdu is a legacy of British colonialism:

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.

11. Urdu is a slave language:

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.

[Neo]

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:

Arabic

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.

Dari/Farsi

1. Historically, Dari/Farsi was used in Pakistan region through out most of its pre-British history. The Muslim rulers such as Ghaznavids, Ghorids, Slave dynasty, Khiljis, Tughlaqs, Syeds, Lodhis, Suris, Mughals, and Abdali exclusively used Farsi/Dari as its official language through out their empires/kingdoms. Even the local kingdoms such as those of Ranjit Singh, the Talpurs, Khanate of Kalat, etc. used Farsi/Dari as its official language. And before the advent of Islam, various Iranian languages (derived or related to Dari/Farsi) were used in Pakistan region such as Vedic, Old Persian, Pahlvi, Old Saka, Bactrian, and Tocharian during RigVedic Aryan, Achaemenian, Scythian, Parthian, Greco-Bactrian, Kushan, and Hephthalite periods. So, Dari/Farsi has a solid historical basis in the region of Pakistan.

2. Linguistically, Dari/Farsi is an Indo-Iranian language related to the Indo-Iranian languages of Pakistan. Thus, Dari/Farsi language is not an alien language to Pakistan's native languages and belong to the same family of languages (plus the loan-words and script).

3. Geographically, the Dari/Farsi-speaking world (Iran, Afghanistan, and parts of Central Asia) are Pakistan's western and northern neighbors. Therefore, a Dari/Farsi-speaking Pakistan will attach Pakistan to the Central Asian/Pax Iranica regional bloc.

4. With Farsi/Dari as Pakistan's national language, it will counter religious extremism in the region since Sunni extremism from Pakistan would be checked by Shia Iran and Shia extremism from Iran would be checked by Sunni Pakistan.

5. Dari/Farsi is a well developed and sophisticated language. It has been used through out its history for science, medicine, literature, administration, arts, etc. When Arabs invaded the great Persian empire they adopted much of its civilization and integrated it within Arab/Islamic culture. Dari/Farsi film industry is world renowned for its classical/artistic and decent/mature movies.

6. Dari/Farsi language is not the mother-tongue of any single ethnic group. It is spoken by Tajiks, Uzbeks, Turkmens, Azeris, Persians, Kurds, Baluchs, Pashtuns, Hazaras, etc. in Iran-Afghanistan-CAsia region.

[Neo]

The bollywood movies, cable channels like Star and Zee are all in Urdu but the indians call it Hindi.

The Indians have been trying to influence our culture from the very beginning. That is the reason why you see pure Urdu movies in the 1970s and 1980s called Hindi by Indians. By doing that, they were actually invading our cultural and linguistic space. I am not impressed by Indian moves and especially the "dramas" on zee and star networks, but the ladies in Pakistan are glued to the television and cant afford to miss even a single episode of these phony dramas.

Also, you might have noticed that the government imposed ban on these TV channels a few years ago because of the propaganda news and influence on the Pakistani culture. The other reason given by our information minister, Sheikh Rashid Ahmad was to allow the Pakistani media and channels to grow so that there is no competition from across the border.

All these developments indicate that cultural invasion is going on and this is done in a systematic manner. We should not lose focus from the fact that recently the channels and some movies have started using a lot of strange hindi words in the scripts. This is because first they captured the market and now they are preaching their culture and language to that particular focused group called Pakistan.

I don't think that Pakistanis have any thing against Urdu or Mohajirs. But we should try to understand that battle of cultures is going on and if we don't ponder and think about it and pretend that nothing is going on, then we will be big losers.

In today's world, not too many wars are fought with weapons. With improved technologies, wars of media/culture are being aggressively waged. If Indian cultural invasion of Pakistan continues to "Indianize" the Pakistanis.. then that would mean that Indians have conquered us and won the war.. without a single bullet!

Let us make the radical change of our national language from Urdu to Dari/Persian... to make our nation strong ensuring its long-term survival.

[Neo]

Regarding Urdu-Hindi controversy, here is an excerpt from Dr. Tariq Rahman's book, titled "Language and Politics in Pakistan".

“M K Gandhis efforts to conciliate both Hindus and Muslims through linguistic compromise can thus be understood in the context of increasing tendencies towards separatism. Gandhi defined Hindustani as “that language which is generally spoken by Hindus and Musalmans of the North, whether in Devanagri or Urdu”

Is not it glaringly clear from the above excerpt that if there was any difference in Urdu and Hindi, that was of script as indicated by the words “Devanagri” and “Urdu”? Moreover, why on earth would Gandi give the same name, “Hindustani”, to Urdu and Hindi if they in fact were different?

