Language Policy and the

Weaker Languages of Pakistan

By

Tariq Rahman Ph. D

Professor and Director, Chair on Quaid-i-Azam

and Freedom Movement

National Institute of Pakistan Studies

Quaid-i-Azam University

Islamabad

Language Policy and the Weaker Languages of Pakistan

Abstract

Pakistan is a multilingual country with six major and over 59 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 and the Weaker Languages of 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:-

Box 1
Pakistani Languages
Languages	Percentage of speakers
Punjabi	44.15
Pashto	15.42
Sindhi	14.10
Siraiki	10.53
Urdu	7.57
Balochi	3.57
Others	4.66
Source: Census 2001: 107

There are also over fifty other languages, some of them on the verge of extinction, which are given in Annexure-1. These are weak languages because they are not used in the domains of power i.e. government, administration, judiciary, media, military, education, commerce, research etc. The term ‘weak’ can be understood with reference to power which will be explained in the next section. What is important is that a language is weak because of the small size of the community which speaks it and, even more importantly, because the community may be large but the language is not used in the domains of power and so people do not give priority to it nor do they learn it in the formal system of education. Since using a language in the domains of power is part of government policy, this paper begins by looking at language policy in some detail before going on to study the effects of this policy on the weaker languages of Pakistan.

As the issue of power is central to policy and defines weakness and strength of languages, let us consider it first.

Power

Power is that quality which enables the users of that language to obtain more means of gratification than the speakers of other languages. These gratification may be tangible goods: houses, cars, good food etc. or, they may be intangibles like pleasure, ego boosting, self-esteem etc (for full explanation see Rahman 2002: 38-42). A powerful language is one which makes it possible for its speakers and writers to obtain a higher share of these gratifications than others.

This is mostly possible in settled, modernizing or modern societies where there are domains such as religion, education, the bureaucracy, the judiciary, the military, commerce, the media, research and so on. In primitive tribes the manipulation of language matters less; in agricultural societies it emerges and becomes pervasive but is not the only passport to power; in industrial, modern societies it becomes vitally important. Indeed, one simply cannot enter the domains of power without being able to manipulate language for entry into these domains. It is the language of employment (Rahman 2000: 41-42), and without employment one cannot possess much power in modern societies.

In short the weak language is one which does not qualify one for employment and also carries less prestige than another language which gives both these advantages. Thus, English is the strongest language in Pakistan. After English comes Urdu and then Sindhi. Pashto, Balochi and Brahvi are strong only as identity symbols but do not give advantages in public life. Punjabi is an example of a major language which is held in affectionate contempt by its own speakers and is, therefore, a weak language. The other languages of the country, especially those which are spoken by small communities, are weak on both counts: being small in size and not being used in the domains of power.

Consequences of Pakistan’s Language Policies

There have been statements about language policy in various documents in Pakistan---the different versions of the constitution, statements by governmental authorities in the legislative assembly debates, and, above all, in the various documents relating to education policy which have been issued almost by every government. These are stated in the 1973 constitution as follows:

(1) The National language of Pakistan is Urdu, and arrangements shall be made for its being used for official and other purposes within fifteen years from the commencing day.

(2) Subject to clause (1) the English language may be used for official purposes until arrangements are made for its replacement by Urdu.

(3) Without prejudice to the status of the National language, a Provincial Assembly may by law prescribe measures for the teaching, promotion and use of a provincial language in addition to the national language (Article 251).

The national language is Urdu (it was Urdu and Bengali from 1955 till 1971 when East Pakistan became Bangladesh) though it is, and has always been, the mother-tongue of a minority of the population of Pakistan. This minority came from India, mostly after the creation of Pakistan in 1947, and is called Mohajir (refugee or immigrant).

The rationale for this privileging of Urdu, as given by the government of Pakistan, is that Urdu is so widely spread that it is almost like the first language of all Pakistanis. Moreover, since most jobs are available through Urdu, it is only just that all children should be given access to it. Above all, it is a symbol of unity and helps in creating a unified ‘Pakistani’ identity. In this symbolic role, it serves the political purpose of resisting ethnicity which would otherwise break the federation.

The Consequences of the Privileging of Urdu.

The major consequence is that Urdu has spread very widely in Pakistan and is understood by all literate people and even by many illiterate ones. Those who watch T.V, Urdu films, listen to the radio or come in contact with educated people pick up Urdu. This means that small language communities, especially ones with school-going children, are undergoing a language shift. As Urdu is a language of prestige and employment both, middle class Punjabi families often speak only in Urdu with their children rather than in their native Punjabi. This has been noted by Punjabi language activists whose appeals not to use Urdu fall on deaf ears.

In the Northern Areas, where Urdu has reached along with the new major road (the Karakorum Highway), Urdu words are fast replacing indigenous ones. Yet even the language activists of this area told the present author that they were prepared to pay the price of Urduization of their languages for development. Hence it was only natural that Urdu should be used in place of the ‘lesser’ languages. This has weakened the smaller languages of Pakistan as well as Punjabi and languages related to it (Siraiki and Hindko). The people speaking these languages internalized the values of Urdu speakers and the official media. They regard their own languages as fit only for private conversation, songs, jokes and so on.

Rather paradoxically the second major consequence of the privileging of Urdu has been ethnic resistance to it. This 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).

In short, the privileging of Urdu by the state has created ethnic opposition to it. However, as people learn languages for pragmatic reasons (Rahman 2002: 36), they are giving less importance to their languages and are learning Urdu. 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-Bal 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 (2003) 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.

