Available online at www.ejal.

info
http://dx.doi.org/10.32601/ejal.911521
Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(1) (2022) 85-96

A Critical Analysis of the Language Planning and

Policy (LPP) in Pakistan and its Impact on
Indigenous Languages of Pakistan
Furrakh Abbasa* , Siti Jamilah Bidinb
a.bSchool of Languages, Civilisation and Philosophy (SLCP), Universiti Utara Malaysia, Kedah, Malaysia
aDepartment of Linguistics, University of Okara, Pakistan

aEmail: [email protected]

Received 18 November 2021|Received in revised form 7 April 2022|Accepted 26 April 2022

APA Citation:
Abbas, F. & Bidin, S. J. (2022). A Critical Analysis of the Language Planning and Policy (LPP) in Pakistan and its
Impact on Indigenous Languages of Pakistan. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(1), 85-96. Doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.32601/ejal.911521

Abstract
A well-devised formulation of language planning and policy creates a sense of ownership among speakers of
all languages. At the same time, its absence may lead to asymmetrical power relations among speakers of
different languages. This article aims at presenting a critical analysis of language planning and policy
(LPP) in Pakistan and its impact on the indigenous languages of Pakistan. The research draws on
secondary sources of data such as the policy documents, the research articles written on language planning
and policy in Pakistan and the views of the language critics. The data shows that the language policies
devised at various times in Pakistan have failed to prove fruitful as the multilingual language profile of the
country was not taken into deep consideration. Critics argue that the policy practices at the national level
patronized the use of Urdu and English at the cost of indigenous languages. Language planning and policy
(LPP) reflects an ambivalent attitude as some provinces paid attention to it as a sensitive matter; others
ignored it altogether. Overall, language planning and policy (LPP) shows traces of colonial imprints. The
promotion of the English language resulted in its emergence as a power and status symbol, while that of
Urdu resulted in ethnolinguistic resistance. Therefore, there is a dire need to build solidarity with all the
languages, acknowledge them, and provide them equal growth opportunities through effective LPP. The
implications of the research highlight that equal growth opportunities must be provided in practice to all
indigenous languages. It is recommended to overhaul language planning and policy in Pakistan. If the
situation of unequal growth persists and the existing deep sense of deprivation suffered by local
ethnolinguistic groups is not alleviated, it may lead to devastating consequences.

© 2022 EJAL & the Authors. Published by Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics (EJAL). This is an open-access article
distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (CC BY-NC-ND)
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Keywords: Language planning and policy (LPP), indigenous languages, Pakistan, ethnolinguistics

Introduction
The term ‘language policy’ is a social and cultural construct comprising elements of explicit
and abstract nature, including judicial, administrative, belief systems, and attitudes (Johnson,
2013). Kaplan and Baldauf (1997) define language policy as a set of rules and laws which are
part of a careful and intentional language plan with a top-down orientation endorsed by some
authoritative body such as the government. Tariq Rahman (1995) discovers that language policy
as a term is attributed to Weinreich, who had coined it in 1957. However, language policy in the
modern world is not so simple and uninvolved a field as it was considered at its inception. It
involves the ideological, socio-cultural and historical underpinnings of how a language is treated,

* Corresponding Author.
Email: [email protected]
http://dx.doi.org/10.32601/ejal.911521
Abbas & Bidin / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics 8(1) (2022) 85-96 86

managed and perceived within a society (García & Menken, 2015). If language policy acts as an
ecological lens, it must include the recognized language varieties of a speech community and the
entire sociolinguistic repertoire. It is contextual and cannot be considered without political,
social, cultural, economic and ideological contexts (Spooner, 2012). Similarly, Hassan, Dilpu, Gill,
and Kasuar (2015) argue that crucial factors such as social needs, religious, technological and
financial conditions must be considered in devising any language policy.
The need for language policy also emerges from the concepts of ‘linguistic imperialism’ –
transfer of a dominant language to the masses Rose and Conama (2018) and ‘linguistic genocide’
– any deliberate action undertaken to undermine a language by prohibiting its use (Truscott &
Malcolm, 2010). Language policy may do both since a positive and fruitful language policy can
boost the linguistic conceptions of a speech community in terms of preserving its language.
Conversely, the absence of a robust language policy can undermine the value of a language, thus
resulting in its shift. T. Ricento (2006) argues that language shift results from asymmetrical
power relations in a society based on social structures and language ideologies. In such a context,
the language attitudes of a linguistic community may encase a certain sense of deprivation and
linguistic marginalization, as is in the case of the Siraiki language in Pakistan. The lack of a
potential language policy appears to have negatively influenced the language attitudes of the
Siraiki community. With the emergence of nation-states in Europe, the importance of language
planning and policy has multiplied, with every state endeavoring to assert its distinct identity
through language. Mansoor (2004) explains that careful linguistic choices should be made
without disrupting the social structure besides keeping the country linked with the world. Any
language planning and policy (LPP) is the systematic pursuance of political, cultural, or society-
driven goals. It is the systematic manipulation of language in pursuance of specific state or
society-driven goals. Since these goals are also political (connected with the distribution of power
in society), LPP is related to politics and governance.
With the dawn of critical approaches in LPP, the view of LPP shifted from a macro-level
governmental activity to a more focused institutional, societal, group and individual level training.
Tollefson (1981) was among the first scholars who argued that language policy involves macro-/micro-
level policy goals and implementation decisions. Hornberger (1994); T. Ricento (2006) attempted to
make better sense of the complexity of LPP at different levels, focusing on the critical role of
educators. In their "multi-layered onion" metaphor of LPP, they equated legislation and political
process to the outer layer, state agencies and institutions (like schools) to the mid-layer, and the
classroom practitioners to the heart of the onion. T. K. Ricento and Hornberger (1996) conclude that
LPP is a multi-layered construct, wherein essential LPP components, agents, levels, and processes of
LPP permeate and interact with each other in multiple and complex ways to enact various types,
approaches, and goals of LPP. The micro-level of language planning, often unnoticed and unrecorded,
is also referred to as unplanned micro language planning (Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997).
Interactions between the micro and the macro, between the local and the national, can operate in
either direction, and language planning activities that begin at the local level can influence macro-
level decision making and vice versa. Similarly, schools as an interface between the macro-level of
language planning and the micro-level, are not only the sites of the government's language planning
initiatives but may influence how those broader language goals are played out in their contexts
(Liddicoat & Baldauf, 2008). Baldauf Jr, Li, and Zhao (2008) also distinguishes the local context as the
site of macro-level LPP implementation, which he defines as localised LPP, and the local context as a
site of micro-level LPP implementation, which he terms local LPP. As such, one may essentially
consider localised LPP as top-down where micro-support is given for the implementation of macro-LP;
power thus resides at the macro-level (Baldauf Jr et al., 2008). On the other hand, in the local or
micro-level LPP, authority resides with a micro-level LPP agent rather than with an implementer. A
good example of top-down LPP at the local level (localised LPP) can be found in Windham (1975) study
about the efforts to involve local government in macro-planning. Similarly, the survey by du Plessis
(2010) on the Xhariep community's language initiatives in South Africa, and the study by Barkhuizen
and Knoch (2006) reporting on the South African immigrant community's language practices in New
Zealand, are good examples of LPP at the local level.
The LPP activities at the micro-level, where power lies or is given to the local actors, may
also influence the official policy. Such policy initiatives are referred to as bottom-up (Bamgbose,
1989), grassroots-initiated (Kamwendo, 2005) or non-governmental (Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997)
Abbas & Bidin / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics 8(1) (2022) 85-96 87

