Language Policy, Language Death and Vitality in Pakistan

By Tariq Rahman Ph. D

National Distinguished Professor, Qauid-i-Azam University, Islamabad

Back to Language Policy Home Page

Language Policy, Language Death and Vitality in Pakistan

Abstract

Pakistan is a multilingual country with six major and over 57 small languages. However, the languages of the domains of power---government, corporate sector, media, education etc---are English and Urdu. The state’s policies have favoured these two languages at the expense of others. These have resulted into the expression of ethnic identity through languages other than Urdu. It has also resulted in English having become a symbol of the upper class, sophistication and power. The less powerful indigenous languages of Pakistan are becoming markers of lower status and culture shame. Some small languages are also on the verge of extinction. It is only by promoting additive multilingualism that Pakistani languages will gain vitality and survive as cultural capital rather than cultural stigma.

Language Policy, Language Death and Vitality in Pakistan

Introduction

Pakistan is a multilingual country. Its national language, Urdu, is the mother tongue of only 7.57 per cent people though it is very widely spread out in the urban areas of the country otherwise. Its official language is still English as it was when the British ruled the country as part of British India. In addition to this, the country has five major indigenous languages given below:-

There are also 57 other languages, some of them on the verge of extinction, which are given in the Ethnologue (Grimes 2000). Some of these languages are dead and a new one, Kundal Shahi, is not given in this source¹.

The aim of this paper is to study the language policy of Pakistan with a view to determining how it privileges certain languages and with what political, social, educational and economic consequences. It argues that many of Pakistan’s languages, even major ones, are suffering from neglect as they are not taught nor used in jobs. A list of material available for basic literacy in many languages of the country is provided. Another annexure attempts to describe the vitality of a language as indicated by the domains in which it is used and, most importantly, the attitude of its speakers toward it.

The research is taken on second hard i.e. from printed sources or interviews of researchers. Except in the case of some of the languages of Northern Pakistan, the author has not confirmed the information given these sources with field work of his own. This is the major weakness of this work and one which is acknowledged at the outset. However, despite this weakness, the article is helpful in that it can guide future researchers who want to study language death and vitality in Pakistan.

Language Policy in Pakistan

Language policy in Pakistan is meant to strengthen the state. This is taken to mean that there should be a national language which should symbolize the nation-state. This language is Urdu. The policy also claims to modernize the state. The language for this is English which is a depository of scientific and technological knowledge which can modernize and, thus, empower the state. Both policies, in practice, empower the ruling elite or, as in the case of English, the Westernized and urban part of it. Let us examine the two policies in some detail before looking at their role in weakening the indigenous languages of the country.

The Policy about Urdu

Urdu is the national language of Pakistan. It was a symbol of Muslim separatism in British India and, next only to Islam, the Muslim League used it to mobilize Muslims against perceived Hindu domination and the struggle for Pakistan. The ruling elite of the country, which was dominated by the West Pakistanis (mostly the Punjabi military and Mohajir bureaucracy in the early years of Pakistan), continued to privilege Urdu over the indigenous languages of the country so as to counteract fissiparous (ethnic nationalist) tendencies.

The major consequence of the privileging of Urdu has been ethnic resistance to it. As mentioned before, Urdu is not the mother tongue of most Pakistanis as census figures given earlier illustrate.

However, Urdu is indeed the most widely understood language and perhaps the major medium of interaction in the urban areas of the country. Even ethnic activists agree that it could be a useful link language between different ethnic groups. However, it has been resisted because it has been patronized, often in insensitive ways, by the ruling elite of the centre.

The story of this patronization is given in detail in several books (see Rahman 1996) but it always fell short of what the more ardent supporters of Urdu demanded (for their position see Abdullah 1976). In the beginning, since a very powerful section of the bureaucracy spoke Urdu as a mother-tongue (being Mohajirs), there was an element of cultural hegemony about the privileging of Urdu. The Mohajir elite’s position, stated or implied, was that they were more cultured than the speakers of the indigenous languages of Pakistan. Hence it was only natural that Urdu should be used in place of the ‘lesser’ languages. This position, with which we are familiar through the works of linguists who oppose the arrogance of monolingual English speakers (see the following authors for such arrogance in other contexts Skutnabb-Kangas 2000; Crystal 2000: 84-88; Nettle and Romaine 2000) created much resentment against Urdu and, indeed, may be said to have infused the element of personal reaction to or antagonism against the speakers of Urdu in the first twenty years of Pakistan’s existence.