Moreover, most people think in terms of present-day realties which they may be critical of at some level but which they take as permanent facts of life. This makes them regard all change as utopian or suspiciously radical activities. To think of abolishing English is one such disquieting thought because, at least for the last century and a half, the people of this part of the world have taken the ascendancy of English for granted. 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 present author carried out a survey of 1085 students from different schools in Pakistan in 1999-2000. The results of this survey regarding English are reproduced below:

Box 2
	Madrassas (N=131)	Sindhi medium schools (N=132)	Urdu medium schools (N=520)	English-medium schools
				elitist (N=97)	Cadet college (N=86)	Ordinary (N=119)
1. What should be the medium of instruction in schools?
Urdu	43.51	9.09	62.50	4.12	23.26	24.37
English	0.76	33.33	13.65	79.38	67.44	47.06
Mother tongue	0.76	15.15	0.38	2.06	Nil	1.68
Arabic	25.19	Nil	0.19	Nil	Nil	0.84
No response	16.79	37.88	16.54	5.15	Nil	8.40
2. Do you think higher jobs in Pakistan should be available in English?
Yes	10.69	30.30	27.69	72.16	70.93	45.38
No	89.31	63.64	71.15	27.84	29.07	53.78
NR	Nil	6.06	1.15	Nil	Nil	0.84
3. Should English-medium schools be abolished?
Yes	49.62	13.64	20.19	2.06	12.79	5.88
No	49.62	84.09	79.04	97.94	86.05	93.28
NR	00.76	2.27	0.77	Nil	1.16	0.84
Note: The results do not add up to 100 in some cases because those choosing two or more languages have been ignored. Source: Rahman 2002: Appendix-14.

These results suggest that 16 year-old students of matriculation (or equivalent level) in Pakistani schools are not in favour of English as the medium of instruction in schools except in English-medium schools. In the other schools they suffer because of English and, therefore, do not favour it. When they grow up and enter elitist positions their investment in English, which now becomes the language of schooling of their children, grows and they no longer support policies which would replace English with other languages.

However, paradoxically, even school students do not support the abolition of English-medium schools. Perhaps this seems too radical, visionary and impractical to them. Perhaps they feel that English-medium schools provide good quality education and should remain available for the modernization of the country. Or perhaps they understand that such schools are a ladder out of the ghetto of their socio-economic class to a privileged class which their siblings or children might make use of. In short, it is probably because of their pragmatism and a shrewd realization that nothing is going to change that they want the English-medium schools to keep flourishing.

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. In the 1960s when students from ordinary colleges, who came by and large from vernacular-medium schools, protested against these bastions of privilege, the government appointed a commission to investigate into their grievances. The report of this commission agreed that such schools violated the constitutional assurance that ‘all citizens are equal before law’ (Paragraph 15 under Right No. Vl of the 1962 Constitution). However, the Commission was also convinced that these schools would produce suitable candidates for filling elitist positions in the military and the civilian sectors of the country’s services (GOP 1966: 18). This meant that the concern for equality was merely a legal nicety. And this, indeed, was what happened. Today the public schools are as well-entrenched in the educational system of the country as ever before. The total spending is as follows:

Box 3
Cadet college	Budget	Average monthly tuition Fees	Part of the budget covered by fees	Number of students	Total cost per student per year
Kohat	19,981,217	4,701	44% (8,785,923)	575	34,750
Larkana	23,176,006	550	95% (22,017,205)	480	56,617
Pitaro	71,720,000	6000	80% (57,376,000)	700	1,02,457
Lawrence	98,886,181	2000	18.19% (17,987,396)	711	1,39,080
Hassanabdal	48,223,000	1350	12.75% (6,148,433)	480	100,465
Mastung	36,300,000	2200	15.75% (5,500,000)	360	100834
Source: Offices of the respective institutions except for the cost per student per year which was obtained by dividing the total budget by the number of students.

The total expenditure is not covered by tuition fees. 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:

Box 4
DIFFERENCES IN COSTS IN MAJOR TYPES OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS (in Pakistani rupees)
Institution	Average cost per student per year	Payer (s)	Cost to the state
Madrassas	5,714 (includes board and lodging)	Philanthropists + religious organizations	Very little as subsidy on computers, books etc in some madrassas
Urdu-medium Schools	2264.5 (only tuition)	State	2264.5
Elitist English medium schools	96,000---for ‘A’ level & 36,000 for other levels (only tuition)	Parents	None reported except subsidized land in some cantonments.
Cadet colleges/public schools	90,061 (tuition and all facilities).	Parents + state (average of 6 cadet colleges + 1 public school	14,171 (average of 5 cadet colleges only)
Source: Data obtained from several institutions.

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 job 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.

Psychological and Cultural costs of Linguistic Imperialism

As movements for the preservation of minor (or weaker) languages in Europe tell us, if a child is told that his or her language is inferior, the message being conveyed is that he/she is inferior. In short, one is giving a negative image to a child by telling him or her that the ‘cultural capital’ they possess is not capital at all but a stigma and a handicap. This makes the child reject an aspect, and an essential one at that, of his or her legacy, history, culture and identity. What is created is ‘culture shame’ ---being ashamed of one’s own true identity.

Incidentally, the poor and less powerful classes, gender and communities have always been ashamed of aspects of their identity. In South Asia, the caste system forced manual workers to live miserable lives. This was unjust enough but the worst form of injustice is perpetrated by the fact that the lower castes/or ajlaf, kammis, outcastes, Sudras etc) not only accept lower social status but look down upon people lower in the social scale and even upon themselves. That is why when people became literate and rose in affluence and power, they left their communities and even started using names of groups with higher social respect. Here, ‘the number of Shaikhs and the other categories’ ---Syed, Mughal and Pathan---increased phenomenally, while the occupational “caste” groups registered a sharp decline’ (Ahmad, R. 1981: 115).

Moreover, there are many literary works in Urdu and other languages---not to mention one’s own observation---showing how embarrassed the poor are by their houses, their clothes, their food, their means of transportation and, of course, their languages. In short, the reality constructed by the rich and the poor alike conspires to degrade, embarrass and oppress the less powerful, the less affluent, the less gifted of the human race. This relates to language-shame---being embarrassed about one’s language---and hence to possible language death.

The Strength and Weakness of Minor Pakistani Languages

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. 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 over fifty small languages of Pakistan (Annexure 1), 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.

