Language is often used as a symbol of identity. When used in such a way it mobilizes a pressure group for certain demands. This has happened in many countries of the world. For instance, the Irish language was a major symbol of Irish identity during the freedom movement of Ireland. Along with Catholicism the Irish language galvanized the Irish people to face British colonial rule and finally win their independence from Britain. The irony of the situation, however, is that the Irish language was not spoken---and is still not spoken---by the majority of the people of Ireland. It was a powerful symbol but not a reality.
In the ex-colonies of Western countries language was not a powerful anti-imperialist symbol. This was because the elite of these countries, which had picked up the philosophy of nationalism from the rulers, was more at home in Western languages than in their own. British India was no exception. Persian had been dethroned in 1837 by Lord William Bentinck’s government and English had taken its place at the upper level. At the lower level, however, the vernacular languages of India came to be used. Thus, ironically enough, the British became the first rulers to promote Urdu (as well as Sindhi and Bengali etc) in a systematic manner. The first schools functioning in Urdu were created by the British in the 1850s. The first courts to use Urdu were also created by the British. Seeing these developments the Islamic seminaries (madrassas) also switched over from Persian to Urdu. Moreover, Urdu was promoted in areas where the majority of the population did not speak it. In what is now called the Hindi heartland a number of local dialects were actually spoken by the people. These were called Awadhi, Purbhi, Birij Bhasha and so on. However, the elite of the cities did speak what the British called Hindustani. It was the same language which Muslims called Urdu and Hindus started calling Hindi. Its formal and literary forms were already different in the case of Muslims and Hindus but the spoken form was (and remains) very similar. It was this language which the British promoted.
The British also promoted the same language in the Punjab and the N.W.F.P. In these places the local languages were dialects of (Greater) Punjabi and Pashto. However, the schooling system and the courts now started using Urdu. The upper level, however, functioned in English all over British India. The elite, both Hindu and Muslim, learned English and were mostly better at it than their own mother tongue. The Muslim elite of the Hindi belt, Punjab, North West Frontier Province, Kashmir and Baluchistan learned Urdu and became very competent in this language.
With this background in mind it is possible to understand the part which Urdu played in the Pakistan Movement. First, let us go back to the Bengal presidency which was the seat of British rule in India when it first started replacing native power. The British policy was to learn the Indian languages in order to understand the natives and strengthen their rule. Thus they established the Fort William College which taught, among other languages, Urdu and Hindi. The first grammar of Urdu and prose writings were developed here for both languages. It was here too that Lalluji Lal and Sadal Misra created Modern Sanskritized Hindi by eliminating Persian and Arabic words from the common Hindustani which was in use. Thus Sankritized Hindi became an identity-marker of identity-conscious Hindus. Similarly, Persianized Urdu became an identity-marker of identity-conscious Muslims.
In 1872 Sir George Campbell, Lieutenant Governor of Bihar, passed orders that Persianized Urdu should be replaced by Hindi. The Muslims were alarmed since their livelihood as well as identity were threatened. The order was not followed consistently because all British officers did not agree with Campbell. In 1868 Shiva Prasad wrote a memorandum demanding that Hindi should be used in U.P. Sir Syed was so alarmed by this that he prognosticated the division of India which, of course, did happen.
In 1900 Sir A. P. Macdonnell, Lieutenant Governor of the North Western Provinces (Part of U. P now) accepted the Hindus demands that letters written in Hindi should be accepted by the government. This alarmed the Muslims even more though Urdu had not been displaced by Hindi at all. What had happened was that Hindi had also found acceptance in addition to Hindi.
However, organizations in support of Hindi and Urdu sprang up all over the country and the Muslim league came out strongly in favour of Urdu. The ulema also supported Urdu and it became strongly identified with both the Muslim identity and the Pakistan Movement. As Hindi in the Devanagari script was similarly identified with the Hindu identity M. K. Gandhi’s formula of accepting Hindustani as the lingua franca was mistrusted. Moreover when in April 1936 Gandhi defined it as ‘Hindu-Hindustani’ the Muslims deepened their suspicions of Hindustani. From this date onwards language was strongly identified with identity which, in turn, was identified with religion. British India was moving towards partition.
It was thus that Urdu became a subsidiary identity symbol for the Muslims in their struggle against the Hindu majority as well as British rule. The primary symbol of group mobilization was religion, of course, but the secondary one was language. This is something which has happened in other countries---as in Ireland---and is not peculiar to Indian Muslims.
Unfortunately, Pakistani books of history present the use of language during the Pakistan Movement like a great conspiracy. They claim that the Hindus and the British were out to destroy Urdu because they hated it. The fact is that the British removed Persian for several reasons one of which was that it was a symbol of Muslim rule. But they promoted Urdu in the Perso-Arabic script and not Hindi in the Devanagari one which was the language of the majority of their Indian subjects. It is true, however, that, to begin with, Urdu was not a symbol of Muslim elitist identity but its script was. When Hindi became a symbol of Hindu identity and Urdu of Muslim identity it was natural for Hindus to support Hindi.. So, although the majority of the population was Hindu, the British carried on in English and Urdu till the partition. However, they did give concessions to the Hindi lobby because they felt that they would be opposed if they did not. And, if course, they wanted as less opposition as possible.
In this way Urdu contributed to the making of Pakistan. However, it was forgotten that Urdu was a symbol not a reality. The majority of Pakistanis were Bengalis who actually spoke and used Bengali. In Sindh too the language of the lower domains of power was Sindhi. In the Punjab and the Frontier, however, it was Urdu. Since the conditions had changed, the language policy should also have changed. However, it was not and the first challenge to Urdu came from Bengali. The details of this challenge and the language policy of Pakistan after 1947 is not part of this paper. Details are available in my book Language and Politics in Pakistan (OUP 2003).
The points I want to emphasize here are that language (in this case Urdu) was one of the symbols of the Muslim identity during the Pakistan Movement; that Urdu, next only to Islam, created the Muslim identity which competed with the dominant Hindu identity to win power and resources in British India; and, finally, this use of language is very well known when a minority (or weak majority) wants to mobilize itself as a pressure group in order to obtain a share of power from a strong or dominant group.
In short, Urdu and Hindi both functioned as identity symbols for constructing the Muslim and Hindu identities in pre-partition India. These identities were in competition for power---which means goods, services, jobs, prestige etc---with each other. The Muslim minority especially feared democracy in India after British rule because that would have meant being dominated by the Hindus. This fear is expressed in what is now known as ‘the two Nation Theory’ and ‘The Ideology of Pakistan’. The idea is quite simple: no minority wants to be dominated by a powerful majority. Even no majority wants to be dominated by a powerful minority.
The pre-partition scenario was a subset of this classical condition: a minority (Muslims) feared domination by a majority (Hindus). And when such competing identities clash, all symbols of separation (religion, language, experience, dress, etiquette, values, norms etc) are used to enhance the feeling of a separate identity in order to win power. The majority can allay the fears of the minority by giving it concessions, providing safeguards and sharing the substance of real power. However, this did not happen and when it does not there is a partition. So, in this case, there was a partition. Pakistan was created.