The main reason for opposition to Urdu was, however, not merely linguistic nor even cultural. It was because Urdu was the symbol of the central rule of the Punjabi ruling elite that it was opposed in the provinces. The use of Urdu as an ethnic symbol is given in detail in Rahman (1996).

However, simultaneously, Pakistanis are neglecting their own languages and learning Urdu and English for pragmatic reasons. This phenomenon, sometimes called ‘voluntary shift’, is not really ‘voluntary’ as the case of the native Hawaiians, narrated by Daniel Nettle and Suzanne Romaine, illustrates (Nettle and Romaine 2000: 94-97). What happens is that market conditions are such that one’s language becomes deficit on what Bierre Bourdieu, the French Sociologist, would call cultural ‘capital’ (Bourdieu 1991: 230-231). Instead of being an asset it becomes a liability. It prevents one from rising in society. In short, it is ghettoizing. Then, people become ashamed of it as the Punjabis, otherwise a powerful majority in Pakistan, are observed to be by the present author and others (for a survey of the attitude of Punjabi students towards their language see Mansoor 1993: 49-54). Or, even if language movements and ethnic pride does not make them ashamed of their languages, they do not want to teach them to their children because that would be overburdening the children with far too many languages. For instance, Sahibzada Abdul Qayyum Khan (1864-1937) reported in 1932 that the Pashtuns wanted their children to be instructed in Urdu rather than Pashto (LAD-F 12 October 1932: 132). And even this year (2003), the MMA government has chosen Urdu, not Pashto, as the language of the domains of power, including education, in the N.W.F.P. In Baluchistan too the same phenomenon was noticed. Balochi, Brahvi and Pashto were introduced as the compulsory medium of instruction in government schools in 1990 (LAD-B 21 June and 15 April 1990). The language activists enthusiastically prepared instructional material but on 8 November 1992, these languages were made optional and parents switched back to Urdu (Rahman 1996: 169). Such decisions amount to endangering the survival of minor languages and they devalue even major ones but they are precisely the kind of policies which have created what is often called ‘Urdu imperialism’ in Pakistan.

In short, the state’s use of Urdu as a symbol of national integration has had two consequences. First, it has made Urdu the obvious force to be resisted by ethnic groups. This resistance makes them strengthen their languages by corpus planning (writing books, dictionaries, grammars, orthographies etc) and acquisition planning (teaching languages, pressurizing the state to each them, using them in the media) (for these terms see Cooper 1989). But second, it has jeopardized additive multilingualism recommended by UNESCO and, of course, by many eminent linguists and educationists (Edwards 1994) as Urdu spreads through schooling, media and urbanization, pragmatic pressures make the other Pakistani languages retreat. In short, the consequence of privileging Urdu strengthens ethnicity while, at the same time and paradoxically, threatens linguistic and cultural diversity in the country.

The Policy About English

English was supposed to continue as the official language of Pakistan till such time that the national language (s) did not replace it. However, this date came and went by as many other dates before it and English is as firmly entrenched in the domains of power in Pakistan as it was in 1947. The major reason for this is that this is the stated but not the real policy of the ruling elite in Pakistan. The real policy can be understood with reference to the elite’s patronage of English in the name of efficiency, modernization and so on.

To begin with the Civil Service of Pakistan (CSP) was an Anglicized body of men who had moulded themselves in the tradition of the British. The officer corps of the armed forces, as Stephen P. Cohen suggests, was also Anglicized. It was, in his words, the ‘British generation’ which dominated the army till 1971 (Cohen 1994: 162-163). It is understandable that members of this elite had a stake in the continuation of English because it differentiated them from the masses; gave them a competitive edge over those with Urdu-medium or traditional (madrassa) education; and, above all, was the kind of cultural capital which had snob value and constituted a class-identity marker. What is less comprehensible is why members of these two elites, who now come increasingly from the lower-middle and middle classes who have studied in Urdu-medium schools (or schools which are called English-medium but teach mostly in Urdu), should also want to preserve, and indeed strengthen, the hegemony of English---a language which has always been instrumental in suppressing their class?