The languages which are about to become extinct are:

BADESHI

It exists in the Chail Valley of Swat and is probably a variety of Persian. However, Baart confirms that it is under great pressure and may cease to be spoken soon.

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 the smaller languages of Pakistan the state or the private sector schools do not produce any reading material nor are there any trained teachers to teach in them. However, teachers do tend to explain lessons in the language of the children if it happens to be their own language also. In some languages, given in annexure 2, there are primers and other reading material created by native speakers or other Pakistani writers. There are also primers, dictionaries and collections of oral literature by foreign linguists which have been the only means of preserving these languages till the emergence of local language activists who value their languages and want to preserve them. The names of some such language activists are given in annexure 3.

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.

Can weak Languages be Strengthened?

The question then is whether the weak languages of Pakistan can be saved from further weakening and death? The answer given by Joshua Fishman to that question in the context of the world is as follows:

Yes, more of them can be saved than has been the case in the past, but only by following careful strategies that focus on priorities and on strong linkages to them, and only if the true complexity of local human identity, linguistic competence and global interdependence are fully recognized (Fishman 2001: 481).

In the case of Pakistan the strategy should be to strengthen the weak languages. This can be done as follows:

1. Employment in communities with a majority of a certain languages should be given to people who can read and write that language. This means that people will have to learn even small languages formally in order to gain employment. This will strengthen the weak languages and make people interact with the lower bureaucracy from a position of equality and strength rather than weakness and subordination.

2. The government should teach children in their mother tongue. To begin with language communities living close to each other and having over 20,000 speakers should be given this facility as a right.

3. There should be radio, T.V, stories, songs and dramas in all languages spoken by over 10,000 speakers. These should be distributed at very little cost to the language communities in question.

4. Efforts should be made to make computer software, including e-mail, games and the internet available in as many languages of Pakistan as possible.

5. Reading material, including primers and story books, should be available in all the languages of Pakistan.

6. Adult literacy centers should teach both the mother tongue and a link language like Urdu.

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 equally to all children. English should be taught but not as it is done now---very well to the elite and very badly to all others (for details see Rahman 2002: Conclusion). Such steps might save us from the more harmful linguistic effects of policies which are weakening the languages of our people and threaten them with extinction.

Annexure-1

MINOR LANGUAGES AND DIALECTS OF PAKISTAN

The number of language listed in the Ethnologue (Grimes 2000) for Pakistan is 69. This chart however, lists only 56 languages and dialects. The major languages (Punjabi, Sindhi, Pashto, Siraiki, Urdu and Balochi) are given elsewhere. Lexical similarity and intelligibility of varieties of a language are given if known. Judgments about a form of speech being a language or a dialect are not given. However, some of the mutually intelligible varieties of Greater Punjabi (Potohari, Chachi and Pahari) have not been included in this list.

