There cannot be a culture, a language and an economy for an isolated individual. These three human activities are interconnected. As humankinds are social beings, their social co-operation and interactions necessitate the birth of such relations. These activities are inseparable. They are the outcome of no plan or a design. They have emerged spontaneously. Neither language nor culture and economy are the effect of an ad hoc creation of a definite act of an unknown person. They are products of certain processes. Their necessity becomes imperative under certain conditions. The necessity of human interaction is the common denominator of these three human endeavours. The recognition of this necessity is the paramount concern of this paper.
Any established human community takes time to be formed and flourish. Time is another ingredient for any language, culture and economy to be constructed. All these three human categories are not fixed and absolute. They are in a continuous state of flux. As they demonstrate to be unworkable, a new order and arrangement will take their place. Such human categories exist by convention not by nature. They are the outcome of the exigencies of varying circumstances. This is analogous to saying that they are contingent categories. They adjust with the changing conditions of life and the environment.
It is the dependency of these categories on each other that act as a force for further change and re-adjustment. The cohesive unison of a society is kept by the sinews of its language, culture and economy. This has been abundantly proven by the experience of every advanced nation that the shift in their society largely is a combined act of these three categories. The outstanding fact is if, indeed, these categories are set in an appropriate environment, they can be vibrant and dynamic but in a hostile environment they remain lifeless and stagnant. Subject to these qualifications, I will try to explore some of the implications and effects of these categories in the context of Balochistan.
The Necessity of Language
Language is a human phenomenon. We do not find other species to use language. No human community can be constructed, evolve and survive without some form of language. Language is a necessity for co-operation and interaction. On this account, language was not the invention of one person or a discovery that took place in an exact moment in time. It is a product of a necessity. Human race cannot survive living in solitary and in complete seclusion. On this matter a definite conclusion can be established. To believe in human as not a social being would be the proposition - the absurdity of which no one can fail to see. Consistent with circumstances of the time, therefore, people come together in certain geographical locations. It is this inescapable interaction of people with each other that demand for a language.
Interacting with each other as in a group, in a community or as in a nation requires a means of communication and this necessity has led to the development of all sorts of languages. Language is people’s own making. It is a worked out conclusion of being and living together. The chief requirement of the rise of language is the necessity of living together. As the scale of interactions becomes more extensive and complex, both in nature and scope, the need for a tool of communication will become greater. With this tool one can express one’s most hidden feelings, desires, needs, anxieties and thoughts. On this basis all languages are inherently the same. They share the same logical foundation. Intriguing though equally telling is the fact that all languages have built-in potential to evolve and expand. The orbit of their expansion is boundless but can be restricted by certain adverse social, economic and political constraints.
In this respect no language is better or worse than any other language. A language spoken by one community or nation is as important as any other language spoken by other communities or nations. The right of each language to exist is no less or more valid than any other language. They all stand on par to one another. In view of that, to deny this right for whatever reason would be undermining the most basic right of those people that use that specific language.
None of that many human cultural, moral, scientific and philosophical ventures would have been possible without use of language. Language is the storage of all these human endeavours and many more. The human experiences, thoughts and creativity in all its multi-dimensions are expressed and preserved in the body of our languages. The past, the present and the future are joined by the means of language. By this device the contribution and the experience of past generations are solidified and are brought into light to the present and future generations. Language is the principal source of articulating our thoughts and our deepest feelings and beliefs. Denying one to communicate and express in one’s mother tongue is not, therefore, just inhumane but also economically grossly wasteful.
Cultures Do Not Exist in a Vacuum
A culture, in the same way as a language or an economy does not exist in a vacuum. It is neither a construction of a single individual nor is it a consciously designed human activity. Cultures have neither originated by pure chance nor by consciously pure design. They have emerged as the necessity demanded, as a historical process. As people cannot function in isolation their dependence on each other require the establishment of rules of behaviour and interaction. At its core that is all there is in a culture.
