Bushman said:
Brother I dont agree with you,with this Belgium Example.1. Sure swizerland even more oficial languages,but there litteracy rate is very very high same with Belgium. 2. These countries are part of a groupe which have no enimies at their borders not only that,you show me any overt or covert interfierence of CIA,Mosad,MI6 or even KGB in Belgium which sports local splitter groups like BLA,TTP,and many others.Pakistan must need a commen language which unifies the country.Any division based on language,culture,race color,religion,Area,unjust division of Resources,ect ect our enemies will drive a wedge in there.Thats how British Raj was established and successfully run for 200 years in the subcontinent.For your information why you think Hongkong became British colony,becuse this is the only province of china which speaks cantonese where rest of china speaks mandarine.The british drove the wedge right in there.
I would respectfully disagree with you. Yes the situation in Belgium is quite different but the point is that you can have more than one pfficial language. Also wjat what would you say of the Indian example. They have more regional languages and all of them are official languages in those states with English being the overall national language.
I have nothing agains Urdu, my only point is that at the time of creation of Pakistan this laguage was spoken by 5% of Pakistanis. So why would we expect that all other laguages that are older, in amny ways richer, and represent separate cultures should be relegated to a secondary status. Wasnt this one of the issues that West Pakistan had with us, they objected, among other things, that why should they speak a langauage that is not theirs. If you wanted one language then why not have Bengali, which was at least spoken by more than 50% of Pakistanis. Second thing is that we even did not handle Urdu properly, we did not really develop it enough, we did not translate all the research in it. Take the example of Chinese, yes they have one language as their officail language but then they have a whole offiial department that translates every international research and work in Chinese so that Chinese scholars are kept up to date.
I agree with you that British have exploited our differences in the past but look at it with some historical perspective. We were not exploited by the British because we were culturally different, we were actually exploited by them because we did not have common interests and common goals. You cannot keep a country together by having the same language, wearing the same dress, eating the same way etc. You keep people together by creating common interests, and common goals. In our case one common interest is very clear if we are divided then our enemies will destroy us and this is what we need to understand that we are powerful and strong as long as we are together and united in a common goal but with our differences.
Differences are not bad. In a divese population diversity if applied and used properly can be a source of strenght. The fact is that Punjbis, Sindhis, Baluchis, and Pashtoons are different culturally, socially, and historically. The better way to create nation is to accept these differences, as they actually exist, give every body their due right and resources, and utilize these differences to strenghten our country.
