oh wow - you are so full of yourself man. Just tone down will ya ? I referred the book of Urs App mainly on Sanskrit. I made it clear in my post. What you will find is the extremely dubious methods, the rampant fraud in creating entirely fictitious work of sanskrit literature by early Europeans with dubious motives (and they arent just racist some are weird like Voltaire). If you google some chapters are made public you can read.What the hell are you talking about? Is this your final attempt at sounding capable of holding a discourse regarding the evolution of the Indo-Iranian branch of the IE languages? You choose to recommend a book and leave the topic at that? Hell, you didn't even bother to summarize the contents of the book & merely assume that my probable adherence by skimming through a book would be enough of a hamper to deter me from replying to you and consequently give you the pleasure of the last word? Learn to write coherent English, you live in a country where it dominates. Unfortunately for you, the modern Indo-European expansion theory remains the most coherent narrative on the spread of these languages. I know of the theories propagated by German linguists in the past and the world has returned to a variant similar to their version of events for the most part by assigning an urheimat to the Proto-Indo-European tongue. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter if the initial propagators of the theory had racist inclinations because their underlying motives are not grounds for the dismissal of the evidence.
As I said in a previous post, you've two choices, either accept the spread of the Indo-Iranians towards the Sub-Continent or rely on an outward migration theory. You've no choice but to choose one lest you choose to violate cause and effect by stating that languages with similar cognates, grammar and syntax were produced among unrelated populations as a product of chance. You're most likely inclined toward the out-of-India hypothesis, which unfortunately for you does not stand up to linguistic, archaeological, genetic, and even mythological evidence. I have had numerous discussions on this in the past and make no mistake, your aforementioned book can not debunk the insurmountable amount of evidence that has been peer reviewed by an array of experts from all parts of the world through mere accusations of racism. Orientalism is more of an attempt at portraying Eastern cultures as being regressive, & I can easily infer that in the linguistic case, someone like you would assume that the Europeans are attempting to belittle you by concluding that fair skinned foreigners imposed the IE languages on a declining Harappan and Dravidian people. What you conveniently forget is that as per the theory, the Pre-Indo-European populations of Europe were themselves assimilated in to the expansive Indo-European tribes. Case in point; Etruscan and Dorian. In any case, the Indo-Iranian tribes were fair skinned and you might as well get over it. The Tocharians, another group of Indo-European speakers living just north east of Kashmir were fair skinned Caucasoid tribes.
Where did I ask you to replace a native tongue? Don't put words in my mouth. Just because Pakistan needs a binding lingua franca doesn't imply that I desire a ban on Pashto or any other ethnic language. Actually, the number of cognates isn't the only factor deciding whether or not languages are related. English shares a larger lexical base with Latin than German, but it remains a Germanic language. Once again, you aren't fit to discuss this subject, and went so far as to suggest that Sanskrit is a reconstructed language. In real life, most Pakistanis speak Urdu and use it alongside their ethnic tongues as a lingua franca. Unfortunately, East Pakistan's case has a multitude of factors impacting it with language being an important piece of the puzzle. Remember that in our previous posts, we have been discussing Urdu from the contextual framework of contemporary Pakistanis. Bengali, an IE tongue, evolved among a different race on the fringes of the Indo-Aryan speaking world and would never be acceptable to West Pakistan possibly because the implication would have been that a dark skinned people have managed to impose their tongue on a lighter skinned people despite it originating from a similar source.
Besides, any group that adopts your tongue tends to leave traces of their former tongues in it and to purists that may be a concern. Egyptian Arabic for instance has words derived from Coptic. Maldivian Divehi is Indo-Aryan too, but sounds Dravidian or at least it did when I heard it. Urdu in particular is unburdened by those factors given its extensive Iranic, Indic, and Arabic borrowings. Besides, it originated next to our own geographical locality from the Prakrit dialects that stretched all the way to Punjab. If you really wanted to delve in to linguistic purity than even Urdu's loanwords could tarnish its purity in the eyes of nationalists. The only way around that is either removal or acceptance of a compromise. As in my previous post, I mentioned that the Italians had to adopt the Florentine dialect of the Tuscan language as the basis for a unified Italian language. It wasn't the most similar to Latin either, which would have been the Sardinian language, but it was one prestigious enough to be acceptable to most.
