Guidelines and Priorities: Pakistani languages other than Urdu
This section met separately from roughly 3 to 5.30 pm Friday and 9 to 3pm Saturday. The following participated: Sabir Badalkhan (Istituto Orientale di Napoli and University of Baluchistan), Rich Barnett (U. Virginia), Elena Bashir (U. Chicago), Amrit Gahunia (U. Penna.), Wilma Heston (U. Penna), Gurinder Singh Mann (UCSB), M. U. Memon (U. Wisconsin), Jim Nye (U. Chicago), Peter Patrikis (CLTL), Steve Poulos (SALRC), Benedicte Santry (U. Penna.), Brian Spooner (U. Penna.) and Aslam Syed (Quaid-i-Azam University and U. Penn.). Ali Asani (Harvard U.), Peter Hook (U. Virginia) and Jennifer Coleman, among others, had sent their regrets.
The objective of the meeting was understood in terms of the need to work out ways to upgrade the accessibility to students of all languages that might be useful for academic training or research. Elena Bashir provided a preliminary bibliography of existing materials that might be considered relevant. The participants listed the following languages as requiring attention. The order of listing reflects (subjective and anecdotal so far) assessment of the potential demand for study materials:
- Pashto
- Panjabi
- Balochi
- Sindhi
- Siraiki
- Hindko
- Brahui
- Kashmiri
- Shina
- Wakhi
- Balti
- Burushaski
- Khowar
- Kalasha
- Kohistani
- Torwali
- Gojri
In addition, Gujarati and Persian are also spoken in Pakistan, and their local forms may also deserve attention. There was general agreement that all these languages should be made more accessible, but that one strategy would not fit all. It should be noted that only Pashto and Sindhi have a significant record of widespread literacy. Panjabi, while a major literary language in India, is infrequently written in Pakistan. What written material is produced in Pakistan is specifically literary, rather than expository or informative, in nature. Panjabi, Siraiki and Hindko all enjoy some literary production.
For some languages abundant material exists but is not readily accessible or easy for students to use. Such material needs to be compiled and worked on selectively for particular purposes.
With regard to the development of pedagogical materials, Pashto has enjoyed the most attention, but few of the existing materials are ideal for present purposes. Since it currently enjoys the highest market value, expenditure of time and funds on developing programmed course materials for it would be obviously justifiable.
The next priority appears to be for development of materials for Panjabi as spoken in Pakistan, and for the closely related Siraiki and Hindko. Panjabi is the single language with the largest number of speakers in Pakistan, but has so far received little attention, both within Pakistan and by scholars outside of Pakistan. However, interest in its development within Pakistan has been growing recently. There continues to be a certain amount of publication in Panjabi, Siraiki, and Hindko.
Sindhi, like Pashto, has a long history of literacy and enjoys the support of an active community of speakers. Sindhi is in the unique position of functioning as the medium of education at the primary level in the government education system. However, there are few English-language materials available for those who wish to study it, and demand for it as a second language both within and outside of Pakistan is low.
Interest in the study of Balochi has so far been even less in the U.S., but this language has perhaps the best English-language pedagogical materials so far, though they are restricted to one dialect and are not adequately representative of common speech. Demand for Balochi may be growing in the current political situation.
For various reasons, therefore, the first six languages in the list above should be accorded high priority for the production of focused instructional materials. It must be remembered that, with the exception of Siraiki and Hindko, each of them is spoken in at least one neighboring country--Baluchi in Iran and Afghanistan, Pashto in Afghanistan, Panjabi and Sindhi in India. Efforts to upgrade their accessibility in Pakistan should be made with full cognizance of, if not collaboration with, work on them outside Pakistan. Similar considerations apply to Gujarati, Kashmiri and of course Persian, which (although since the 1920s it has become known as Tajiki in the Former Soviet Union and since 1964 as Dari in Afghanistan and has certainly diverged to some extent into distinct national forms) continues to be basically the same language in Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and elsewhere.
With the exception of Pashto, Panjabi, Sindhi and Balochi, none of these languages is likely to enter the curriculum in the form of a conventional language course. But there would be great advantage to increasing their accessibility--more perhaps with some, such as Hindko and Siraiki, than others. It was agreed that the most productive strategy in the case of languages enjoying less demand would be to develop databases of texts, plus (where possible) audio and video files, together with the coordinates of scholars working on them who would be willing to be contacted by others. Everything would be done through appropriately linked web pages. Lists would be compiled of all linguists and others known to be active in the languages under consideration who were willing (a) to be contacted, (b) to collaborate in further work. Historical studies of each language would also be encouraged.
Workshop on Pakistani languages other than Hindi and Urdu
Brian Spooner, University of Pennsylvania Museum
March 7- 8, 2003
University of Pennsylvania