The answer lies in the fact that the elite has invested in a parallel system of elitist schooling of which the defining feature is teaching all subjects, other than Urdu, through the medium of English. This has created new generations, and ever increasing pools, of young people who have a direct stake in preserving English. All the arguments which applied to a small Anglicized elite of the early generation of Pakistan now applies to young aspirants who stand ready to enter the ranks of this elite. And their parents, themselves not at ease in English, have invested far too much in their children’s education to seriously consider decreasing the cultural capital and importance of English.

In recent years with more young people from the affluent classes appearing in the British O’ and A’ level examinations; with the world-wide coverage of the BBC and the CNN; with globalization and the talk about English being a world language; with stories of young people emigrating all over the world armed with English---with all these things English is a commodity in more demand than ever before.

The Real Policy Regarding English

As mentioned earlier, the British colonial government and its successor Pakistani government has rationed out English. Its stated policy was to support Urdu but that was only to create a subordinate bureaucracy at low cost (vernacular-medium education costs less than English-medium education). It was also to keep an anti-ethnic, centrist, ideological symbol potent and vibrant in the country.

The armed forces, better organized than any other section of society, created cadet colleges from the nineteen fifties onwards. These schools, run on the lines of the elitist British public schools, were subsidized by the state. The cadet colleges report subsidies from the provincial government, grants by visiting dignitaries and free gifts of various kinds from old boys and officials of the state.

The spending on other educational institutions is as follows:

In short, by supporting English through a parallel system of elitist schooling, Pakistan’s ruling elite acts as an ally of the forces of globalization at least as far as the hegemony of English, which globalization promotes, is concerned. The major effect of this policy is to weaken the local languages and lower their status even in their home country. This, in turns, militates against linguistic and cultural diversity; weakens the ‘have-nots’ even further and increases poverty by concentrating the best paid jobs in the hands of the international elite and the English-using elite of the peripheries.

English, after all, is the language of the greatest power in the world. It spread as the language of the colonies of Britain in African and Asian countries (Brutt-Griffler 2002). Then, when Britain withdrew from its ex-colonies, English spread because of American economic power, American control of world media and international commerce. This has been condemned as linguistic imperialism by Phillipson (1992: 38-65) and Tove Skutnabb-Kangas calls English a ‘Killer language’ (2000: 46).

Globalization will increase the power of English because it will open up more jobs for those who know it. These jobs will be controlled by multinationals which are dominated by the U.S.A. They are also controlled by the international bureaucracy---United Nations, World Bank, IMF, donor agencies etc---which has started operating increasingly in ‘English’. This will increase the demand for English schooling which will make parents invest in English at the cost of their own languages. Let us look at the other languages which suffer because of the present policies.

Language Vitality in Pakistan

The year 2000 saw three excellent books on language death. David Crystal’s, Language Death; Daniel Nettle and Suzanne Romaine’s Vanishing Voices and Tove Skutnabb-Kangas’s, Linguistic Genocide in Education or Worldwide Diversity and Human Rights. These books have made linguists conscious that, with the standardization created by the modern state and the corporate sector, the smaller languages of the world are dying. Either the speakers die or, which is more often the case, they voluntarily shift to a powerful language which helps them survive but as members of another human group rather than their own.

In Pakistan, as brought out earlier, the linguistic hierarchy is as follows: English, Urdu and local language. In the N.W.F.P and Sindh, however, Pashto and Sindhi are seen as identity markers and are spoken informally. In Punjab, unfortunately, there is widespread culture-shame about Punjabi. Parents, teachers and the peer group combine to embarrass students about Punjabi. In all of the elitist English-medium schools the author visited, there were policies forbidding students from speaking Punjabi. If anyone spoke it he or she was called ‘Paendu’ (rustic, village yokel) and made fun of. Many educated parents speak Urdu rather than Punjabi with their children.