One isolated individual cannot manufacture a culture. The seeds of construction and destruction of cultures are sown in the dependency of people living in groups and communities. Interactions of certain individuals living in groups germinate cultures and then each culture follows its own narrative inertia. Out of necessity and in the spirit of time certain relations between these individuals and groups of individuals would begin to emerge. These relationships can fall into two groups: a) voluntary codes and etiquettes of behaviour and b) compulsory social, legal and moral values and principles.
At any rate, these issues are all closely and inextricably interconnected. However, the rudiments of any culture are in the former group. In course of time; certain habits, values and etiquettes would evolve and develop into customs that define a group of people and community. These values are expected to be practiced by anyone who happens to be born and live in that community. Constant conjunction of events would shape, reshape and add to the storage of customs. A nation’s culture is effectively extrapolated from this baggage of customs. The baggage is then passed down by one generation to another generation while the content of the baggage keeps changing. The contents are altered little by little by unpredictable historical upheavals and events. For this reason, each community or nation tends to form and develop a unique culture of its own.
In the second category of relationships between individuals the compulsory social, legal and moral values are determined by political, economic and ideological compulsions. States’ orders and decrees in time can be converted to new values, codes and rules. Then people have no choices but to follow such instructions and then these instructions in time will become accepted as norms.
One’s access or lack of access to economic resources would also determine in which social group one may find oneself. In this case, it is economic association that defines people’s relations to one another. Subsequently, that in time will establish social classes who share similar way of living, habits, customs and interests.
One element in the pathology of compulsory formation of a culture stems from the dominant beliefs. Everyone is born in some prearranged surroundings. The agents involved in these social settings, all without exception, believe in certain religions and moral values. On this very issue, children are the hostage of their parents’ belief system. Their choices are confined to their parents and community’s prevailing creed. They are and would be indoctrinated with the religious and moral values and dogmas that are practiced among the parents and the community at large.
The composition of these voluntary and compulsory codes, values, etiquette and rules, in effect, comprise a body of culture. Each constituent of a culture is necessary but not a sufficient condition for survival of a culture. Contrary to popular belief in superior culture, lack of sophistication or deficiency in some elements of a culture is not a ground for rejection of a culture. On the face of it, however, it seems a much reasonable thing to do so. But nothing could be further from the truth. The logical conclusion of this doctrine would be to level the bearer of that culture, intentionally, as savages and uncultivated people. This saying implicitly would classify these people into somewhat subspecies and would treat them accordingly. Herein lies the predicament of tyrannical substitution of a locked up culture by the conquering colonial rulers. Imperial policy of forceful annihilation of less competitive cultures is a case in point here.
The elements that make up any culture are contingent to conditions of life. They are contingent to specific geographical location, to economic, legal, political and technological development. They are subject to change and transformation as these factors change. The dynamism, stagnation and adaptation of a culture to a new environment will also dependents on these contingent factors. Consequently, as people learn about the restrictive aspects of their culture, they would remove these barriers and substitute them with more progressive ones. In this way you will have a culture that develops organically. This approach is a more judicious and democratic way of dealing with the archaic and destructive toxics of a culture. A culture that moves forward by the means of its own internal necessities in an open and free environment will serves the interest of its own people. In contrast, a culture dictated by an occupying state and establishment tend to serve their interest and supremacy.
Economy and Economic Development
The decisive question that one needs to answer about any economic activity is how did it begin in the first place? All human economic activities ultimately and invariably can be compressed to a biological necessity. Nothing is antecedent to this necessity. This fact is always applicable - right from the inception of human species till their advances into the modern era. The underlying motive is necessity of staying alive. This is the overlaying pre-requisite of all necessities. In conformity with this rule, varying economic structures and formation are the inevitable consequence of this necessity.
For any human being to live and survive they need food, water and shelter and so on. These very basic requirements of existence force individuals to engage and interact with their natural environment. All the same, the provision of the most basic requirements of life is possible even by an isolated individual living alone in a detached location. But for such an economic setting no language and no culture is required. This state of affairs is feasible due to the nature of production. It can be stated with assurance that the most elementary building block of any economic relations, production, can be carried out even by a single person. In contrast, no language and no culture can be practiced merely by one person.