Language or Dialect	Other Names/ Lexical Similarity to other Languages and Dialects	Where Spoken	Speakers	Source
Aer	None. 78% lexical similarity with Katai Meghwar and Kachi Bhil. 76% with Raburi; 76% with Kachi Koli.	Jikrio Goth around Deh 333, Hyderabad and Jamesabad. Also in Kach Bhuj in Gujrat (India).	200 in 1996	Grimes 2000: 589
Badeshi see Persian	(Badakhshi) Dialect of Persian. Lexical similarity with Persian, Badakshan variety.	Bishigram, (Chail) Valley, (Swat, Kohistan)	400 plus in 2002	Grimes 2000: 589; SSNP Zaman 2004
Bagri	(Bahgri ; Bagria; Bagris; Baorias; Bauri). Dialect of Rajasthani 74% lexical similarity with Marwari Bhil of Jodhpur; 54% with Jandavra.	Sindh and Punjab (nomadic between India and Pakistan)	200,000 in Pakistan including 100,000 in Sindh	Grimes 2000: 589.
Balti	Baltistani, Sbalti	Baltistan	27,000-300,000	SSNP-2: 8 & Grimes 2000
Bateri	(Bateri Kohistani; Batera Kohistan; Baterawal; Baterawal Kohistani) 58-61% lexical similarity with Indus Kohistani; 60% with Gurgula.	Indus Kohistan Batera village (East of Indus North of Besham)	20,000-30,000 (in 1992)	Breton 1997: 200; Grimes 2000
Bhaya	Lexical similiarity to Marwari sweeper 84% and to Malhi 75%; Bhat 73%; Goaria,72-73%; Sindhi Meghwar 70-73%, Sindhi Bhil 63-71% and Urdu 70%.	Kapri Goth near Khipro Mirpur Khas (Lower Sindh)	70-700 (in 1998)	Grimes 2000
Brahvi	Brohi, Brahuidi, Kurgalli, Brahuigi, (no similarity with any language in Pakistan but with many loan words from Persian, Balochi and Urdu.	Kalat region and East Balochistan. Also spoken by small communities in Sindh and Iran etc.	2,000,000 in Pakistan and 2,210,000 in all countries (1998).	Grimes 2000: 590.
Burushaski	Mishaski, Biltum, Werchikwar Khajuna (language isolate with no similarity with any language. Some words borrowed from Urdu, English and Shina).	Hunza, Nagar, Yasin valleys (Northern areas)	55,000-60,000 (in 1981)	SSNP-2: 37 Grimes 2000: 590.
Chilisso	(Chiliss, Galos) 70% lexical similarity with Indus Kohistani; 65-68% with Gowro; 50% Bateri; 48-65% with Shina.	Koli, Palas, Jalkot Indus Kohistan	1600-3000 (in 1992)	Breton 1997: 200 & Grimes 2000: 590.
Dameli	(Gudoji, Damia, Damedi, Damel) 44% lexical similarity with Gawar-Bati, Savi, and Phalura, 33% with Kamviri, 29% with Kativiri.	Damel Valley (Southern Chitral)	2000-5000 (in 1992)	SSNP-5: 11 Grimes 2000: 590.
Dehwari also see Persian	(Deghwari) Iranian language somewhat close to Persian and influenced by Brahvi.	Kalat, Mastung (Central Balochistan)	10,000-13,000 (in 1998)	Breton 1997: 200 & Grimes 2000: 590.
Dhatki	(Dhati) Dialects are Eastern, Southern and Central Dhatki, Malhi and Barage. Varies from Northern Marwari but intelligible. 70-83% lexical similarity with Marwari dialects.	Lower Sind in Tharparkar and, Sanghar.	200,000 plus (in 1987)	Grimes 2000: 590
Domaaki	(Domaski, Doma) loan words from Shina and Burushaski but not intelligible to speakers of both.	Mominabad (Hunza & Nagar)	300 plus (in 2002)	SSNP 2: 79; Grimes 2000: 590. Personal observation in 2002.
Gawar-Bati	(Narsati, Nurisati, Gowari, Aranduiwar, Satr, Gowar-bati) 47% lexical similarity with Shumashti, 44% with Dameli, 42% with Savi and Grangali.	Southern Chitral, Arandu, Kunar river along Pakistan-Afghanistan border	1500 (in 1992)	SSNP-5: 156 Breton 1997: 200 & Grimes 2000: 591.
Ghera	(Sindhi Ghera, Bara) Quite different grammatically from Gurgula and similar to Urdu. 87% lexical similarity with Gurgula. 70% with Urdu.	Hyderabad Sindh	10,000 (in 1998)	Grimes 2000
Goaria	75-83% lexical similarity with Jogi; 76-80% with Marwari sweeper; 72-78% with Marwari Meghwar; 70-78% with Loarki.	Cities of Sindh	20,000-25,000 (in 1998)	Grimes 2000: 591
Gowro	(Gabaro, Gabar Khel) 62% lexical similarity with Indus Kohistani; 60% with Bateri; 65-68% with Chilisso; 40-43% with Shina.	Indus Kohistan (on the eastern bank, Kolai Area, Mahrin village)	200 or less (in 1990)	Breton 1997: 200 & Grimes 2000: 591.
Gujari	(Gujuri, Gojri, Gogri Kashmir Gujuri, Gujuri Rajasthani) close to Hindko and related varieties of Greater Punjabi. 64-94% lexical similarity among dialects.	Swat, Dir, Northern areas, Azad Kashmir and Punjab	300,000-700,000 plus (in 1992)	SSNP-3: 96 & Grimes 2000: 591.
Gujrati	(Gujrati)	Karachi, other parts of Sindh. Major language in India.	45,479,000 in India and 46,100,000 in all countries. Probably 100,000 in Pakistan.	Grimes 2000: 439 and 591.
Gurgula	(Marwari, Ghera) 87% Lexical similarity with Ghera	Karachi, cities of Sindh	35,000 (in 1998)	Grimes 2000
Hazargi	(Hazara, Hezareh, Hezare’i) similar to Persian	Quetta and other cities of Pakistan. Also in Afghanistan.	220,000 (in 1998)	Grimes 2000: 592.
Hindko	(Hazara Hindko, Peshawar Hindko, Hindki) a variety of Greater Punjabi. Intelligible to Punjabi and Siraiki speakers.	Mansehra, Abbottabad, Haripur, Attock Districts. The inner city of Peshawar and Kohat etc.	3,000,000 in 1993 i.e. 2.4% of the population.	Grimes 2000: 592.
Jandavra	(Jhandoria) 74% lexical similarity with Bagri and Katai Meghwar, 68% with Kachi Koli.	Southern Sindh from Hyderabad to Mirpur Khas	5000 (in 1998)	Grimes 2000: 592.
Jatki	(Jatgali, Jadgali, Jat)	Southern Balochistan and Southwest Sindh. Also in Iran.	100,000 in both countries (1998)	Grimes 2000: 592.
Kabutra	(Nat, Natra) intelligibility with Sansi and Sochi. 74% lexical similarity with Sochi.	Umarkot, Kunri, Nara Dhoro (Sindh)	1,000 (in 1998)	Grimes 2000
Kachchi	(Cutch, Kachi) similar to Sindhi.	Karachi	50,000 (in 1998)	Grimes 2000: 592.