Pakistan T.V plays use the term ‘Urdu-medium’ for lack of sophistication. The children of elitist English-medium schools are indifferent to Urdu and claim to be completely bored by its literature. They are proud to claim lack of competence in the subject even when they get ‘A’ grades in the O’ and A’ level examination. They read only English books and not Urdu ones nor those in other languages.

These attitudes are having a squeezing effect on Pakistani languages. Urdu is safe because of the huge pool of people very proficient in it and especially because it is used in lower level jobs, the media, education, courts, commerce and other domains in Pakistan. Punjabi is a huge language and will survive despite culture shame and neglect. It is used in the Indian Punjab in many domains of power and, what is even more significant, it is the language of songs, jokes, intimacy and informality in both Pakistan and India. This makes it the language of private pleasure and if so many people use it in this manner, it is not in real danger.

Sindhi and Pashto are both big languages and their speakers are proud of them. Sindhi is also used in the domains of power and is the major language of education in rural Sindh. Pashto is not a major language of education nor is it used in the domains of power in Pakistan. However, its speakers see it as an identity marker and it is used in some domains of power in Afghanistan. It too will survive though Pakistani city Pashto is now much adulterated with Urdu words. Educated Pashtuns often code-switch between Pashto and Urdu or English. Thus, the language is under some pressure.

Balochi and Brahvi are small languages under much pressure from Urdu. However, there is awareness among educated Balochs that their languages must be preserved. As they are not used in the domains of power they will survive as informal languages in the private domain. However, the city varieties of these languages will become much Urdufied.

It is the nearly 57 small languages of Pakistan, mostly in Northern Pakistan, which are under tremendous pressure. The Karakorum Highway which has linked these areas to the plains has put much pressure on these languages. The author visited Gilgit and Hunza in August 2002 and met local language activists among others. They all agree that their languages should be preserved but they are so appreciative of the advantages of the road that they accept the threat to their languages with equanimity. Urdu and English words have already entrenched themselves in Shina and Burushaski and, as people emigrate to the cities, they are shifting to Urdu.

Even in the city of Karachi the Gujrati language is being abandoned, at least in the written form, as young people seek to be literate in Urdu and English---the languages used in the domains of power.

      In Sindh there are small languages so lexically close to larger ones that it is difficult to determine whether they are, in fact, varieties of the larger languages or were different languages but are now shifting towards the larger ones under pressure. These languages are described on the authority of other researchers in Annexures 1 and 2. Some of these languages have not been added to the Ethnologue as yet. For instance two languages Jandvara and Jogi are described by researchers of SIL (Jeffreys 1999) but the present author is not sure about their status and has not included them in this survey. Judgments about possible language shift and vitality have been made but the author has not done any field work in Sindh, at least as far as language vitality is concerned, and makes no claim to authority in this field.

The languages of areas outside Sindh which are about to become extinct are:

BADESHI

It has ceased to exist now according to field researchers who visited the valley in February and March 2004.  The earlier reports about the people in the Chail Valley of Swat speaking what was  probably a variety of Persian are wrong although the Ethnologue (Grimes 2000: 599) still reports this. This language has died some generations ago (Zaman 2004b).

CHILLISO

Spoken by a small number of people on the east bank of the Indus in district Kohistan, it is under great pressure by Shina. According to Hallberg ‘A point which further underscores the idea that language shift is taking place in this community is the fact that of the thirteen individuals who were asked, four said that they spoke Chilisso in their home as a child but speak Shina in their home today’ (Hallberg in SSNP Vol. 1, 1992: 122-123)

DOMAAKI

This is the language of the Doma people in Mominabad (Hunza). Backstrom reported only 500 speakers in 1992 (Backstrom in SSNP Vol. 2, 1992: 82). The present author visited the village in 2002 and estimated 300 only.

GOWRO

Spoken on the east bank of the Indus in Distinct Kohistan mainly in the village of Mahrin by the Gabar Khel class. Hallberg says that ‘it would seem that the dominance of Shina may be slowly erasing the use of Gowro’ (Hallberg in SSNP Vol. 1, 1992: 131). Baart confirms that only a 1000 speakers are left now and it may be dying (Baart 2003).