type of language planning. In this respect, Starks and Barkhuizen and Knoch (2006) observe that
while top-down decisions taken by those with power are imposed on those with less power,
bottom-up planning also occurs on the ground. Thus, the top-down (macro and official) and
bottom-up (micro and grassroots) concepts of LPP are often associated with explicit and implicit
LPP, respectively. Baldauf Jr et al. (2008) argue that LPP may be an "ideology-driven, non-
consultative, and top-down ideology” similar to the 'English only movement’ in the United States.
Or it may be more bottom-up driven and benign in intent, as the commercially driven individual
demand for English in Tunisia. Top-down implicit LPP also operates in Pakistan, where the
official LPP establishes Urdu as the primary language of the state and its institutions.
To summarize, there are two approaches to language planning and policy (LPP): top-down and
bottom-up approaches. Whatever the direction, top-down or bottom-up, the schematic grounding of the
language policy relies heavily on what the people of a language think about it. Consequently, the
concept of 'what people think should be done' Agheyisi and Fishman (1970) emerges from research on
the language attitude of communities. The present article offers a detailed critical analysis of the
language planning and policy (LPP) in Pakistan and its impact on indigenous language communities.
It is better to present the language profile of Pakistan for providing the context of the planning so that
the effects of any planning may be understood better.

Problem statement and Theoretical Framework

Language planning and policy (LPP) generally draws on the principle that the pragmatic
communication needs of a community determine its linguistic choices (Wright, 2004). Therefore,
the most contesting issue with language planning and policy is the controversy between the need
for minority language preservation and its low demand in different aspects of practical life.
Yudina, Melnichuk, and Seliverstova (2020) argue that the speakers of local minority languages
are confused about whether to speak their language or use the dominant language. Approaching
the concept of language as social capital Abbas, Jalil, Zaki and Irfan (2020) argue that a
language with higher capital value is considered a valuable asset, asserting the competitive
value of a powerful language. On the contrary, it is also essential to consider measures to
maintain the minority languages.
The problem with the modern language policy and planning is that it cannot but pave the
way for the promotion of the English language since it is the language of international linkage.
With the emergence of globalization, language planning and policy (LPP) has helped reinforce
foreign language values in small and developing countries. Presenting a picture of language
policy and planning in Kosovo, he furthers that there is a lack of measures taken to promote
language skills in minority languages.
The current research aims at providing a critical analysis of language planning and policy in
Pakistan over time. Presenting the language profile of Pakistan will help us understand the
important linguistic information about Pakistani languages and contextualize the current
research. Furthermore, the research will offer a critique of language planning and policy in
Pakistan. Besides that, it will also encompass the impact of these policies on the indigenous
languages of the country. To facilitate the understanding, an analysis of the issues why the
indigenous language communities of the country feel marginalized and linguistically deprived
would also be discussed.

