Daily Times

According to the global language database Ethnologue, Pakistan’s linguistic diversity accounts for 73 languages including the nine languages that are mentioned in the census form of 2017.

The other 64 languages are categorised as the “other” languages.

The term “celebrating diversity” has been consistently used in Pakistan’s context by policy makers, subject experts, and artists during the last two-three decades and fortunately for all the right reasons including promotion of peaceful society. The alarming question however here is; how can diversity be claimed to be celebrated when 64 languages are not even recognised properly?

This “representation” of other languages has drawn controversy from various ethnic groups, and rightly so. Language is an aspect of identity; Ignoring it is like ignoring ones’ identity. This preferred inclusion of only major languages spoils the essence of the nature of population count, i.e., inclusiveness. Only a diversity-inclusive approach can make this census a success as it will assess the entire socio-economic landscape of Pakistan after 19 years.

This hints at the cultured exclusionist nature of our society. Considering all 73 are living languages, the government’s biased stance by declaring the other languages being spoken in regions that are sparsely populated is invalid.

It is hard tounderstand why must all the languages not be represented in a national census form?

The Pakistan Bureau of Statistics should have taken into account the results of the 1981 and 1998 census’ that indicated flaws in the ethnic count.

19 years to develop a form that compliments Pakistan’s multi-ethnic picture is sufficient, to say the least, yet there is a failure in achieving this task. Why these 19 years were not enough, is a question that needs to be answered.

This exclusionism is a major glitch for the long-awaited census as it rounds up controversies that indicate the state discrimination against ethnic groups. The languages included in the form are Urdu, Punjabi, Sindhi, Pashto, Balochi, Brahvi, Kashmiri, Seraiki and Hindko, three of which were not included in the 1998 census. Giving a representative status to only three languages does not seem fair to the remaining 64. The point is if there was no space to incorporate all the names, at least the languages that represent their respective regions should be represented.

Gilgit-Baltistan has no ethnic representation in the form, neither do Chitral or any other language that is eligible for the status of “regional” language. WhileGilgit-Baltistan is still struggling for its constitutional inclusion in Pakistan, the state has ripped them off of giving them a major ethnic representation in the census. This is like selective discrimination against these specific regions in all spheres. It simply seems like the state has become immune to any controversy that is hurled at them and tends to take no notice of it beforehand.

The government denies discrimination against any ethnic group pointing that the count of every language is not possible. However, it needs some hard work and time to perform the count without pulling in any controversy. What they could do is to leave at least a blank space where the individual mentions the language themselves rather than marking on one of the nine mentioned languages or “others”. This saves paper and pulls no controversy. But then time is what the government does not have. 19 years are just not enough for the government to include all 73 languages in a census form.

It merely brings the argument to parallels with the inefficiencies or lack of realisation of the importance of the issue in this regard. Maybe the authority is trying to avoid too much maths here. But then what is the purpose of conducting the census? If one excludes the ethnic representation of 88 percent of the languages spoken in the country, how does one measure the shift in the socio-economic landscape and design policies to address this shift? If the government is paving an easy way out of getting into the hurdle of categorising individuals under 73 ethnic backgrounds, how can it resolve the issues faced by these individuals in their respective communities?

The point of concern here is also the lack of government’s focus on promoting the 64 other languages. Languages are a critical part of culture, and with minimum attention given to these aforementioned other languages, there also looms a threat that with time these languages can become endangered species. This is a threat even bigger than the one that has been attempted to highlight in this article. The State needs to realise the graveness of the issue and not only incorporate the “other languages” in the census but also devise sustainable strategies for their promotion.

Good news is for the first time;third gender finally gets a representation in the population count. Maybe a wait of another 19 years will gain representation in the census form for the 64 remaining languages.

The writer is a development consultant. She tweets at @GulminaBilal and can be reached at coordinator@individualland.com