USHOJO       

This is spoken in the Chail Valley of Swat. According to Sandra J. Decker of the SIL, it was spoken by 2000 people in 1990 (Decker in SSNP Vol. 1 1992: 66). She also reported that both men and women spoke Pashto with her (ibid, 76). J. Baart suspects that the language is under great pressure and is moribund (Baart 2003).

The smaller languages of Chitral too are about to be lost. The Kalasha community, which follows an ancient religion, and lives in valleys in Chitral, is in danger of losing its languages. Some young people are reported to had left the language when they converted to Islam (Decker in SSNP Vol. 5, 1992: 112). Other small languages Yidgha, Phalura and Gawar-bati---are also losing their vitality.

Two small languages, which would have been lost otherwise, are being recorded by local language activists with the help of Baart. The first is Ormuri, the language of the village of Kunigaram in South Waziristan, which was described as ‘a strong language in that area’ by Hallberg in 1992 (‘Hallberg in SSNP Vol. 4, 1992: 60). This is being recorded by Rozi Khan Burki, a resident of the village, with the help of J. Baart.

The other one is Kundal Shahi which was discovered by Khwaja Abdur Rahman and is spoken in the Neelam Valley in Azad Kashmir about 75 miles from Muzaffarabad. This is being preserved by Khwaja Rahman with the help of Baart.

In short, while only the remotest and smallest of the languages of Pakistan are in danger of dying, all other languages have decreased in stature. The undue prestige of English and Urdu has made all other languages burdens rather than assets. This is the beginning of language sickness if not death.

      Although data about all the languages of Pakistan is not available, the present author has tried to collect data initially collected by other researchers pertaining to the domains of use and vitality of a large number of these languages (Annexure 2). The main point is that as small and isolated communities open up to the forces of modernity and globalization their languages come under threat and may disappear if nothing is done to reserve the language shift.

Can Language Shift Be Reserved?

       Awareness about language shift and the need to reverse it came to the attention of linguists with an epoch making book by Joshua A. Fishman aptly entitled Reversing Language Shift (1991). Ten years after the book the question was revisited by another volume edited by Fishman called Can Threatened Languages be Saved? (2001). However, these books are not known in Pakistan and the view they support – that language shift ought to be reversed – is seen as fatuous or sentimental nonsense. The indigenous languages are seen as markers of backwardness or symbols of ethnic resistance to the center and are not taken seriously. Only a few anti-globalization enthusiasts do, however, pay any attention to language issues.  In February 2004 speakers in a conference on Green Economics (arranged by an NGO called Shirkat Gah) pointed out that the varieties of wheat and other agricultural products and decreased and that people do not even have names for varieties which did exist about thirty years ago. The disappearance of local names is symptomatic of the depletion of local knowledge which is part of the homogenization of the world under globalization. Moreover, as people leave their languages children get alienated from their ancestors, their roots, their culture and their essential self. They do not add useful skills; they subtract from existing skills. Unfortunately, very few people in Pakistan think of this as a problem and there are no policies about preserving the linguistic diversity of the country.

    Under the circumstances can anything be done to preserve the languages of the country? I believe it can be but that the first step would be to persuade the government to create a new language policy. This new policy would have to go beyond affirming that everyone has the right to preserve their language and culture. In addition to that the policy will create programmes to teach children through their mother tongues. Primers would have to be produced on the lines of material already produced by language activists and linguists (given in Annexure 1). As the UNESCO and other NGOs may finance this project public funds will be saved and may later be used to hire teachers and provide other assistance.

    A crucial aspect of teaching children in their mother tongue is overcoming the culture shame associated with the traditional, indigenous cultures and communities. This can be done by teaching all children, including those from the elite, through the mother tongue. Such teaching will, of course, be a bridge to the languages of wider communication (such as Urdu or the major provincial language).

     Three RLS strategies are mentioned by Fishman: ‘One is “shoot for the moon!” Another is “anything is better than nothing”. The third is “the right step at the right time” (Fishman 2001: 474). Out of these the third strategy seems to fit Pakistan’s case most. Individuals may be made sensitive to the necessity of using the language in the private domains while taking advantage of such governmental interventions in favour of their languages as possible. Among these interventions, apart from teaching, there should be radio, T.V and computer programmes which should be aimed for by RLS activists.