Results and Discussion

• Language profile of Pakistan
Pakistan is a heterogeneous multilingual country home to 73 languages, making it a rich
locale for linguistic research. This list of languages includes the national language Urdu which is
widely used in all nooks and corners of the country (Kamran, 2017; Mansoor, 2004); the
provincial languages like Punjabi, Pashto, Sindhi, Balochi used in respective provinces and other
indigenous languages used in local territories. In addition, the English language also remains
present in all-important power spheres of life (Noreen, Ahmed, & Esmail, 2015; Tariq Rahman,
2006). All these languages serve their purposes in specific domains of life with the expectation
that each language is given due importance in the context of the country, but this is not true. The
summary of the language profile of Pakistan is presented in Table 1:
Abbas & Bidin / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics 8(1) (2022) 85-96 88

Table 1: Language profile of Pakistan

Language Percentage Main areas
Urdu 7.08% Karachi and disintegrated all over Pakistan
Punjabi 38.78% Central and Upper Punjab
Sindhi 14.57% Sindh province
Pashto 18.24 % Khyber Pakhtoon Kha province
Balochi 3.02% Balochistan province
Siraiki 12.19 % Southern Punjab
Source: Bureau of Statistics, Pakistan (2017)
Both Urdu and English are the languages of education and are widely used in power domains
such as law, military and bureaucracy (Mahmood & Gondal, 2017; Tariq Rahman, 2006). Urdu
occupies the status of the national language and is considered representative of national identity in
the country (Kalin & Siddiqui, 2020; Tsui & Tollefson, 2017). It is the native language of the people
who migrated from India to Pakistan at the time of partition. Most of them started living in urban
Sindh, the southern province of Pakistan. Since they were highly educated, they occupied most of the
bureaucratic places in the country despite their numerical minority (Nathan, 2016). Although Urdu
has less than eight percent of native speakers, its importance is enormous as it serves the role of a
lingua franca in the country (A. Abbas & Shehzad, 2018; Kamran, 2017; Mahboob, 2017; Mahmood &
Gondal, 2017). The status of the English language is that of a second language and remains operative
in important spheres of life such as law, education, media, and others (Khalid, 2016; T. Khan, Imran,
Azhar, & Ilyas, 2015). As the legacy of British colonizers, it is considered a status symbol (T. J. Khan
& Khan, 2016; Umrani & Bughio, 2017) and is spoken widely by the highly influential portion of the
population. English is considered social capital as various institutions that teach the English language
indicate the inevitable role of English in the country. The ruling elite supports English as it ensures
social distinction (T Rahman, 1997).
Among all the languages spoken in the country, Punjabi has the highest number of speakers
and makes more than 44 percent. This language is majorly used in the whole country, but the
province of Punjab has a significant concentration of Punjabi speakers (Mahmood & Gondal,
2017; Tariq Rahman, 2017). However, over recent years, the importance and use of Punjabi are
on the decline. The main reason is that many educated parents prefer to speak in Urdu rather
than engage in conversation in Punjabi with their children (Zaidi, 2010). As a result, Urdu has
gained special status with the state of inertia and emotional association with Urdu as the chief
icon of Pakistani identity. However, since it is the language of the majority, its importance
remains well acknowledged (Murphy, 2018).
In other provinces such as Sindh, Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtoon Kha, provincial languages
like Sindhi, Balochi, and Pashto are widely used. Sindhi language is the provincial language of Sindh
province and belongs to the Indo-Aryan family of languages (Cole & Bruch, 2006). It represents Sindhi
identity and cultural heritage (Tariq Rahman, 2006), and is spoken widely in the Sindh province. This
language has its native speakers in Pakistan and some parts of India like Mumbai and Gujarat (Cole
& Bruch, 2006). Besides Urdu and English, it is also used as a medium of instruction at the school and
college levels (Shamim, 2008). It is the native language of more than 14.57% of the total population of
the country (Bureau of Statistics, Pakistan, 2017).
Similarly, the Balochi language is the provincial language of the Balochistan province and has the
3.02% of the native population in the country (Bureau of Statistics, Pakistan, 2017). Besides Pakistan,
it is also spoken in Iran and Afghanistan. This language has been associated with Baloch ethnic
community as they use it to mark their ethnic and cultural identity. Likewise, the Pashto language is
the language of most people living in the Khyber Pakhtoonkhawa and has more than 18.24 % of the
population in the country (Bureau of Statistics, Pakistan, 2017). More than 70 percent of the Khyber
Pakhtoonkhawa and the majority of the related tribal territories (i.e., about 16-17 million people) use
this language (Weinreich, 2010). Pashto speakers identify themselves as an ethnic group T. J. Khan
and Khan (2016) since they believe their culture and linguistic practices are distinct from the other
cultures and languages. Tariq Rahman (2006) contends that Pashto has been deployed as a marker of
Pakhtun identity by the ethno-nationalist Pakhtun leaders. Therefore, they desire to make it a symbol
of identity and use this language in power domains. It is essential to mention the Siraiki language
here, which though not a provincial language but is
Abbas & Bidin / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics 8(1) (2022) 85-96 89