It is hard to imagine any viable economic formation comprising of less than two individuals. The very idea is unsound and impracticable. It can be admitted in principle but hardly applied. Therefore, all economic systems consist of many individuals with different employment of tasks. Moreover, irrespective of the economic formation and system, they all emerge and operate within a given language and culture. There cannot be an economic formation or system divorced from a language and a culture. An economy is merely an integral part of the culture in which it operates. But both the culture and the economy are embedded in the language in which they are expressed and communicated. Each language, therefore, stamps its approval on the nature and dynamism of the economic system that operates under its territory.
Subject to these qualifications, a language that is kept undeveloped and a culture that is kept rigid would hinder economic development. Economic progress, other factors remain the same, would be higher under a culture and a language that are vibrant and able to adapt to new challenges and opportunities. They lift up the economy to be more dynamic and self-propelling. In turn, a vibrant economy can generate the income and investment both in advancing and in enriching the given language and culture. But at any one time an economy performs better if it is armed with a more effective language and a more malleable, open and genuine culture. The performance of an economy, therefore, can be affected adversely by the limits that a language entails and from harmful cultural prohibitions.
In the science of mainstream economics, an economy is detached from the language and the culture under which it operates. Economy has a life of its own. The main indicators of economic performance; economic growth, employment, balance of payments, inflation and so on are set apart from the language and the culture. Ultimately, the aim of all economic activities is reduced to economic growth. It is taken as the central economic indicator and measured as the percentage change in GDP. That is to say the total output, income or expenditure of a country. The source of this misunderstanding, to a degree, lies in their gross underestimation of factors such colonialism, illegal occupation, forceful subjugation and political system. They give prominence to GDP to the detriment of the political system and the history of each country. The country could be forged by any means or ruled by any political philosophy. The erroneous nature of this worldview is concealed in the fact that it overlooks the costs that the occupied people endure in every sense of the word.
When it comes to less developed economies, the cause of under-development is also sought in economic growth. Equally odd in this is their understanding of the cause of lack of development. It is associated primarily with low GDP per head. The two most important obstacles to development are said to be low investment and high population growth. Other secondary obstacles that prevent development are argued to be; lack of foreign direct investment, lack of infrastructure, under-developed financial market, poor resources, education and international trade.
The suggested theories and policies to promote development are also confined to these primary and secondary obstacles of economic development. Among the best known underdevelopment theories are dependency theory, the Harrod-Domar model, and Rostow’s stages of growth theory. In their final analysis, all these theories and policy prescriptions, aim to improve investment and prevent high birth rates.
Both theories and policy prescriptions, by and large, are the work of western educational institutions or the international organizations such as IMF, the World Bank and the UN. Their analyses are drawn, primarily, from the experience of developed economies and the prevailing political geography. This approach, attentively or un-attentively, fails to see the innermost formative factors that are detrimental in the development of nations that are under illegal occupation. It is a fact that the trendy erudite sweeping generalizations about economic development, in relation to stateless nations, engender more heat than light. Equally erroneous are the prescriptions offered. They are without any trace of analysis and independent inquiry on the very area on which such prescription are given. Consequently, both descriptions and prescriptions on stateless nations are at their best irrelevant and at worst absurd. The superfluous nature and un-workability of these monolithic grand theories of development can be exposed very clearly in the context of stateless nation such as Balochistan. This is the subject matter that we will turn to next.
Culture, Language and Economic Development in Balochistan
Every nation and region is a product of a specific history. Economic formations and development equally have their roots in history. There will hardly be a correct method for a fruitful conduct of inquiry about economic development for any nation unless the inquiry is carried out in the light of its history. If culture and language are not given their rightful prominence in the economic development of a nation then the given analysis may sound rigorous and right but it adds nothing to our understanding.
Balochistan is a comparatively unified landmass. It comprises a part of the Central Asia Plateau. For centuries Baloch people had a nomadic life. They were scattered all over this vast land and lived in small gatherings. In 1666 for the first time various parts of Balochistan and Baloch confederacies were brought under a unified Baloch central authority. At the head of this authority was Khan of Kalat. This unified state lasted until the invasion of Balochistan by the British Empire army on 13 November 1839. The forceful occupation of Balochistan by the British Empire marks a turning point in history of Balochistan. The present state of Baloch languages, culture and Balochistan’s economic development are the inevitable consequence of this terrible event.