    These steps may reverse or at least slow down the language shift which is in evidence in Pakistan. Globalization may eventually conquer but those conscious of the loss it entails to their identities will at least have the satisfaction of having done something to slow it down.  

Conclusion

We have seen that the language policies of Pakistan, declared and undeclared, have increased both ethnic and class conflict in the country. Moreover, our Westernized elites, in their own interests, are helping the forces of globalization and threatening cultural and linguistic diversity. In this process they are impoverishing the already poor and creating much resentment against the oppression and injustice of the system.

Both globalization and the continuation of colonial language policies by the governments of Pakistan has increased the pressure of English on all other languages. While this has also created an increased awareness of language rights and movements to preserve languages, it has generally resulted in more people learning English. In Pakistan this means that the poor are under more pressure than before because they cannot afford expensive schools which ‘sell’ English at exorbitant rates. As such linguistic globalization is anti-poor, pro-elitist and exploitative.

While it may not be possible to reverse the trend of globalization, it is possible to promote the concept of additive bilingualism rather than subtractive bilingualism. This means that we should add to our repertoire of languages to gain power while retaining skills and pride in our own languages. In order to do this the state and our education system should promote the concept of linguistic rights.

There are tolerance-related and promotion-oriented rights. In Pakistan we have the former but not the latter. This means that, while we keep paying lip service to our indigenous languages, we create such market conditions that it becomes impossible to gain power, wealth or prestige in any language except English and, to a lesser extent, Urdu. It is this which must be changed and the change must come by changing the market conditions. This is what they did in the case of Catalan, a language while had been banned by General Franco of Spain, and which has been revived. Since they made Catalan the language of jobs and the government of Catalonia (Hall 2001), it changed the power equation and people started learning Catalan.

What we need in Pakistan are such promotion-oriented rights for our languages. What will go with such rights is a good but fair system of schooling which will teach the mother tongue, English and Urdu but equally to all children and not as it is done now---English being taught very well to the elite but very badly to all others (for details see Rahman 2002: Conclusion). Such steps might save us from the more harmful linguistic effects of unjust and anti-poor language policies.

Notes

1.         The Ethnologue (Grimes 2000: 588-598) lists 69 languages for Pakistan. The following languages, however, are superfluous in this list.

1.         Badeshi (dead)

2.         Balochi Eastern (dialect of Balochi)

3.         Balochi Southern (dialect of Balochi)

4.         Pahari (one of the several dialects of Greater Punjabi)

5.         Hindko Northern (dialect of Hindko. This is mutually intelligible with the dialects of what may be considered Greater Punjabi but it is classified as a separate language by the census of Pakistan.)

6.         Pashto Central (dialect of Pashto)

7.         Pashto Southern (dialect of Pashto)

There are other languages with nearly 80% lexical similarity with other languages which have been classified as separate languages. However, the present author would classify them as dialects of a larger language. Unfortunately, he cannot go into the details of these since he has done no field work in them. The above languages are however, superfluous and have been excluded from the list of the languages of Pakistan. Kundal Shahi, a dying  language in Kashmir, which has recently  been discovered brings the total to 63.

Annexure-1

STATE OF THE LANGUAGES OF PAKISTAN

This chart provides information on the availability of written material in the 63 languages of Pakistan, especially that which is suitable for teaching small children or illiterate adults. The names of the writers of a primers is given in the third column. The names of authors of other material has not been given. Blank rows mean that there is no existing material on this language known to researchers till date

Annexure-2

DOMAINS OF USE AND VITALITY OF THE

LANGUAGES OF PAKISTAN

REFERENCES

Abdullah, Syed. 1976. Pakistan Mein Urdu Ka Masla. Lahore: Maktaba Khayaban-e-Adab.

Akbar, Mujahid. 1994. Hindko Qaida [Hindko/Urdu: primer] Peshawar: Maktaba Hindko Zaban.

Ali, Mumtaz Tajddin. 1989. Khojki: Self Instructor [English: history, phonetics, script] Karachi: privately printed.

Askar, Umar Gul. 1972. Wanetshi [Pashto/Wanetshi: word list, songs folktales] Quetta: Balochi Academy.

Aziz, Mir Abdul. 1983. ‘The Kashmiri Language in Azad Kashmir and Pakistan’, PT, 20; June.