Kalami	(Bashgharik, Dir Kohistani, Bashkarik, Diri, Kohistani, Dirwali, Kalami Kohistani, Gouri, Kohistani, Bashkari, Gawri, Garwi)	Upper Swat Khoistan from Kalam to upper valleys also in Dir Kohistan	60,000-70,000 (in 1995)	Baart 1999: 4
Kalasha	(Kalashwar, Urtsuniwar, Kalashamon, Kalash)	Kalash Valleys (Chitral) Southern	2900-5700 (in 1992)	SSNP-5: 11; Grimes 2000: 593.
Kalkoti	69% lexical similarity with Kalami but Kalami speakers do not understand Kalkoti.	Dir Kohistan in Kalkot village	6000 (in 2002)	Breton 1997: 200; Zaman 2002; Grimes 2000: 593
Kamviri	(Skekhani, Kamdeshi, Lamertiviri, Kamik) there is a variety of Kativiri also called Skekhani.	Chitral (Southern end of Bashgal Valley)	2000 (in 1992)	SSNP-5: 143; Grimes 2000: 593.
Kashmiri	(Keshuri)	The Valley of Kashmir & Diaspora in Pakistan	4,391,000 in India. About 105,000 in Pakistan (in 1993)	Breton 1997: 200; Grimes: 2000: 593
Kativiri	(Bashgali, Kati, Nuristani, Shekhani) Eastern Kativiri in Pakistan.	(Chitral) Gobar Linkah Valleys	3700-5100 (in 1992)	Grimes 2000: 593; Strand 2004.
Khetrani	Similar to Siraiki but influence by Balochi	Northeast Balochistan	Few thousand (in 1987)	Grimes 2000: 593.
Khowar	(Chitrali, Qashqari, Arniya, Patu, Kohwar, Kashkara)	Chitral, Northern areas, Ushu in northern Swat	250,000 plus (in 1993)	SSNP-5: 11 Breton 1997: 200; Grimes 2000: 593.
Kohistani	(Indus Kohistani, Dir Kohistani, Kohiste, Khili, Maiyon, Maiya, Shuthun, Mair)	Indus Kohistan West bank of river	220,000 (in 1993)	Grimes 2000: 594.
Koli Kachi	(Kachi, Koli, Kachi Koli) similar to Sindhi and Gujrati (78% lexical similarity) but being influenced more by Sindhi in Pakistan. Its dialects are Rabari, Kachi Bhil, Vagri, Katai Meghwar, Zalavaria Koli and Tharadari Koli.	(Lower Sindh) around Towns of Tando Allahyar & Tando Adam also in India around the Rann of Kach.	170,000 (in 1998)	Grimes 2000: 594.
Koli Parkari	Parkari (Lexical similarity with Marwari Bhil and Tharadari) 77-83% lexical similarity with Marwari Bhil; 83% with Tharadari Koli	Lower Thar Desert Nagar Parkar. Also in India.	30,000 (in 1980)	Grimes 2000: 594.
Koli Wadiyara	(Wadiyara, Wadhiyara) intelligibility with Kachi Koli and its varieties.	Sindh in an area bounded by Hyderabad, Tando Allahyar and Mirpur Khas in the north, and Matli and Jamesabad in the South.	175,000-180,000 in Pakistan). Total in Pakistan and India 360,000 (1998).	Grimes 200: 594.
Kundal Shahi		Neelam Valley, Azad Kashmir	500 (in 2003)	Baart and Rehman 2003
Lasi	(Lassi) similar to Sindhi but influenced by Balochi.	Las Bela District (south east Balochistan)	15,000 (in 1998)	Grimes 2000: 594.
Loarki	82% lexical similarity with Jogi and 80% with Marwari.	Sindh---various places	25,000 (in 1998)	Grimes 2000
Marwari	(Rajasthani, Meghwar, Jaiselmer, Marawar, Marwari Bhil) 79-83% lexical similarity with Dhatki; 87% between Southern and Northern Marwari; 78% Marwari Mehwar and Marwari Bhat.	Northern Marwari in South Punjab North of Dadu Nawabshah. Southern Marwari in Tando Mohammad Khan and Tando Ghulam Ali etc.	220,000 (in 1998)	Grimes 2000: 595.
Memoni	Similarities to Sindhi and Gujrati	Karachi	Unknown	Grimes 2000: 595.
Od	(Odki) similarity with Marathi with some Gujrati features. Also influenced by Marwari and Punjabi 70-78% lexical similarity with Marwari, Dhatki and Bagri.	Scattered in Sindh & south Punjab	50,000 (in 1998)	Grimes 2000: 595.
Ormuri	(Buraki, Bargista) 25-33% lexical similarity with Pashto.	Kaniguram (south Waziristan) some in Afghanistan	3000?	SSNP-4: 54 Grimes 2000: 595.
Persian	(Farsi, Madaglashti Persian in Chitral Dari, Tajik, Badakhshi and the dialects mentioned earlier). Dialects of Persian spoken in Pakistan. The standard variety is used for writing.	Balochistan, Shishikoh Valley in Chitral, Quetta, Peshawar, etc.	2000-3000 (in 1992)	SSNP-5: 11 Grimes 2000: 591.
Phalura	(Dangarik, Ashreti, Tangiri, Palula, Biyori, Phalulo) 56-58% lexical similarity with Savi; 38-42% with Shina	7 villages near Drosh, Chitral possibly 1 village in Dir Kohistan	8600 (in 1990)	SSNP-5: 11; Grimes 2000: 596.
Sansi	(Bhilki) 71% lexical similarity with Urdu; 83% with Sochi.	North-western Sindh	10,000 (in 1998)	Grimes 2000: 596
Shina	(Sina, Shinaki, Brokpa)	Giligit, Kohistan, Baltistan and Ladakh	500,000	SSNP-2: 93; Grimes 2000: 596.
Sindhi Bhil	(Bhil) close to Sindhi. Its varieties are Mohrano, Sindhi Meghwar, Badin etc.	Badin, Matli, Thatta (Sindh)	50,000 (in 1998)	Grimes 2000: 597
Torwali	(Kohistani, Bahrain Kohistani) 44% lexical similarity with Kalkoti and Kalami.	Chail and Bahrain (Swat)	60,000	Breton 1997: 200; Lunsford 2001; Grimes 2000: 597.
Ushojo	(Ushoji) 35-50% lexical similarity with varieties of Shina.	Upper part of Bishigram Valley (Chail) in Swat	1000 (in 2002)	Zaman 2002; Grimes 2000: 597.
Vaghri	(Vaghri Koli) 78% lexical similarity with Wadiyara Koli.	Sindh many places. Also in India.	90,000 in India. 10,000 in Pakistan. (in 1998)	Grimes 2000: 597.
Wakhi	(Kheek, Kheekwar, Wakhani, Wakhigi, Wakhan) some influence of Burushaski.	Northern ends of Hunza & Chitral	9,000 plus (in 1992)	SSNP-2: 61; Grimes 2000: 597.
Wanetsi	(Tarino, Chalgari, Wanechi) 71-75% lexical similarity with Southern Pashto.	Harnai (East of Quetta)	95,000 (in 1998)	SSNP-4: 51 Breton 1997: 200 Grimes 2000: 598
Yidgha	(Yidghah, Luthuhwar) 56-80% lexical similarity with Munji in Afghanistan. Also influenced by Khowar.	Upper Lutkoh Valley (Western Chitral)	5000-6000 (in 1991)	SSNP-5: 11 Grimes 2000: 598.