among the six major languages spoken in the country. Its native population is concentrated in
the southern part of the Punjab province, contributing 12.19 % of native speakers to the
population of Pakistan (Bureau of Statistics, Pakistan, 2017).
• Language planning and policy in Pakistan
The country's linguistic diversity indicates that careful language planning is required to keep
a strong relationship between the federation and linguistic groups. Two constitutional bodies
formulate language policies in Pakistan; the parliament and the provincial assemblies. The
parliament can develop any language-related laws or policies (The constitution of Pakistan,
1973) as the national policies of language in education have been devised at various times by the
parliament. For example, Urdu was made the national language to unite ethnic groups hailing
from diverse linguistic backgrounds under the auspices of the Urdu language (Bughio, 2014).
Concerning policy-making at the provincial assembly, the provincial assembly as a policy-making
body at the provincial level may also formulate language policies to be implemented within the
boundary of a province.
Roistika describes that a provincial assembly in the country may prescribe measures to teach
or promote an indigenous language without any bias against the national language. Examples of
provincial-level policies include the Sindh provincial assembly implementing the Sindhi language
in education policy by making Sindhi a medium of instruction and promoting its teaching at
various levels in the province of Sindh (The LEP Sindh, 2006). The Balochistan assembly has
also implemented the teaching of the Balochi language. Unfortunately, there has been no
attention paid by the provincial assembly of Punjab to formulate language policies for language
promotion and preservation (Tariq Rahman, 2017). As a result, Punjabi and Siriaki, the two
major languages operative in the province, have become socially stigmatized languages.
The case is quite different in the Punjab province as the critics Tariq Rahman (2017); Rose and
Conama (2018) argue that Punjabi being in the majority, have not intentionally allowed it to happen.
They are already closer to power spheres like bureaucracy and the army; therefore, they find no need
to raise any linguistic promotion, resulting in the implementation of another language in the province
or at the national level. The Punjabis have been trying to merge other language communities,
especially the Siraikis (Ashraf, Turner, & Laar, 2021). Unfortunately, being more powerful, they have
benefited from the circumstances. Some critics Tariq Rahman (2006, 2007, 2017) believe that the
Siraiki community has also not made any committed efforts to promote and preserve their language.
They do not feel pride in their language and do not want to implement it despite the feeling that they
are being marginalized on socio-economic and political grounds.
As mentioned earlier, the linguistic profile of Pakistan is quite diverse and demands careful
language planning to promote the growth of national, provincial and indigenous languages.
Pakistan achieved independence in 1947, and during the earlier years of its independence, it
used the language policy developed by the British in colonial times. Therefore, it is necessary to
study the pre-independence era to understand the formation of language policies of the country
to understand the language policies of Pakistan developed later on. The most important
document to study in this regard is Macaulay Minutes, published in 1835. This document
recommended that English be institutionalized to assert the supremacy of English. Lord
Macaulay propounded that the purpose of the language policy was to develop an Anglicized
Indian nation with what he called "black skin with the white mind" (1835). This policy document
led to the abolition of oriental learning centers. As a result, fewer books were published in
Arabic, Persian and Sanskrit, with no stipend being spent on the study of the oriental subjects.
Even though there was much resistance by the Indians, Macaulay established English medium
instructions and a school system in India, leading to the gradual influence of English and its
promotion in the United India (India, Pakistan and Bangladesh).
In post-independence Pakistan, the language policies show traces of the British language policies.
Even after its independence in 1947, English has remained an important language in Pakistan in
important spheres of life. With the emergence of globalization, English poses an even more severe
threat to the local languages in Pakistan since it is used in education and law (Roistika). Besides
English as an official language, Urdu was used as the national language in the country and a source of
cohesion for uniting the various linguistic units in one bond. The result
Abbas & Bidin / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics 8(1) (2022) 85-96 90

was that Urdu was promoted in excess, which led to downplaying indigenous languages' roles.
From the very start, the decision was criticized and there existed serious disagreement between
East Pakistan (Currently Bangladesh) and West Pakistan (Currently Pakistan) regarding the
status of Urdu and Bangla. The Bangla-speaking community expected that their language would
be given the status of the national language since the majority spoke Bangla or Bengali. The
reason behind all this was the lack of farsightedness of our policy-makers that language policy
should consider political, social and regional ideas (Hassan et al., 2015). The first-ever
discussions on language policy in the meeting on education held in Karachi in 1947 led to the
eruption of linguistic riots (T Rahman, 1997). In addition, there was severe resentment regarding
the various steps taken to reduce the role of Bengali in the country. This resentment was
reflected in the results of the 1953 Election, where the Bengali language became a triumph card.
Keeping in view the tension between East and West Pakistan, the Sharif Commission was
established to investigate the situation and present its report. This Commission, appointed in
1959, recommended that both Urdu and Bengali should be made the languages of education in
government schools from 6th to matriculation. The situation had already worsened since the
recommendations came relatively late; the rift between East and West Pakistan was at its
boiling point. The slogan "one nation, one language" has damaged the collective interest of the
nation. The East division separated itself from the West and consequently, Bangladesh was
created as a result in 1971.
The following important phase in the formation of the language policy of Pakistan was the
formation of the first comprehensive constitution of Pakistan. As per the constitution, Urdu will
be the national language of Pakistan which should replace English as a medium of instruction in
the next 15 years (1973 – 1988). English will continue to work as the official status until Urdu
becomes mature enough to support all official matters. Moreover, regional or provincial
languages may be used in the provinces and support the national language (251 Article of the
1973 Constitution). According to this,
Clause1.The national language of Pakistan is Urdu and arrangements shall be made for its
being used for official and other purposes within the fifteen years from the commencing day.
Clause2. Subject to clause (1), the English language may be used for official purposes until
arrangements are made for its replacement by Urdu.
The constitution clearly stated that efforts would be made to replace English with Urdu and that
Urdu would serve as the national language and unite the nation. English was given legal protection
under this constitution. As such, there was no significant change in the language policy.
The first comprehensive national education policy was devised in 1978 by General Zia ul Haq
according to which Urdu should be used for teaching and all official matters. In the same year,
National Language Authority (Muqtadra Qaumi Zuban) was established to promote the Urdu
language and complete all requirements related to the Urdu language to help it obtain the status
of official language. This policy reflected a radical shift away from English as the English
medium schools were advised to shift to either Urdu or any other provincial language (NEP,
1978). English was only introduced in class 6 th, while Urdu was made to serve as a medium of
instruction. The official speeches were also to be made in Urdu. The establishment of Muqtadira
Qaumi Zaban (National Language Authority) in 1979 was another radical step towards
promoting Urdu to meet national demands of language. This policy was received with much
criticism and revised in 1992, promoting Urdu or English.
In 2002, Punjab and Singh governments initiated a conversion plan from Urdu and Sindhi
language to the English language as a medium of instruction from class 6, but that failed due to
the human, material and financial resources (Tariq Rahman, 2017). Moreover, the plan failed
due to a lack of research on the issue, flawed pragmatic concerns, and riddled political tensions;
the status quo continues. The language educational policy introduced in 2009 by Musharraf
Regime declares that English would be taught as a compulsory subject from class one. The
national language policy and language education policy (2009) elaborated that there were
problems with implementation in the way of its goals. There are significant problems such as
poverty reduction, social stratification, diverse educational institution and gender division which
are to be solved by the education language policy.
Abbas & Bidin / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics 8(1) (2022) 85-96 91