The only conclusion from this is, the difference was very artificial i.e. in script only. Colloquially, there was no such distinction as Urdu or Hindi. And at literary level, Hindi-Hindustani was identified with Devanagri script and Urdu-Hindustani with Quranic script as evidenced by the following excerpt from Tariq Rahman Book:

“The worst fear of the Muslims came true, when on Gandhis insistence, the Baharatiya Sahitya Parishad changed the term Hindustani to Hindi-Hindustani in its session of 24 April 1936. Abdul Haq, head of Anjuman-e-Tarraqqi-e-Urdu, the foremost organization for the development of Urdu, opposed this change and some prominent Muslims wrote letters to Gandhi protesting against it.”

This shows there was some sort of agreement among Muslims and Hindus that the common language, which both Muslims and Hindu spoke and which was written by Muslims in Perso-Arabic script and Hindus in Devanagri script, would be called “Hindustani”. But when Hindus violated that agreement, Muslims protested.

This is testified by the following excerpt from Rahman’s.

“After this, despite the efforts of nationalist Muslims and the agreement between Rajandar Prasad and Abdul Haq, accepting Hindustani as the common language of Hindus and Muslims(1942:38), Hindi and Urdu grew further apart.”

Further, as a term for nomenclature or definitive term, the word Hindustani has been used in combination with other words like “Hindustani Language” in which case it means Urdu-Hindi or “Hindustani Languages” in which case it means different languages spoken in Hindustan. Hindustani would either mean Urdu-Hindi or an inhabitant of Hindustan.


The fact is, it all was started by the Muslim elite of UP, who faced with the threat from the rising consciousness in Hindu majority with regard to their rights, raised the slogan of Muslim Nationalism/Communalism. They used the idea of separate Muslim identity, enshrined in Urdu script and religion, for share in power and resources as the following excerpt from Dr. Tariq Rahman's book shows. The text is actually of some Hamid Ali Khan, one of the "nobles" of UP.

“though the Hindus, including of course all classes of them, constitute the majority; but it cannot be said that the entire body of them can claim the same political and social importance as Mohammadan.(1900;38)”

The point is, can just a script be the basis of a distinct identity? And if it cannot be and Pakistan is not going to have separate basis of identity and our destiny ultimately lies with Hindustan, why the hell did we separate from Hindustan!

According to Dr. Tariq Rehman:

"According to linguists, Hindi and Urdu are two styles of the same language...both have the same inflectional system and a common core of basic vocabulary; they differ in the learned words used.......as mentioned earlier, medieval Muslim writers used the word Hindi for the languages of north-western India. This language however was different both from Persianized Urdu and Sansikrtized Hindi...The urge to purge Hindi of many indigenous words was initiated by Muslim literary figures from 1702 to 1705....The more Persianized form of it however was really only used by educated middle and upper-class males. In other words, it was a sociolect, though the less Persianized version of it was more commonly used in Northern India".

About Hindi, T. Rehman writes:

"However, despite linguistic pluralism, the Hindu language remained an important symbol in the construction of Hindu identity during the same period...."

I wonder if they had to Persianized Khariboli, called Hindustani, an attempt, which failed, why didn't they adopt Persian altogether?

[Neo]

Urdu is native to India than to Pakistan and is the language of the culturally and politically dominant North-West Indians who are in majority in Hindustan- and that it is actually Hindi but slightly Persianized. Even that distinction between Hindi and Urdu has disappeared. The high Hindi as used in Bollywood today is now the same as high Urdu. One can well imagine, “how great” would be the difference at colloquial level. Just imagine Hindus and Muslims in UP, MP, Bihar, etc. living in shared localities and interacting with each other on daily basis! I don’t think there would be any Persianization or Sanscritization of Urdu-Hindi (Let us call it Urindi for convenience) at colloquial level---that seems implausible to me.

The facts are,

1. Urdu-Hindi is native to India having evolved from Khari-boli during the declining phase of Mughal rule in India, and so the core of it has been borrowed from an ancient base that primarily symbolized and carried a Hindustani cultural spirit and world-view.

2. Both Urdu-Hindi and Hindustani Civilization, with Hinduism as the predominant element, have their center of gravity in Gangetic plain, the very heart of Hinduism/Hindustani Civilization, where the “sacred” River Gang flows…and that there some kind of symbiotic relationship between Urdu-Hindi and Hindustani/Hindu Civilization.