Annexure-2

STATE OF LANGUAGES OF PAKISTAN

This chart provides information on the availability of written material in a language, 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.

Language	Material available	Names of writers of primers.
Aer
Badeshi	Material in standard Persian may be used.	Many primers
Bagri
Balochi	Alphabet book, primers, folktales, health books, phrase book Balochi-Urdu-English dictionary, printed books on Islamic observances, poetry, modern literature, textbooks etc.	Tan et. al. 1999; Farrell 1986;
Balti	Ancient records (Devanagari based script); Grammar, parables (Roman); verse, folksongs etc (Nastaliq script)	Hussanabadi 1990
Bateri
Bhat
Bhaya
Bhil Sindhi	Material in Sindhi may be used.	Many primers.
Brahvi	Alphabet book, primers, folktales, health books, phrase book; Brahvi-Urdu-English dictionary, printed books on Islamic observances, poetry, modern literature, textbooks etc.	Many primers.
Burushaski	Transition primer (Urdu to Burushaski), folktales, bilingual vocabulary: Burushaski-English	Nasir n.d
Chilisso
Dameli
Dehwari
Dhatki	Alphabet book, primer, transition primer, folktales, stories for children.	Das et. al. 1991; Payne 1991; various 1991
Domaaki
Gawarbati
Ghera
Goaria
Gowro
Gujari	Poetry books, short stories, songs etc.	Many primers.
Gujrati	Primers, grammars, textbooks, books etc. (in India also in computers).	Many primers.
Gurgula
Hazargi	Alphabet book, folktales, health books, proverbs, stories for children. Material in standard Persian may also be used.	HLA 1997
Hindko	Primers, literature, prose, dictionaries, magazines etc.	Akbar 1994 and other primers.
Jandavra
Jatki	Primers, word lists, grammars. Naskh/Nastaliq	Baloch 2003
Jogi
Kabutra
Kachchi	Primers of Sindhi may be used	Many primers
Kachchi (Bhil)
Kachchi (Katiawari)
Kalami	Alphabet book, transition primer, poetry books, collection of texts from Gawri writers’ workshop, proverbs, phrase dictionary Gawri-Urdu-English	KCS 2002; Sagar 2002a; Sagar 2002b; Shaheen 1989
Kalasha	Alphabet book, pre-reader, dictionary.	Akbar 1994
Kalkoti
Kamviri
Kashmiri	Primers, folktales, poetry, textbooks, other books etc. (most of this literature is in India).	Many primers.
Kativiri
Khetrani
Khojki	Ancient records, Ginans, old documents, primers, school textbooks, others books.	Ali 1989.
Khowar	Primers, grammar, dictionary, folktales, poetry, religious books, other popular books.	Faizi 1987
Kohistani (Indus)
Koli (Tharadari)
Koli (Kachi)	Alphabet books, folktales, health books, stories for children, primer.	Masih and Woodland 1995.
Koli (Parkari)	Alphabet book, primer, folktales, health books, bilingual vocabulary: Parkari-English, stories for children.	Hoyle 1996; Hoyle, R 1990; Hoyle, R & Samson 1985; Hoyle, R et. al. 1990.
Koli (Wadiyara)
Kundal Shahi
Lasi
Loarki
Marwari
Memoni	Primers of Sindhi may be used	Many primers
Od
Ormuri	Primer, grammar, word list [Roman] verse, prose, grammar, word list Ormuri (Pashto script)	Barki 1999
Pashto	All kinds of textbooks and books; usable in computer. (also used in Afghanistan in some domains of power).	Many primers.
Persian	All kinds of books (usable in computer).	Many primers.
Phalura
Punjabi	Books on literature; history; textbooks etc in Nastaliq script. (All kinds of books in the Gurmukhi script in India).	Many primers.
Sansi
Shina	Poetry, grammar, word lists, folktales, songs, religious books etc.	Taj 1999; Zia 1986; Namus 1961; Kohistani and Schmidt 1996
Sindhi	All types of books and in the computers.	Many primers.
Sindhi Bhil
Siraiki	Ancient poetry, modern literature, magazines etc.	Mughal 1987 and other primers.
Torwali	Lexicographic work using Nastaliq is in progress.	Kareemi 1982
Urdu	All types of books and computers.	Many primers.
Vaghri
Wakhi	Primer, word list, folksongs, proverbs, word lists.	Sakhi 2000
Wanetsi	Primer, songs, folktales, word lists Nastaliq (Pashto variant)	Askar 1972
Yidgha

LIST OF READING MATERIAL PREPARED BY SPEAKERS OF

LANGUAGES/OTHER WRITERS

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Hoyle, Anne. 1986. Achoota paRhoon (Let’s Read). Hyderabad: Church of Pakistan.

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, Viro Goel, Malo Samson, Naru, and Meghraj. 1990. Paarkari aakhar an phooTuu (Parkari letters and pictures). [alphabet book] 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.

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.

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.

Nasiruddin Nasir, Buruso Birkis [English/Shina: primer, word list, conversation. Shina in Roman script with English explanation] Hunza: Burushaski Research Academy, n.d.

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

Sagar, Mohammad Zaman. 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.

Sakhi, Ahmad Jami. 2002. 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.

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

Tan, Eunice, Gulrang Lal Mohd, and Nazia Gul Mohd. 1999. Baloochii qaaedaa (Baluchi primer). [Primer] Karachi: Azat Jamaldini Academy.