Based on the policy of 2009, the provinces developed their policies as per their needs. The Sindh
province imparted education in the Sindhi Language as per their Sindh Education Sector Plan for
2014-18, intending to improve educational conditions in Rural and Urban Sindh (SESP, 2014). The
mother tongue was to be used for the educational purpose of the Sindhi population. The situation in
Khyber Pakhtoon Kha (KPK) was no different from Sindh, as the people of the region established an
institution for the promotion of local languages and selected Pashto as a medium of instruction for
secondary education. The KPK government seemed to be working to devise the syllabus in their
regional languages. At the same time, English would be used for higher education (KPSP, 2010). In
the Punjab province, the education sector plan was introduced in 2013. As per this plan, English and
Urdu proficiency was the central part of learning at the secondary school level. However, English
would be considered the medium of instruction at the higher education level. Baluchistan followed the
footprints of Punjab since its education policy promoted mother tongues and Urdu at the primary
level. At the same time, English was adopted as the medium of instruction in higher studies at the
secondary level (Baluchistan Mother Tongue Act, 2014).
The latest language policy was introduced in 2017 (NEP, 2017-2025), in which the policy-
makers have tried to shift away from English centric education system. The primary role in the
educational sector has been allocated to the Urdu language, while efforts have been initiated
towards replacing English with Urdu in law and bureaucracy. Special attention has been paid to
the Arabic language by implementing its teaching in schools to help them understand Islam. The
current policy also aims at providing education to the learners in their mother tongues to
facilitate learning at the school level. At the same time, the importance of English has been
highlighted as a language of global connectivity. There have been some organizations that have
played an important role in promoting local languages. Amongst these, the role of the National
Language Authority (Urdu) has been remarkable in promoting the Urdu language (A. Abbas &
Shehzad, 2018). The Pashto speakers have also invested time and energy in promoting the
Pashto language under The Pashtu Academy, in which they provide learners with the
opportunity to speak and promote their language.
A critical perusal of the development of language policies in Pakistan indicates that the focus
has been oscillating between English and Urdu. One of the important issues was the selection of
an appropriate medium of instruction to be implemented in education. The study of language
policies formulated at the national level shows that the ethnic languages were not provided much
space for growth. Urdu was considered ethnic neutral language and was promoted to bring all
ethnolinguistic communities under one platform. Although English was estimated to undergo its
replacement by Urdu by 1988, as stated in the constitution of 1973, unfortunately, it could not be
materialized (Roistika). The overriding dominance of English as the global language and the
aggressive promotion of Urdu as the national language have focused on language planning and
policy in Pakistan. The policy-makers have neither paid due attention to ethnic and linguistic
groups nor evaluated the reaction of these linguistic groups to different language policies in
Pakistan (Ahmad & Khan, 2017; Ashraf et al., 2021). With reference to provincial-level policy-
making, the provinces of Sindh, Balochistan and Khyber Paktoon Kha have made serious efforts
towards promoting the provincial languages Sindhi, Balochi and Pashto respectively. But
unfortunately, languages other than the provincial languages have been ignored in the policy
initiatives at the provincial level.
• Impact of language policies on indigenous languages of Pakistan
A close examination of language policies of Pakistan reveals that Urdu has been promoted
excessively at the cost of the indigenous languages (Tariq Rahman, 2007). As a result, the speakers of
languages like Punjabi, Siraiki, Pashto, Sindhi and other languages feel deprived because their
languages have not been provided equal growth opportunities. The sense of deprivation among the
speakers of indigenous languages has resulted in an uprising among these communities and they have
started voicing their linguistic rights. The significant consequence of the favoring of Urdu was ethnic
resistance to it (T Rahman, 1997) and a deep sense of dispossession among the speakers of other than
the Urdu language. The speakers of these languages believe their language to be their ethnic identity
and a symbol of their existence (Tariq Rahman, 1995, 2006). Even though the ethnic activists agree
that Urdu provides a valuable networking language between various ethnic groups, they resist it
because of its over-emphasized patronization by the ruling elite (Rahman,
Abbas & Bidin / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics 8(1) (2022) 85-96 92

2011). In short, the patronization of Urdu has created ethnic antagonism, strengthened ethnicity
and threatened the linguistic and cultural diversity prevalent in the country.
The formation of ethnolinguistic communities has resulted from such a situation given above.
These speech communities are also called ethnolinguistic communities because they share
different elements of ethnicity like ancestry, geographical area and cultural norms. The speakers
of these languages consider their mother tongue languages a marker of their identity and strive
for certain rights based on their language. They have presented demands for recognizing their
economic, political and linguistic rights. These communities qualify to be called ethnic speech or
ethnolinguistic communities in the light of the framework provided by Fishman (2001). Fishman
(2001) identified subjective parameters such as belief in common descent, focus on symbols and
phenomenology, and objective characteristics, including language practices and cultural practices
for forming an ethnic community. The speakers of Pakistani indigenous languages qualify to be
called ethnolinguistic communities as they use their mother language as a marker of their ethnic
identities and strive for their rights. The linguistic map will help the readers mark the
geographical locations of the ethnolinguistic communities and the concentration of their
population in the country.