Baart, Joan and Rehman, Khwaja A. 2003. ‘The Language of the Kandal Shahi Qureshis in Azad Kashmir’, Unpublished manuscript [I am grateful to the authors for showing it to me].

Baart, Joan L.G. 2003. ‘Interview with the Present Author’, 10 August, Islamabad.

Baloch, Nabi Baksh. 2003. Jatki Boli [Sindhi/Jatki; grammar; word list] Hyderabad: Sindhi Language Authority.

Barki, Rozi Khan. 1999. Makh Akhui Zaban ta Gor Ghagu Zar zeen [Ormuri: phonetics, word list, stories, poetry]. Islamabad: Privately published.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. (ed.) John B. Thompson. Trans. From the French by Gino Raymond and Mathew Adamson. Cambridge: Policy Press. Edition used, 1994 reprint.

Brutt-Griffler, Janina. 2002. World English: A Study of Its Development Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Bukhari, M. Yusuf. 1986. Kashmiri aur Urdu Zaban Ka Taqabli Muta’ala [Urdu: The Comparative Study of Urdu and Kashmiri] Lahore: Markazi Urdu Board.

Census. 2001. 1998 Census Report of Pakistan Islamabad: Population Census Organization Statistics Division. Govt of Pakistan.

Cohen, Stephen P. 1994. The Pakistan Army. Edition used. Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1998

Cooper, Robert L. 1989. Language Planning and Social Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crystal, David. 2000. Language Death Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Das, Seval, Mike Payne, et al. 1991. Dhaa Tkii akhar aan phooTuu (Dhatki words and pictures). [Alphabet book] Hyderabad: New Foundations.

Edwards, John. 1994. Multilingualism London: Routledge.

Faizi, Inyatullah. 1987. Khowar Bol Chal [Urdu/Khowar: primer, grammar, word list, conversation] Chitral: Anjuman Taraqqi-e-Khowar.

Farrel, Timothy and Abdul Haleem Sadiq. 1986. Bunii Kitaab (Basic Book). [alphabet book] Quetta: Shal Association.

Fishman, Joshua A. 1991. Reversing Language Shift Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

_____. 2001. Can Threatened Languages be Saved? Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Grimes, Barbara F (ed). 2000. ‘Pakistan’. In Ethnologue: Languages of the World. 14^th Edition Dallas, Texas; Summer Institute of Linguistics. pp, 588-598.

Grainger & Grainger. 1980. A Preliminary Survey of the Language of Sindh, Pakistan.

Hall, Jacqueline. 2001. Convivencia In Catalonia: Languages Living together Barcelona: Fundcio Jaume Bofill.

HLA. 1997. Beeid kee alif bee yaad bigiirii (Let’s Learn the ABC’s). [Alphabet Booklet] Quetta: Hazaragi Literacy Association.

Hoyle, Richard, Viro Goel, Malo Samson, Naru, and Meghraj. 1990. Paarkari aakhar an phooTuu (Parkari letters and pictures). [alphabet book] Hyderabad: Parkari Language Committee.

Hoyle, Richard and Malo Samson. 1985. Parkari bhaNyaa roo kitaabb (Parkari reading book). [Urdu/Sindhi to Parkari transfer primer] Hyderabad: Parkari Language Committee.

Hoyle, Richard. 1990. Paarkari bhaNoo (Read Parkari). [primer] Pakistan: Parkari Language Committee.

Hussanabadi, M. Yusuf. 1990. Balti Zaban [Urdu: history, word list, script] Skardu: Privately published.

Jeffery, David. 1999. Sindh Survey Month November 1996, unpublished report (quoted by the kind permission of the author).

Kareemi, Abdul Hameed. 1982. Urdu Kohistani Bol Chall  [Urdu/Kohistani: Conversation in Urdu and Kohistani] Swat: Kohistan Adab Academy.

KCS. 2002. Gawri Alif Be [Gawri: primer] Kalam: Kalam Cultural Society.

Kohistani, Razwal and With Ruth Laila Schmidt. 1996. Shina Qaida [Shina Environmental Primer]. Islamabad: Himalayan Jungle Project.