The occupying British army subsequently divided Balochistan into three parts. The ‘Goldsmith Line’, was drawn and signed in (1871). This line divided Balochistan into Eastern and Western Balochistan. With another arbitrary line, the ‘Durand Line’ in 1893, they gifted a large segment of the Northern region of Baluchistan to Afghanistan.
The western part of Balochistan which was given to the Qajar King, Nasir-al Din Shah (1848-1896) in 1871, was liberated from the occupying Persian rulers before the First World War had started. In 1916 Bahram Khan Baloch was recognised by the British as the effective ruler of western Baluchistan. But the region was reoccupied once again by Reza Khan, the Persian military ruler, in 1928.
Eastern Balochistan remained under the yoke of the British Empire until 1947. With the British departure from Balochistan on 11 August 1947, Balochistan regained its full independence. The news of Baluchistan regaining its independence was reported in the New York Times on 12 August 1947. This was followed by the first democratic general elections in Balochistan in August 1947. In this election, members of the Baluchistan National Party, a secular democratic party, won 39 seats out of 52 seats in Balochistan legislative assembly of House of Commons.
The Baloch hopes and aspirations for a prosperous and democratic Balochistan were shuttered when the first artificially created Islamic state of Pakistan invaded Eastern Balochistan on 27 March 1948. From very day of occupation of their homeland, the Baloch unwaveringly and heroically have resisted the invading forces. From that time up to the present day Balochistan has remained a land of perpetual war zone. In addition to ceaseless conflict between Pakistani mercenary army and the Baloch, Pakistan state has carried out five major military operations in Baluchistan. The first three operations, in 1948, 1958, and 1962, were relatively localized. But by 1970s the Baloch reached the end of their tether. The last two military operations, the 1973-77 and the one that started in the year 2000, have been nothing short of full scale wars between the Baloch nation and the state and army of Pakistan.
It is a truism that all forceful occupations are violent and unfounded. Implicit in such acts is the fact that humanity and freedom in a subjugated society are the last concern of the conquerors. It cannot be open to doubt that the victims of illegal occupation are beyond any measure. No aspect of life would escape from horror of the occupying forces. All things change but during the time of illegal occupation changes will not be in the interest of the imprisoned nation. Therefore, Balochistan’s bequest from both invading states of Pakistan and Iran cannot be anything but deterioration and devastation of everything that serves the interest of the Baloch people. Among the usual victims such aggression are the Language, the culture and the economy of the Baloch nation. Understandably, therefore, the case study of Balochistan does fit well to verify this supposition.
It should be remembered that no illegal and forceful occupation can stay in power with the democratic consent of the subjugated nation. For an illegal occupying state to stay in control, it has no option but to rely on raw and brute violence and systematic deception. The subjugators would deliberately dress up the truth with their vested interest. As a consequence every bit of reality is sacrificed to expediency. Furthermore, the truth would be substituted with brute force and deception. These are the two conventional tools of suppression. They comprise the common denominator of all dictators of varying ideological persuasion and religious creed.
The traumatic experience of living under tyranny of occupying forces would touch the very core and fibre of the affected society. The cohesive parts of any society are, among other things, its language, culture and the economy. Over and above all this, these elements are the most essential constituents in formation of any nation. Systematic destruction of these fundamentals will put the makeup of that nation into serious threat of extinction and ultimately loss of their homeland. It is the greatest folly to overlook the undesirable affect of misleadingly designed policies of the occupying states on the language and the culture of the subjugated nation.
It is not an accident that the occupying states, by and large, impose their own language. This calculated decision is not a bona fide act. It is a policy that is not usually engendered out of benevolence or implemented consciously to mitigate the social and economic burdens of the people of the occupied nation. On the contrary, it is a policy with a purpose. By imposing an alien language at the expense of the native language, a gap of social, economic, political, legal, cultural and psychological power would immediately be created between the conquerors and the conquered people. The ruling establishment’s administration, judiciary, army and police, economy, education, media and every other powerful institution of the society would then be communicated in the language of the subjugators.