Fig. 1.1. Ethnolinguistic Regions of Pakistan

The formation of ethnolinguistic communities is not a recently emerged phenomenon but has roots
in history. Since the separation of Pakistan from the United India, there had been a severe conflict on
which language would be given the status of the national or state language. The Bengali language was
the most widely spoken and Bengalis demanded to make it the national language (Islam, 2008). This
politico-lingual problem kept on gaining momentum over time and ultimately led to the separation of
East Pakistan, now called Bangladesh. However, the government's language policy always missed the
balance between nationalism and nation-ism (Mansoor, 2004).
Despite the Bangladesh episode, no efforts were made for the national unification of
language policies or to provide a solid base for solving the language problems. Hassan et al.
(2015) further argue that the dilemma is not of implementation, but the lack of attention paid to
regional and provincial languages. The fruitless one-prong approach to impose Urdu as a
unifying force and marker of national identity continued and has ultimately resulted in many
linguistically oriented movements in the country. The separation of Bangladesh was also the
consequence of language conflict, similar to the situation in the Sindh province. Hassan et al.
(2015) narrated that the Sindhi community felt that the Urdu speakers availed themselves of
better job opportunities because of their language. Consequently, the Sindhi community
protested this linguistic racism and protested to replace Urdu with Sindhi in language policy.
Abbas & Bidin / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics 8(1) (2022) 85-96 93

A critical analysis of the language policies of Pakistan also provides some evidence that the
policies were intermingled with some covert political goals (Sikandar, 2017; Tsui & Tollefson,
2017). The language policies ignored the fundamental problems of regionalism and tended to
support the unification of all sections of society by a single language. This situation requires the
need to conduct research to analyze the language attitude of these communities to investigate
the ground realities by collecting empirical data. The theorists and researchers have contended
that the situation must be critically and empirically investigated to help devise policies to include
these deprived linguistic groups in mainstream life (Gulzar & Qadir, 2010). There is a need to
promote their languages; otherwise, the situation may worsen, as it had happened in the East
and West Pakistan language controversy. Pakistan lost the East Part within 25 years of its
creation as Bengalis parted their way and became independent. The separation of the East wing
of Pakistan is attributed to the non-inclusion and deprivation of Bengali speakers as their
language was not given proper importance. The unrealistic language policies and lack of
acknowledgment of the rights of the indigenous ethnolinguistic communities resulted in the
separation of Bangladesh (Hamid, 2011; Jabeen, Chandio, & Qasim, 2020; Jan, 2016; Johnson,
2013) and if the situation remains to be the same, the history may be repeated.
The critics Manan, David, and Dumanig (2016); Tsui and Tollefson (2017) argue that the language
policies of Pakistan have served to over-patronize Urdu at the expense of other languages, considering
it a cohesive national symbol. The role of provincial and other indigenous languages has been
underplayed and that is why the speakers of indigenous languages have raised ethnic voices to
preserve their ethnolinguistic rights (Adeney, 2016; BalDauf Jr, 2006; Kamwendo, 2005). Pakistan
still needs an effective language policy and its sustainable implementation.

Conclusion
The language planning and policy in different government tenures in Pakistan have not produced
fruitful results. The unproductive language planning has resulted in the language being used as a
marker of ethnic identity and manipulates the sentiments of aggrieved ethnolinguistic communities.
Pakistan is prone to ethnic politics rooted deeply in language, which can be seen across the country. It
can be concluded that language planning and policy impacted Pakistani society in two ways; firstly,
the policy contributed to society's social stratification and, secondly, resulted in a decline of the status
of regional languages. The commitment of the Pakistani state to using Urdu as the medium of
instruction in government schools and its ambition to widen access to English language teaching has
created barriers to adequate education, limiting economic mobility and undermining social cohesion.
Similarly, it has also led to a gradual decline in regional languages such as Balochi, Hindko, Siraiki,
Pashto, Punjabi and Sindi. These languages seem to be neglected even though the constitution of
Pakistan and various commissions on language policy have provisions for their preservation and
promotion. Moreover, the speakers of the regional vernaculars are developing negative attitudes
towards their languages, which leads to a language shift away from indigenous languages. The
present study implicates a dire need to create a sense of solidarity among all the languages,
acknowledge them and provide growth opportunities. Critics argue that if the situation persists and
the deep sense of deprivation suffered by local ethnolinguistic groups is not alleviated, it may lead to
tragic consequences such as linguistic riots.
In conclusion, it is recommended that all languages must be given institutional promotion and
legal protection through language policies. Furthermore, while devising language planning and policy
(LPP), the policymakers must consider all elements related to the local society members and the needs
of regional languages by promoting both nationalism and nation-ism simultaneously. This article calls
for a paradigm change, considering linguistic diversity as a resource for strengthening national unity
and not as a problem and considering linguistic diversity. Keeping in view the importance of education
in language development. the present study suggests making a dynamic bilingual education policy.
The scrutiny of secondary data reveals that dynamic, bilingual education can improve students' socio-
cognition as well as provide social equality and justice to the other local languages. Moreover, it also
has the potential to resolve Pakistan's language problems as it has worked out for the language
problems of other countries. Even though there are various challenges to dynamic bilingual education,
some prospects also ensure the positive results of the enforcement of the bilingual instruction policy in
Pakistan. The present study also contributes to the field of bilingual education and policy planning on
Abbas & Bidin / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics 8(1) (2022) 85-96 94

the new emerging model in bilingual education. This research paper is essential as it will
facilitate policymakers and policy planners to recognize the advantages of Pakistan's dynamic
bilingual education policy. Likewise, this research will also set the way for applied linguists to do
more investigation in the field of bilingual education through diverse research designs.