Where did I state that Punjabi is a dialect of Urdu? Are you retarded? Before Punjabi and Urdu evolved as separate languages, they existed on a dialectal continuum.
No, I haven't attempted to persuade people in to giving up their languages. You are free to continue to speak in your local dialects and I quoted Article 25[A] of the 18th amendment to that effect and that is something you conveniently ignored. I have no problems with government schools educating in local languages if that is what works best. That is for the masses to decide, but they must mandate the learning of an international lingua franca like English alongside it for obvious reasons. Your analogy of a salesman is flawed because I ain't attempting to shove something unnecessary down your throat. A unifying tongue is critical for any nation and if it isn't Urdu, it would have to be something else. The alternative is to force Pakistani kids to learn a range of provincial languages and no matter how optimistically you presume that to be a potential solution, it won't be something that Pakistan is capable of implementing. As I said, a tongue sharing the same heritage is the best compromise to satiate the egotistical and nationalistic tendencies of the masses. If not that, the only alternative would be to shove Sanskrit down everyone's throats given that that's the closest you get to an Indo-Iranian classic that was spoken by our fore-fathers.
Nothing more self-contradictory than a guy claiming that eerily similar languages could sprout in different regions without sharing a common source, thereby nullifying cause and effect, while concomitantly espousing to be reasonable. Lets demystify this at this instance, a shared language family does not imply shared ancestry. The Indo-Iranian languages are spoken by loads of people unrelated to the original tribes. That however isn't the case for a ton of Pakistanis. What's wrong with having a fondness for Sanskrit? It's among the original tongues of my forefathers. So just because a point allegedly strengthens the views of the speaker in the original clip, as in belonging to the same ethnic group is more often than not indicative of similar ancestry, it becomes incumbent on the rest of us to avoid conceding to it? That's not how intellectual honesty works. Pashtuns are naturally more closely related to each other on a general basis, but nationality or nationhood pertains to a collective consciousness of having experienced a similar past coupled with cultural links strong enough to interweave the destinies of different communities such that they struggle to build a shared future. Pakistan is a multi ethnic society, get over it.
Hilariously, while you are quick to lecture, you are incapable of providing solutions to the dilemma. Lets suppose that Pakistan disbands the concept of a national tongue and no one residing within a province is capable of speaking the language found in another province. The question is, where do we go from there? If the ethnic groups converse in English then that would function as the binding lingua franca and as I implied earlier, I have no qualms with that. I haven't been disrespectful towards any tongue so for the last time, avoid the lecture and do not speak of common sense given your sophistical responses so far. I haven't tied Urdu to religion, take up your complaints to those that have. Islam has only one liturgical language and that is Arabic.
And why you are bashing me with your theory on languages. It is just a theory. And it doesnt matter. Read it slowly - it.doesnt.matter - maybe a timepass bed time reading and thats about it. Only mentally off people will recommend policy making based on theories of what happened thousands of years ago. Why would you discount actual reality staring at you while burying your head in theories of what supposed to have happened thousands of years back?. Pakistani education teaches people in urdu medium and english medium - are the results of education satisfactory? - no matter which amendment there is no investment in local language schools. World wide scholars (and actual scholars worried about current problems not about stories of thousands of years back) all recommend teaching kids in mother tongue (which are also so called IE languages btw) at a population level - though individually if you have resources you can obtain education in any language.
But i am guessing you wont be bothered by results of it. And remember if bengali isnt acceptable because if the people are a tad too dark for you then why is urdu acceptable to pushtuns who are the lightest skinned in pakistan? Are not urdu native speakers the darkest in pakistan ?
In your previous posts you only referred to language group now you argue about not being too dark and god knows what - maybe the angle of nose next ?
Your theories and thoughts are a huge mess. I guess you want to bring some sort of unity in pakistan but having a noble motive is not a license for spouting nonsense. There are some good reasons in favor of Urdu but the ones you supply are the most horrible really.
you got to introspect a little at the direction you are taking if it is making you warm up to Sanskrit but spitting venom on pakistani like Ashakzai no matter how disagreeable he maybe.
There are several multi language countries like Switzerland, Canada managing their affairs. The current path is not sustainable.