3. It is a sort of lingua-franca in Hindustan, a symbol of the cultural/civilizational unity of India, at least to the outside world, and one of the most important elements of Hindustani identity.

4. It is the language of the majority of Hindustanis i.e. the north-western Indians, who are culturally and politically more dominant. Moreover, it is the most-favored language at the level of state in Hindustan and a symbol of status and sophistication for common Hindustanis.

5. It is the main vehicle for disseminating Hindustani Culture outside Hindustan.

6. The rather minor Persian-heavy and Sanskrit-heavy difference between the two styles of high Hindustani i.e. Urdu and Hindi has mostly disappeared and now the only remaining difference is the Perso-Arabic and Devanagari scripts. The difference at colloquial level, as pointed to above, was most likely already non-existent.

7. The fact that it is the mother-tongue of about 300 millions Hindustanis but the mother tongue of only 10 millions Pakistanis.

[Neo]

See it in very simple terms, what are the main native languages of Pakistan? Punjabi, Pashto, Sindhi, Baloch etc. Nobody can argue that Punjabi native language is Punjabi ... to claim otherwise is a lie!!!

By teaching and spreading Urdu what are you doing? In effect your creating a vehicle that enables Pakistani's to be able to communicate effectively with Indian's!!! Urdu has trans-national capability - With India!!!

Your enabling a Pashtun or a Punjabi to be able to speak with 98% effectiveness with say Gujrati, Tamil, Orrisan, Telagu Indian's. Without Urdu the Pashtun would not be able to speak with any Indian and a Punjabi would be limited to North Western Indian!!!

Clearly the effect of this is your homogenizing divergent peoples of South Asia - Your creating uniformity with India, which is inconsistent with the whole notion of Pakistan. If people of Pakistan really do want homogenized into India then great go ahead and spread Urdu but then again why not re-unify with India? Would at least save lot of money!!!

Its this basic contradictory nature of Urdu that I am having problems rationalizing and is at the heart of my disgust with this 'language of indianization' which in the long term will rip up any precious local identity we have and end up getting emulsified into the greater India.

This effect can be seen in Ireland where the Irish fought for centuries to free themselves from their English masters and rallied around their Celtic roots/culture. However their own language - Gaelic over time was wiped out by English. The effect of this can be seen now in present day Ireland. Despite now being a independent country their culture has been wiped out by English/American influence ... indeed Ireland now is just a extension of UK bar the slight difference in accents!!!

Indeed I wonder what was the point of centuries of troubles? I fear the same will happen in Pakistan.

So the question Pakistani's should ask is 'do we want to be homogenized into India'? I know what my answer is!!!

[Neo]

Although we Pakistanis are grateful to Jinnah's efforts in the creation of Pakistan, as a human being he was not perfect. Jinnah's choice of Urdu as Pakistan's national language was his biggest mistake with long-term negative consequences for Pakistan. And his harsh words/attitude for Pakistanis against Urdu imposition is deplorable particularly when he stated those against Urdu as enemies of Pakistan. Similar condemnations for an aspect of other nations' founding fathers is not uncommon. For an extreme example, the founding fathers of the USA are condemned for their racist comments/attitude towards the Blacks, Native Americans, etc. But nations evolve with time.. modifying their stance on critical issues for the greater benefit of its peoples and national interest.. based on the ground realities whether that be for the sake of unity, fairness, equality, freedom, etc. Same thing applies to Pakistan with regard to the unjust imposition of Urdu as the national language.

[Neo]

I know many Indian Hindus very well and I can assure you that there is very little difference between their Hindi language and Pakistan's (actually Muhajir's) Urdu language. They are one and the same language with the only difference being that Urdu has a little more of Persian words and is written in the Perso-Arabic script, whereas Hindi has more of Sanskrit words and is written in the Devangari script. Written script does not mean any thing nor does loan-words ... for example, Azeri language of Azerbaijan has some Russian words and is written in the Cyrillic script, whereas Azeri language of Iran has some Persian words and is written in the Perso-Arabic script. Regardless, Azeris of both countries are the same people speaking the same language! Same thing applies to Urdu and Hindi.. they are almost the same language and the whole world knows that!