In ordinary course of events all communication would be in the nation’s native language, which possibly have taken hundreds and thousands of years to develop. Its replacement not just undermines their basic human right but it also overlooks many years of accumulation of human experiences, thoughts and contemplation. The policy is also too costly. Firstly, people resent anything that is introduced by the occupying forces. Thus, the eagerness to learn the imposed language would by far be less than their mother tongue. Secondly, by the time kids go to school, they are fluent in their mother tongue. The expense of acquiring the mother language has already been assumed by the parents. Hence, it would cost the society less to educate these kids in the language that they already use but also these kids are ready to learn more from other subjects. Starting a new language and learning other subjects would double the burden of learning and the cost of education to the society.
Having no command of the imported official language puts the native people in a serious disadvantageous position. Their chance of success in life would significantly be diminished compared to those whose native language is the state official language. The indigenous people in the occupied territory would as a result lag behind in education, in employment and in their active participation in economy and society. Paradoxically, as it seems and perceived at first, the lack of progress in all these areas in the occupied areas would be portrayed to be due to the native reluctant to change, to progress and prosper. The occupying state propaganda machine and ideologues would do their utmost to indoctrinate both people on occupiers and occupied sides of spectrum to this reality. They present the cause of perpetual stagnation and depression in the occupied territories to lie with the subjugated people itself. They want to condition people to believe that the indigenous people are incapable to run their own affairs. Then the act of illegal occupation is justified by pretending that it is done to serve these people to rescue them from ignorance and poverty.
Getting blamed for the catalogue of miseries caused by illegal occupation of one’s homeland is a completely perverted idea. In the first place this stance deliberately confuses the symptom with the cause. In other words it obscures the appearance from the actual reality of the predicament. Understandably, the occupying forces attempt to becloud the issue wilfully to serve their interest. In reality, the main cause that stands as the chief obstacle of social, economic, cultural, legal, political, institutional and linguistic development of subjugated nation is the occupying state. These states’ policies in the areas listed above are designed and implemented in ways which are conformed to the desires and needs of the occupying states and nations rather than the subjugated nations. This, in essence, is the intractable core of the problem.
The same analogy also equally applies in the case of a forcefully imposed culture. A culture is empty without a language. Cultures are shaped and nurtured in context of their languages. The frenetic persistence of occupying states to dictate their language on the occupying nations is based on the correct understanding that a language is the most effective porter of a culture. With the same drive and willpower that a culture is imposed from above, it will be rejected with a hearty dislike and disapproval of the incarcerated culture from below. The detestation of the imposed culture will include both its good and the bad parts.
This is a matter of common experience that when a culture of a nation is suppressed blatantly; the outcome that follows can be divided into a two dimensional nature. In the first place the culture of that nation, in the same way as other aspect of society, would go through a state of chronic depression. This is because of deliberate and systematic hostile policies of the occupying state. The unreceptive atmosphere initiated by the conquering state would abort the captive culture from its organic growth and development. It is to be remembered that the people of subjugated nation as a way of defence mechanism may also stick to stationary customs and traditions. They will do this as a mark of distinction between them and their adversaries.
As and when the organic vitality of a culture is removed from that culture then that culture will stand still and in the course of time it even may die out. A forceful occupation of a nation would bring the people of that nation to a brink of desperation. Under dark clouds of extreme anxiety people are predisposed to empty and redundant cultural orders and practices. These cultural traits are merely kept to tell them apart from the occupiers. They may in reality serve no other purpose. Most probably these cultural beliefs, values and codes will obstruct that nation readiness to meet the needs of the age.
The ramification of a premeditated butchery of a nation language and culture is infinite. In the first instance the people of the occupied nation would be placed in a much disadvantageous position. The prejudicial conduct will include all aspects of life; social, political, education and legal rights. In the natural course of things a nation’s language and culture would evolve in the light of the changed circumstances. But under occupation they are treated as threats rather opportunities and hence will be marginalised. The occupying establishment then present them as backward and inferior language and culture. They turn this excuse as an additional weapon to shoot the already badly wounded language and culture.