References
Abbas, A., & Shehzad, W. (2018). Prospects of Mother Tongue as Medium of Education in Pakistan.
ARIEL-An International Research Journal of English Language and Literature, 28, 17-
29.
Abbas, Jalil, Zaki & Irfan (2020). Implicit Measure of Language Attitude: Study of Punjabi
Native Speakers by Using Matched Guise Technique. International Journal of
Innovation, Creativity and Change, 13 (1), 194-206.
Adeney, K. (2016). Federalism and ethnic conflict regulation in India and Pakistan, 44-52. :
Springer.
Agheyisi, R., & Fishman, J. A. (1970). Language attitude studies: A brief survey of
methodological approaches. Anthropological linguistics, 137-157.
Ahmad, A., & Khan, A. (2017). Provincial Autonomy and Devolution of Language Policy in
Pakistan: Retrospect and Prospect. Pakistan Journal of social Sciences (PJSS), 37(1).
Ashraf, M. A., Turner, D. A., & Laar, R. A. (2021). Multilingual language practices in education
in Pakistan: The conflict between policy and practice. SAGE Open, 11(1),
21582440211004140. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211004140
BalDauf Jr, R. B. (2006). Rearticulating the case for micro language planning in a language ecology
context. Current issues in language planning, 7(2-3), 147-170.
doi:https://doi.org/10.2167/cilp092.0
Baldauf Jr, R. B., Li, M., & Zhao, S. (2008). 17 Language Acquisition Management Inside and
Outside the School. The handbook of educational linguistics, 233.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470694138.ch17
Bamgbose, A. (1989). Issues for a model of language planning. Language problems and language
planning, 13(1), 24-34. doi:https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.13.1.03bam
Barkhuizen, G., & Knoch, U. (2006). Macro-level policy and micro-level planning: Afrikaans-
speaking immigrants in New Zealand. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 3-
1. doi:https://doi.org/10.2104/aral0603
Bughio, M. Q. (2014). Determining the status and use of languages spoken in Pakistan. Darnioji
daugiakalbystė(4), 46-56. doi:https://doi.org/10.7220/2335-2027.4.3
Cole, M. S., & Bruch, H. (2006). Organizational identity strength, identification, and commitment and
their relationships to turnover intention: Does organizational hierarchy matter? Journal of
Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and
Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 27(5), 585-605. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/job.378
Fishman, J. A. (2001). Can threatened languages be saved?: Reversing language shift, revisited:
A 21st century perspective (Vol. 116). Multilingual Matters.
García, O., & Menken, K. (2015). Cultivating an ecology of multilingualism in schools. Challenges
for language education and policy: Making space for people, 95-108.
Gulzar, M. A., & Qadir, S. A. (2010). Issues of Language (s) Choice and Use: A Pakistani
Perspective. Pakistan Journal of social Sciences (PJSS), 30(2).
Hamid, M. O. (2011). Planning for failure: English and language policy and planning. Handbook
of language and ethnic identity: The success-failure continuum in language and ethnic
identity efforts, 2, 192.
Hassan, A., Dilpu, N., Gill, M., & Kasuar, S. (2015). Language Planning and Language Policy Dillema
in Pakistan, International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Culture, 2 (4): 1-11.
Hornberger, N. H. (1994). Literacy and language planning. Language and education, 8(1-2), 75-
86. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09500789409541380
Islam, R. (2008). The Bengali Language Movement and Emergence of Bangladesh. Dhaka
University Journal of Linguistics, 1(1), 221-232.
Jabeen, M., Chandio, D. A. A., & Qasim, Z. (2020). Language controversy: impacts on national
politics and secession of East Pakistan. South Asian Studies, 25(1).
Jan, F. (2016). Communication and Language Policy in Pakistan. Putaj Humanities & Social
Sciences, 23(2).
Johnson, D. C. (2013). What is language policy? In Language Policy (pp. 3-25): Springer.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137316202_1
Abbas & Bidin / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics 8(1) (2022) 85-96 95