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

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

Annexure-3

DOMAINS OF USE AND VITALITY OF THE

LANGUAGES OF PAKISTAN

Language	Domains of Use	Vitality	Source
Aer	Used in all functions within the group. Worship songs in Gujrati	Women monolingual. Men multilingual, generally in Sindhi. No evidence of language shift but shift possible to Sindhi as children go to school.	Jeffery 1999
Badeshi	Not known	Language shift to Pashto	Zaman 2002
Bagri	Used in all functions within the group. Used in weddings; to tell Jokes; in songs.	All multilingual mostly in Sindhi. No evidence of language shift.	Jeffery 1999
Balti	Used in all functions within the group. Used by teachers as informal medium of instruction for small children if they are MT speakers themselves. Also cultivated by language activists, media persons (radio announcers etc).	Some bilingualism in Urdu especially among the educated and the employed. Positive attitude to MT. Desirous of learning to read their language. No evidence of language shift.	Backstrom in SSNP-2 1992
Bhat	Not known	All multilingual mostly in Marwari.	Jeffery 1999
Bhil Sindhi	Used in traditional ceremonies and worship.	Bilingualism in Sindhi.	Jeffery 1999
Bateri	Used in all functions within the group.	Some multilingualism in Pashto and Urdu especially among the educated and those who travel on business. Positive attitude towards MT. No evidence of language shift.	Hallberg in SSNP-1 1992.
Bhaya	Not known	Shifting to Sindhi and related to Marwari dialects.	Grimes 2000: 590 and Personal information.
Burushaski	Used in all functions within the group. Used by teachers as informal medium of instruction. Also cultivated by language activists, media persons etc.	Increasing bilingualism in Urdu and English however, the language is being maintained desirous of learning Urdu and English but expressing positive feelings for MT.	Backstrom in SSNP-2 1992
Chilisso	Many speakers do not use the language even at home.	Bilingualism in Shina. Language shift to Shina in progress. People want their children to learn Shina and Urdu.	Hallberg in SSNP-1 1992.
Dameli	Spoken by older people at home but younger people use other languages also.	Multilingualism in Pashto and Khowar. However, positive attitude to MT is expressed. Possibility of language shift to Pashto.	Decker in SSNP-5 1992.
Dehwari	Not known	Influenced by Brahvi	Grimes 2000: 590.
Dhatki	Used by the Malhi group for all functions. Urdu and Sindhi used for songs	Multilingualism in many languages.	Jeffrey 1999.
Domaaki	Possibly used by very few elderly people with each other. Most people do not know it.	Language shift to Burushaki is complete with no hope of reversal.	Backstrom in SSNP-2 1992
Gawar-Bati	Used for all functions within the group.	Multilingualism in Pashto and to a lesser extent in Khowar. Positive attitude to MT. However, the language is under pressure by Pashto.	Decker in SSNP-5 1992
Ghera	Used for all functions within the group.	Multilingualism in Sindhi and Urdu. Getting influenced by both.	Jeffrey 1999
Goaria	Used for all functions within the group. Hindi used in worship. Children use Sindhi and Urdu.	Multilingualism in many languages. Children use Sindhi or Urdu with outsiders.	Jeffery 1999
Gowro	Still spoken by the older people but younger people mix it with Shina and sometimes speak only Shina.	Bilingualism in Shina. Language shift to Shina in progress.	Hallberg in SSNP-1 1992; Zaman 2004
Gujari	Used in some communities but not among in Gujars settled in the Punjab and Azad Kashmir. Language activists are creating literature in the language. Songs, music and other things are broadcast from the radio and there is a TV programme from India.	Multilingualism in many languages and especially Urdu among the educated. In the NWFP, Northern areas and parts of Azad Kashmir the language is maintained. In the Punjab and near Muzaffarabad and Mirpur there is language shift to the local languages. Educated people use Urdu.	Hallberg and O’ Leary in SSNP-3 1992
Gujrati	Used for conversation within the family but younger people are switching to Urdu or English (depending on socio-economic class). All kinds of literature exists. Used in the media and in the state of Gujrat in India.	Multilingualism in Urdu and English as well as other languages. Language shift to Urdu and English is in progress at least in Pakistan.	Field research in Karachi.
Gurgula	Language used within community is strong.	Multilingual in many language.	Jeffery 1999
Hazargi	Used in the group for all functions.	Multilingualism with Pashto, Balochi and Persian. Language is under pressure.
Jatki	Not known	Not known	-
Jandavra	Private.	People proud of their language.	Jeffery 1999
Jogi	Used in the group for all functions.	Women slightly bilingual in Sindhi. Men preficent in Sindhi.	Jeffery 1999
Kabutra	Used in the group for all functions.	Multilingual in many languages. Positive attitude and pride in language. No shift.	Jeffery 1999
Kachchi (Bhil)	Used in the group for all functions.	Bilingualism in Sindhi. Being rural it is maintained at presest shift to Sindhi going on.	Jeffery 1999
Kachchi (Katiawari)	Used by older people in some domains.	Shift to Sindhi going on.	Jeffery 1999
Koli Kachi	Used for all functions within the group.	Multilingualism in Sindhi but language being maintained.	Grainger & Grainger 1980: 42
Koli Parkari	Used for all functions within the group.	Multilingualism in Sindhi but language being maintained.	Grainger & Grainger 1980: 42
Koli Wadiyara	Used for all functions within the group.	Multilingualism in Sindhi but language being maintained.	Jeffery 1999
Koli Tharadari	Used for all functions within the group.	Men Multilingual in many languages. Women and children maintain the language	Jeffery 1999
Kalami	Used for all functions within the group.	Widespread bilingualism in Pashto. Educated people also know Urdu. Attitude towards MT positive and no language shift is observed.	Rensch in SSNP-1 1992
Kalasha	Used for all functions within the group.	Positive attitude to MT but those who convert to Islam shift to Khowar or the language of the spouse. Some multilingualism in Khowar and Urdu because of tourism and education. The language is under pressure and there is a possibility of language shift.	Decker in SSNP-5 1992.
Kalkoti	-	Kalami used is a second language. Most people also speak Pashto.	Grimes 2000: 593.
Kamviri	Used for all function within the group.	Multilingualism in Pashto and surrounding languages. Positive attitude to MT but under pressure by Pashto.	Decker in SSNP-5 1992.
Kashmiri	Small diaspora in Pakistan but used for all function within the Valley of Kashmir held by India. All kinds of literature available. Used in media and in teaching etc. Also taught at university level.	Multilingualism with Urdu and the local languages. Language shift in progress in Pakistan but is maintained in India.	Aziz 1983; Bukhari 1986.
Kativiri	Used in all functions within the group.	Positive attitude towards the MT but men multilingual in Pashto and surrounding languages. Difficult to predict language shift.	Decker in SSNP-5 1992.
Khetrani
Khowar	Used in all domains in the group. Used by teachers as informal medium of instruction for small children if they are MT speakers themselves. Also cultivated by language activists, media persons (radio, TV announcers etc).	Some bilingualism in Pashto, local languages and Urdu, the last especially among the educated and the employed. Positive attitude to MT. Desirous of learning to read their language. No language shift observed.	Decker in SSNP-5 1992.
Kohistani (Indus)	Used for all functions within the group.	Multilingualism in Pashto and Shina is not common even among them. Positive attitude towards MT. People want it as a medium of instruction for small children. No language shift is observed.	Hallberg in SSNP-1 1992.
Koli (Kachi)	Probably used in the group	Bilingualism in Sindhi.	Jeffrey 1999; Grimes 2000: 594.
Koli Parkari	Not known	Bilingualism in Sindhi but language being maintained.	Grimes 2000: 594.
Kundal Shahi	Used only by the elderly in the family. No longer used by children.	Language shift to local language and Urdu in progress.	Baart and Abdurehman 2003.
Lasi	Not known	Not known	-
Loarki	Used for all functions within the Loar group	Multilingualism in Sindhi and some knowledge of Urdu.	Jeffery 1999
Marwari (Southern)	Used in all domains of the group.	Multilingualism in Sindhi.
Memoni	Probably used by older speakers in the group as spoken language.	Most speakers are educated and multilingual in Sindhi, Urdu and Gujrati. The language is shifting to these three languages.	Grimes 2000: 595.
Od	Used in some Od communities while others use local languages.	Multilingualism in surrounding languages. Language shift in progress in this iterant community.	Grainger & Grainger 1980: 31
Ormuri	Used for most functions in the Kaniguram area. Words of Pashto are common among young people.	Bilingualism with Pashto. Though positive attitude to MT is expressed, language shift to Pashto is visible.	Hallberg in SSNP-4 1992: Barki PC 2000.
Persian	Used for speaking in different groups.	Standard Persian is used if written.	Personal observation.
Phalura	Used at home. Used informally by teachers.	Multilingualism in Khowar, Pashto and Urdu. Language shift to Khowar in evidence. However, ethnic Kalasha have shifted to Phalura in some areas. Vitality picture mixed.	Decker in SSNP-5 1992.
Rabari	Used in all domains of the group.	Being maintained.	Jeffery 1999
Sansi	Used for worship and weddings.	Multilingualism in Sindhi and slightly in Urdu and Siraiki. No language shift observed.	Jeffery 1999
Shina	Used in all domains in the group. Used by teachers as informal medium of instruction for small children if they are MT speakers themselves. Also cultivated by language activists, media persons (radio announcers etc).	Considerable bilingualism in Urdu especially among the educated and the employed. Positive attitude to MT. Ambivalent about learning to read their language. No language shift observed. However, there is pressure of Urdu.	Backstrom in SSNP-2 1992
Sochi	Used in singing, weddings and telling stories.	Multilingualism in Sindhi and slightly in Urdu.	Jeffery 1999
Torwali	Not known	Men bilingual in Pashto but language being maintained.	Grimes 2000: 597
Ushojo (Ushuji)	Used at home at least by the older speakers. There is much mixing of Pashto.	Multilingualism in Pashto and Torwali but educated people know Urdu. Young people who know the MT use Pashto in some areas. Language is under threat from Pashto. Language vitality is varied and mixed.	Decker in SSNP-1 1992
Vaghri	Used in private domains.	Bilingualism in Sindhi. Positive attitude to the language in spite of pressures.	Jeffery 1999
Wakhi	Used in all domains of the group. Language activists and radio broadcasters also cultivate it.	Bilingualism with Urdu among younger, educated people. Also knowledge of Burushaski. Positive attitude towards MT. Desirous of learning the written language in school. However, the language is under pressure from Urdu.	Backstrom in SSNP-2 1992
Wanetsi (Waneci)	Used in private domains but those who live in cities do not use it.	Bilingualism with Pashto. Positive attitude towards MT. However, under pressure from Pashto.	Hallberg in SSNP-4 1992. Askar n.d.
Yidgha	Used for in group functions. Used informally by teachers and for explaining religious texts.	Multilingualism in Khowar and sometimes Urdu, Persian and Bashgali. Language shift to Khowar in evidence.	Decker in SSNP-5 1992.