Urdu was originally called Hindustani.. Hindi was extracted from it during the British rule by ejecting many Persian words and adopting Devangari script (at Fort Williams College.. where Urdu was also further developed.. and communalization of Hindustani language was invented).. Hindustani evolved during the declining period of Muslim rule due to the interaction between Persian speaking Muslim rulers and Khari-boli speaking Hindus of UP/Delhi/MP/etc. region. Hindustani (aka Urdu or aka Hindi) was only native in those regions of UP/MP/Bihar/Delhi/etc. With the invention of Two Nation Theory and communalization of north India, the Persianized form of Hindustani now was called Urdu and remained the mother tongue of only Muslims of UP/MP/Delhi/Bihar/etc. (and Muhajirs in Pakistan) whereas the newly engineered Sanskritized form of Hindustani was called Hindi and slowly became the mother tongue of Hindus of these same regions. But they were still the same languages and still are.. for example if Turks of Anatolia adopted the Latin script less than a century ago and added words from English/French... it still remains the same Turkish language, regardless of those minor changes! You are living in a fool's paradise by denying the fact that Hindi and Urdu are the same language!

Sindhi, Balochi, Pashto, Punjabi, Kashmiri, Seraiki, etc. are distinct languages.. and have nothing to do with Urdu! Urdu only made some inroads in Pakistan region during British rule but was limited to the few educated/elite because of the then Hindustani Muslim domination of politics/education/etc. It was only after 1947 that Urdu made some serious inroads in Pakistan under the banner of national language, and Muhajir domination of media/govt.

Since Urdu and Hindi are the same language, Urdu as the national language of Pakistan has caused an identity crises in Pakistan. Much of the world perceives Indians and Pakistanis as the same people because they speak the same language (Urdu/Hindi).. only divided by religion. The fact is.. Urdu is only the mother-tongue of Muhajirs from UP/MP/Delhi/Bihar/etc. who happen to be only less than 7% of Pakistanis. So this is cultural domination of one ethnic group (a small minority) on others. Bengalis resented it and we lost them mostly because of that. Many other Pakistanis resent Urdu. Enough is enough... Urdu should be eliminated as Pakistan's national language.

Hindi is the mother-tongue of India's largest ethnic group (30%) and the country itself has/had the issue of Hindi language imposition on other ethnic groups. This language has mostly dominated in Indian media including Bollywood. Everyone knows how popular Indian media and its cultural elements are spreading its tentacles in Pakistan. So the cultural invasion from India is a reality... and to whitewash this ongoing destruction ("Indianization") with denials is committing a silent cultural suicide.

By the way, there is nothing wrong with taking pride in one's ethnic identity.. they are one of the many layers of an individual's identity.. de facto. To deny this basic right is like telling some one not to talk about your height because others might have different heights. Taking pride in one's ethnicity does not equate to prejudice or superiority complex. The evil of prejudice/hatred/superiority complex is a whole different subject and can be found in every thing including religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, etc. As long as we accept and respect each other including the ethnic differences, and keep unity based on our common: history, linguistic identity, geography, religion, racial background, cultural roots, defence, and/or economy/commerce... then Pakistan will remain unified FOREVER... provided that there is fairness, equality, and freedom. So let's make change that is fair and make the country stronger by replacing Urdu with Dari/Farsi.

As I said in my previous posts, I am confident that Dari/Farsi will be the perfect choice as our national language because:

1. This language is not the mother-tongue of any ethnic group of Pakistan thus eliminating the cultural domination of an ethnic group and the resentment among other ethnic groups because of it.

2. This language and its derivatives were mostly spoken in Pakistan region in the pre-British period. That is to say, Rig Vedic Aryans spoke Vedic an Iranian language closely related to Avestan, ... Achaemanian and Sassanian periods had Old Persian language spoken as one of the major languages, ... Scythian, Parthian, Kushan, Hephthalite, etc. periods had different Iranian languages spoken such as Bactrian, Old Saka, Pahlavi, Tocharian, etc. as major languages, .... Turkic, Afghan, and Mughal Muslim periods exclusively had Farsi as the official language, ... even local kingdoms such as Ranjit Singh's and others had Farsi as the official language, etc. So this is the natural/historical language of the region.

3. This language will end the cultural invasion from India since Pakistanis will not be able to comprehend any Indian language. This will make the Pakistani identity stronger and distinct from India's. Indian movies/TV/music will not culturally corrupt the Pakistanis nor brainwash them with Indian/Hindu media's propaganda.

4. This language will make Pakistan closer to its western neighbors since the same language is spoken in Iran, Afghanistan, and Tajikistan. This will benefit Pakistan economically because of the closer cultural-linguistic ties with the abundant natural resources/energy-rich region. Pakistan film-industry will also be influenced by the classy Persian film-industry giving a much more artistic and respectful dimension to the currently cheap (Indian-influenced) Pakistani films.