LAD-B. Legislative Assembly Debates of Baluchistan (dates and other details follow in the text)

LAD-F: Legislative Assembly Debates of the North-West Frontier Province (dates and other details follow in the text).

Mansoor, Sabiha. 1993. Punjabi, Urdu, English in Pakistan: A Sociolinguistic Study. Lahore: Vanguard.

Masih, Mavo and Andy Woodland. 1995. Kachhii akhar anee phooTuu (Kachi Letters and Pictures). [Alphabet book] Hyderabad: New Foundations.

Mughal, Shaukat. 1987. Siraiki Qaida [Siraiki/Urdu: primer] Multan: Siraiki Majlis Adab.

Namus, Dr. M. Shuja. 1961. Gilgit aur Shina Zaban [Urdu: history, word list] Bahawalpur: Urdu Academy.

Nettle, Daniel and Romaine, Suzanne. 2000. Vanishing Voices: the Extinction of the World’s Languages New York: Oxford University Press.

Payne, Joan. 1991. DhaaTkii paRhoo! Pahlkoo kitaab (Read Dhatki, Book 1). [First reading book] Hyderabad: New Foundations.

Phillipson, Robert. 1992. Linguistic Imperialism London: Oxford University Press.

Rahman, Tariq . 1996. Language and Polities in Pakistan Karachi, Oxford University Press.

_____. 2002 Language, Ideology and Power, Language Learning Among the Muslims of Pakistan and North India Karachi: Oxford University Press.

Sakhi, Ahmad Jami. 2000. Wakhi Zaban Tarikh ke Aene Men Ma Qaida [Urdu: primer, word list, history] Gilgit: Privately published.

Shaheen, M. Parvesh. 1989. Kalam Kohistan: Log aur Zaban [Urdu: People and language]. Mingora: Academy of Swat Culture.

Skutnabb-Kangas; Tove, 2000. Linguistic Genocide In Education or Worldwide Diversity and Human Rights London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

SSNP. 1992. Sociolinguistic Survey of Northern Pakistan Vol. 1: Languages of Kohistan (eds.) 1992. Rensch, Calvin R; Decker, Sandra J. and Hallberg, Daniel G. Islamabad: National Institute of Pakistan Studies & Summer Institute of Linguistics.

SSNP. Vol. 2: Languages of Northern Areas. 1992. (eds.) Backstrom, Peter C. and Radloff, Carla F. As above.

_____. Vol. 3: Hindko and Gujari. 1992. (eds.) Renscsh, C.R; Hallberg, C.E. and O’ Leary, Clare F. As above.

_____.  Vol. 4: Pashto, Wanechi, Ormuri. 1992. (ed.) Hallberg, D.G. As above.

_____.  Vol.5: Language of Chitral. 1992. (ed..) Decker, Kendall D. As above.

Taj, Abdul Khaliq. 1989. Shina Qaida [Shina primer]. Rawalpindi: Privately printed.

UNESCO. 2003. Education in a Multilingual World Pairs: UNESCO

Various. 1991. Awhii Sindhii paRhee DhaaTkii paRhoo! (You read Sindhi, read Dhatki!). [Transfer primer- Sindhi to Dhatki] Hyderabad: New Foundations.

Zaman, Muhammad. 2002a. Gawri, Urdu, Angrezi Bol Chal [English/Urdu/Gawri: word list, conversation] Kalam: Kalam Cultural Society.

_____. 2002b. Aao Gawri Parhen [Urdu/Gawri, primer, stories, proverbs, poetry] Kalam: Kalam Cultural Society.

_____. 2004a. ‘Interview with Zaman by Tariq Rahman’, 28 January 2004.

_____. 2004b. ‘The Badeshi People of Bishigram and Tirat Valley, Madyan, Swat’, Surveyed by Shamshi Khan and M.Zaman (March, 2004). Printed report kindly provided to the author by Dr. J. Baart.

Zia, Mohammad Amin. 1986. Shina Qaida aur Grammar [Urdu: Shina primer and grammar]. Gilgit: Zia Publications.

Source: http://www.tariqrahman.net/language/Language%20Policy,%20Language%20Death%20and%20Vitality.htm

Back to Language Policy Home Page