REFERENCES

Ahmad, Rafiuddin. 1981. The Bengali Muslim 1871-1906: A Quest for Identity Delhi: Oxford UP. 2^nd-ed. 1988.

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

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.

Baart, Joan L.G. 1999. A Sketch of Kalam Kohistani Grammar. Islamabad: National Institute of Pakistan Studies & Summer Institute of Linguistics.

------- 2003. ‘Interview with the Present Author’, 10 August, Islamabad.

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].

Breton, Roland J. L. 1997. Atlas of the Languages and Ethnic Communities of South Asia. New Delhi & London: Sage Publications.

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

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.

Edwards, John. 1994. Multilingualism London: Routledge.

Fishman, Joshua A. 2001. Can Threatened Languages be Saved? Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

GOP. 1966. Report of the Commission on Student’s Problems and Welfare and Problems Islamabad : Ministry of Education, Government of Pakistan

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

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

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

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

LAD-B. Legislative Assimbly 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).

Lunsford, Wayne A. 2001. ‘An Overview of Linguistic Structures in Torwali: A Language of Northern Pakistan’, unpublished M.A. Thesis, The University of Texas, Arligton.

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

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

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.

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.

------. 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.

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

Zaman, Muhammad. 2002. Report on a Language Survey Trip to the Bishigram Valley [http://www.geocities.com/kcs_kalam/ushoji.html].

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