[Neo]

For me the question is simple. What was the purpose of Pakistan? Was it to chart a destiny different from India? Or was it just to have a separate political unit but that would just follow India like a dog?

In my view the purpose of Pakistan was to follow a different destiny. If Pakistan was somewhere in middle of India, or had peoples that were 100% the same as Indian's I would not even begin to support a change of language or attempt at re-orientating the country. It would be a exercise in futility, I would accept the inevitability, that we are just Indian and there is no point in wasting time deluding ourselves. In fact I would arrive at he rationale that independence was a mistake and would advocate immediate unification and save all that money on defense and save any more lives lost in defense of our independence. But that is not what I believe. We are different but we have to rid ourselves of British legacy.

What I see is our geographic location, our peoples and our history contains sufficient substance and difference to service a genuine change of direction. Indeed it follows naturally from our independence. If we don't change direction all I can say is then let truth express itself - Join India, confederate with it. Or else the only excuse I can see for Pakistan is to provide a platform for a small native elite, the Mahajir elite and the Mullah to enrich themselves.

I don't know how the hell I can be accused of being unpatriotic, I am trying to put real distance between us and India, I support fortifying our identity and anchoring our identity.

In the preceding centuries it was us who in the sub continent took the brunt of influences derived from the West, it was us who were invaded by the Greeks, it was our lands that saw the Ghandara Greco-Bactrian Kingdoms, Taxila today is a living testimony to this. It was our lands that saw the flourishing of Indus Valley civilization. No doubt we have been sometimes the easternmost satrapy of Persia, or under the influence of 'Indian' based empires, and sometimes independent made up of small kingdoms. But by large, Pakistan region was has a distinct history from India and this is explained in detail on the website: www.geocities.com/pak_history

What's certain is we sit on the margins of Central/South Asia and we broke of from the British colonial empire that had welded us to Calcutta and then Delhi - Even that experience was for less then a century.

Today we are still struggling with British colonial legacy, the stamp left on us of being 'Indian' that was imprinted on us by the British. We are in a 'swing status' we can tilt either way.

55 years after having thrown off the British colonial yoke we have yet to undo its legacy and language is central to that. Clearly had the British not taken over Punjab ( 1850 ) and NWFP ( 1880 ) we would not have had Urdu as our language, we would not have been so 'connected' to the Indian heartland - the Ganges plains.

Al we have done since 1947 is sever our links with British colonialism but kept the donated blood flowing in our system. Ask yourself this simple question, which is the language that India is spreading through its diverse peoples? Which is the language that all Indians will speak in the future? It is Hindi of course!!!

Now Urdu is same as Hindi. Clearly having Perso Arabic script and more Persian words is not enough to create a distinct language. At end of day Hindi and Urdu are very similar.

So do Pakistani's want to 'Indianize' themselves? Does Pakistan want to become the common cultural realm of India? I and some others oppose this, we see inconsistency with having Pakistan and then trying to make it another India.

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.

If it was the east we wanted then why the hell 1947, the British had given us free off cost a ready made union but we separated. So the only natural consequence is a look westward and language is the key component of this.

Finally the difference between us and India is not just religion. India is a vast country made up of many 'nations' of different ethnicity. There is no Balochistan, Pashtun or Sindh in India. The exclusive homeland of Sindhi, Pashtun and Baloch is Pakistan only the Punjabi are found in India but as mentioned before they are some 5% of India. That 5% is hardly descriptive of the vast country called India, which is a continent in itself.

Take a look at your environment, you live in a land thats either mountains or semi to full desert, now find out what most of India is? You are in the easternmost arid zone that extends from Iran, whereas most of India is well watered, tropical region.

There is some Baloch in Iran as well but nobody ever thinks that Pakistan is same as Iran!!! Or there are large numbers ( largest minority ) Pashtun in Afghanistan but that does not make Afghanistan same as Pakistan. The provinces ( peoples ) Punjab, NWFP ( Pashtun ), Baloch and Sindh that make up Pakistan is a mix and a matrix that is unique to Pakistan. Religion is but one marker of our identity. We are not Bengali, Tamil, Etc Moslems, our lands are not tropical/delta swamps!!! Ours are harsh dry desert or lofty mountains creating difficult conditions and a hardy people, traditionally poor but proud. It was not a co incidence that the British looked to our lands to fill up their armies. We were a simple people.

Time we undid the British colonialism and marked our own identity.