Kalin, M., & Siddiqui, N. (2020). National identity, religious tolerance, and group conflict: Insights
from a survey experiment in Pakistan. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 37(1), 58-
82. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0738894217724568
Kamran, S. (2017). Globalization and language use on social media in Pakistan. European Journal of
Language and Literature, 3(2), 79-84. doi:https://doi.org/10.26417/ejls.v8i1.p79-84
Kamwendo, G. H. (2005). Language planning from below: An example from Northern Malawi.
Language Policy, 4(2), 143-165. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-005-3514-8
Kaplan, R. B., & Baldauf, R. B. (1997). Language planning from practice to theory (Vol. 108):
Multilingual Matters.
Khalid, A. (2016). A study of the attitudes and motivational orientations of Pakistani learners
toward the learning of English as a second language. SAGE Open, 6(3),
2158244016665887. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016665887
Khan, T., Imran, M., Azhar, M. A., & Ilyas, Z. (2015). 01 Multilingualism and Cross-gender
Language Proclivity: A Sociolinguistic Perspective of Pakistan. Journal of Gender and
Social Issues, 14(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2016.42021
Khan, T. J., & Khan, N. (2016). Obstacles in learning English as a second language among
intermediate students of districts Mianwali and Bhakkar, Pakistan. Open Journal of
Social Sciences, 4(02), 154. doi:https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2016.42021
Liddicoat, A. J., & Baldauf, R. B. (2008). Language planning in local contexts: Agents, contexts and
interactions. Language planning and policy: Language planning in local contexts, 3-17.
doi:https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847690647-002
Mahboob, A. (2017). English medium instruction in higher education in Pakistan: Policies,
perceptions, problems, and possibilities. English medium instruction in higher education
in Asia-Pacific, 71-91. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51976-0_5
Mahmood, T., & Gondal, M. B. (2017). Effect of school environment on students’ achievement:
cross comparison of Urdu and English medium classes in Punjab province. Pakistan
Journal of Education, 34(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.30971/pje.v34i1.191
Manan, S. A., David, M. K., & Dumanig, F. P. (2016). English language teaching in Pakistan:
Language policies, delusions and solutions. In English language education policy in Asia
(pp. 219-244): Springer. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22464-0_10
Mansoor, S. (2004). The status and role of regional languages in higher education in Pakistan.
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 25(4), 333-353.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/01434630408666536
Murphy, A. (2018). Remembering a Lost Presence: The Spectre of Partition in the Stories of
Lahore-Based Punjabi-Language Author Zubair Ahmed. In Partition and the Practice of
Memory (pp. 231-254): Springer. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64516-2_11
Nathan, A. J. (2016). The pakistan paradox:: Instability and resilience. Foreign Affairs, 95(2), 60.
Noreen, S., Ahmed, M., & Esmail, A. (2015). Ro le of students’ motivation, attitude and anxiety in
learning English at intermediate level in Pakistan: A gender based study. Educational
Research International, 4(2), 96-108.
Rahman, T. (1995). Language planning and politics in Pakistan,1-51.: Sustainable Development
Policy Institute.
Rahman, T. (1997). Language and Ethnicity in Pakistan. Asian Survey. 37(9) (Sep.,1997), 833-
839. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/2645700
Rahman, T. (2006). Language policy, multilingualism and language vitality in Pakistan. Trends
in linguistics studies and monographs, 175, 73.
Rahman, T. (2007). Language planning in higher education: A case study of Pakistan, 41 (2): 433-
436. . In: JSTOR.
Rahman, T. (2017). Soft Power of Punjabi: Language in the Domain of Pleasure. Journal of
Punjab Studies, 24.
Ricento, T. (2006). Language policy: Theory and practice–An introduction. An introduction to
language policy: Theory and method, 10, 23. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-005-3200-x
Ricento, T. K., & Hornberger, N. H. (1996). Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and policy and
the ELT professional. Tesol Quarterly, 30(3), 401-427. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/3587691
Roistika, N. (2019). Language Policy and Planning in Multilingual Countries: A case in India,
Pakistan, and Bangladesh. doi:https://doi.org/10.2991/conaplin-18.2019.117
Rose, H., & Conama, J. B. (2018). Linguistic imperialism: still a valid construct in relation to
language policy for Irish Sign Language. Language Policy, 17(3), 385-404.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-017-9446-2
Abbas & Bidin / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics 8(1) (2022) 85-96 96

Shamim, F. (2008). Trends, issues and challenges in English language education in Pakistan. Asia
Pacific Journal of Education, 28(3), 235-249. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/02188790802267324
Sikandar, A. (2017). Language policy planning in Pakistan: A review. Pakistan Business Review,
19(1), 267-272.
Spooner, B. (2012). 10. Balochi: Towards a Biography of the Language. In Language Policy and
Language Conflict in Afghanistan and Its Neighbors (pp. 319-336): Brill.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004217652_011
Tollefson, J. W. (1981). Centralized and decentralized language planning. Language problems
and language planning, 5(2), 175-188. doi:https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.5.2.04tol
Truscott, A., & Malcolm, I. (2010). Closing the policy–practice gap: Making Indigenous language
policy more than empty rhetoric. Re-awakening languages: Theory and practice in the
revitalisation of Australia’s Indigenous languages, 6-21.
Tsui, A. B. M., & Tollefson, J. W. (2017). Language policy, culture, and identity in Asian contexts:
Routledge. doi:https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315092034
Umrani, T., & Bughio, F. A. (2017). Language politics and role of English in Pakistan. ARIEL-An
International Research Journal of English Language and Literature, 26.
Weinreich, M. (2010). Language Shift in Northern Pakistan: The Case of Domaakí and
Pashto. Iran and the Caucasus, 14(1), 43-56.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1163/157338410X12743419189342
Windham, D. M. (1975). The macro-planning of education: Why it fails, why it survives, and the
alternatives. Comparative Education Review, 19(2), 187-201.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1086/445817
Wright, S. (2004). Language policy and planning: From nationalism to globalization.
PalgraveMacmillan, Hampshire.
Yudina, N., Melnichuk, M., & Seliverstova, O. (2020). Language Policy and Planning in Russia,
China and the USA through the Lens of Mass Media of the 21-st Century. Journal of
Social Studies Education Research, 11(3), 242-269.
Zaidi, A. (2010). A postcolonial sociolinguistics of Punjabi in Pakistan. Journal of postcolonial
cultures and societies, 1(3), 22-55.