The toxic of inferiority complex then would gradually and skilfully be injected by means of the state propaganda machine, education and religion into the psyche of the subjugated people. The chief purpose of this toxic substance is to keep the occupied people as willing captors. A slave is a slave to the day that he or she willingly believes in being of a lesser human being. The day they realise they are not any less than anybody else that day would be the beginning of the end of their bondage. This awareness is one of the most powerful forces of social and economic transformation. The subsequent emancipation of enslaved people stems from regaining their confidence in their suppressed abilities.
Inferiority complex essentially means loss of confidence and trust in one’s ability. When it is applied to a nation it means loss of confidence and trust in one’s language and culture. It is in the belief in supremacy of the occupying language and culture. This is about submission to degradation, willingly accepting the false superior ability of the ruling occupants. In practice this means the subjugated become more dependent on their subjugators. There is nothing, however, more destructive to economic development and well-being of a nation than a collective loss of confidence and mistrust among the entire members of that nation.
Another crucial point in this respect is that all illegal occupations are by their very nature violent. Thus, forceful annexations are not voluntary associations. People of different nations are kept together not by mutual consent but by brute force. But force in itself is not enough to trap and enslave people forever. In addition to use of naked force other more contrived and devious methods are usually employed to dump a different language or culture over another language or culture. These include pseudo scientific reasoning; myths, religion, deception and bogus history. After all, such obstacles are not suitable for a healthy and balanced economic development. In short, the whole scheme is incompatible to the economic well-being of the stateless nation. Over and above all this, the balance of economic power will go to mafia groups, oligarchs, racketeers, charlatans, and the state security forces.
To conclude, all three aspects of a society that we have discussed above are inextricably interconnected. Their progress and growth will dependent on each other. They flourish in an open and democratic society but stagnate and die under an oppressive colonial system. Balochistan’s chronic economic under-development can be partially explained by its forceful subjugation and with this act the occupying states have grossly undermined the liberty, dignity, opportunity and the legal protection of the Baloch people. Baloch culture and Baloch languages will only regain their dynamism and full potential in a free and democratic Balochistan.
It is clear from these varying accounts that there is a balance of evidence in favour of the importance of language and culture to economic development. Both language and culture serve as an interconnecting network for social and economic structure of any society. Economy operates within association of this structural configuration. Besides, the moral ethos of a society can act either as a favourable or unfavourable factor for economic development. When everything is in a state of flux and your language is confined by statutory restriction and the culture of dishonesty, robbery and violence is the name of the game then that economy is bound to be ineffective. No comprehensive economic development can be achievable when the worth of a language and culture are all not of equal value before the law. It would be decidedly questionable economic development when the law that is practiced in the subjugated land is based on the principle of to each occupying state official what she or he can grab to the detriment of the native population.
One cannot put enough emphasis on the indispensability of an open, democratic and accountable society as the necessary preconditions for organic development of a nation’s language and culture. These preconditions are in stark contrast to illegal occupation. Systematic disfigurement of Baloch languages and culture by the occupying states of Pakistan and Iran is the logical outcome of their artificial and undemocratic formation and structure. To continue their existence they require slaying, step by step, the languages and cultures of nations under their illegal occupation. In the course of doing they put insurmountable barriers to economic development of the subjugated nations. The full potential, vitality and vigour of the language and culture of the Baloch nation will only be realised in a free, civil, tolerant and democratic Balochistan. This is achievable when all free inhabitants of Balochistan are treated as equal under the rule of law. Pursuit of economic wellbeing and efficiency and an implementation of a policy of equal opportunity cannot, however, be carried out effectively under a legal, political and social system that has no democratic legal legitimacy.
Dr Shahswar K is a Baloch political and Human Rights activist. Currently teaching economic at Metropolitan University in London, United Kingdom
http://www.balochwarna.com/modules/articles/article.php?id=2217
No comments:
Post a Comment