¹ Both visits were on study leave from the School of Oriental and African Studies. The first was undertaken in January–April 1974 and included a tour of most of the relevant major centres; this was followed by a briefer visit to Multan only in March 1975. I wish to place on record here my gratitude for the assistance so freely offered by many people during these visits, also to my colleague Ralph Russell for reading a preliminary version of this article and suggesting many improvements.

² Shackle, C., ‘Punjabi in Lahore’, Modern Asian Studies, 4, 3 (1970), pp. 239–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³ Brass, Paul R., Language, Religion and Politics in North India (Cambridge University Press, 1974).Google Scholar

⁴ Cf. the speech of Prime Minister Mohammad Ali given on 22 November 1954, summarized in Wilcox, W. A., Pakistan (Columbia University Press, 1963), p. 184.Google Scholar

⁵ From this point the discussion is largely confined to the Panjab and Sind, the two core provinces of Pakistan.

⁶ There are some similarities with the position of the ‘Hindi-speaking’ states that form so large a bloc in Northern India, ringed by differentiated linguistic states: cf. Brass (1974), pp. 21–3.Google Scholar

⁷ Cf. Brass, (1974), pp. 303–6, where the trends of communal linguistic self-identification revealed by the censuses are tabulated.Google Scholar

⁸ Brass, (1974), pp. 277–400.Google Scholar

⁹ I was able briefly to observe these at first hand in January 1974. Cf. Shackle, (1970), pp. 245–57, for a detailed first-hand picture of the position of Panjabi in Lahore in 1967–1968.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Figures here and below are taken from the 1972 census. This figure represents 57.59 per cent of the country's population, while Sind, with 14 millions, has 19.51 per cent.

¹¹ This distinction derives from the work of Gumperz: cf. in particular his ‘Some remarks on regional and social language differences’ in Language in Social Groups, ed. Dil, A. S. (Stanford University Press, 1971), pp. 1–11.Google Scholar

¹² The relevant volumes of the Survey are vol. viii, pt I, Sindhī and Lahndā (Calcutta, 1919) and vol. ix, pt I,Google ScholarWestern Hindī and Pañjābī (Calcutta, 1916).Google Scholar The sections on Lahnda and Panjabi have been reissued as Grierson on Panjabi (Language Department, Punjab, Patiala, 1961).Google Scholar

¹³ Cf. in particular, Varma, S., ‘The Phonetics of Lahnda’, J.R.A.S.B., ii (1936), pp. 47–118;Google ScholarBahri, H., Lahndi Phonology (Allahabad, 1962), pp. xiv–xvi;Google ScholarSmirnov, Yu., Yazyk Lendi (Moskva, 1970), pp. 9–24;Google ScholarRossi, A. V., ‘La posizione del “lahndi” e la situazione linguistica nel Panjab pakistano’, Annali dell' Istituto Orientale di Napoli, 34 (1974), pp. 347–65.Google Scholar These problems of classification are further assessed in Shackle, C., ‘Sirāiki and ‘Sirāikī Literature, c. 1750–1900, in Upper Sind and South-West Panjab’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of London, 1972).Google Scholar

¹⁴ I was unable to investigate directly reports of the beginnings of yet another language movement in this region.

¹⁵ This exaggerated figure itself represents an astonishing increase from the figure of 20 millions which was current in the movement in 1974.

¹⁶ Apart from its intrinsic ugliness, ‘Lahnda’ is a term unacceptable to many Pakistani Panjabis as denoting an ‘artificial’ division of what they regard as the common language of the whole Panjab, but is equally repugnant to enthusiasts for Siraiki as implying a subordinate status for it, as a mere ‘western dialect’ of Panjabi.

¹⁷ There are, however, significant differences, especially in the verbal system, as in the expanded conjugation-stems of transitive and passive verbs and the extensive use of forms with suffixed pronouns, both features analogous with Sindhi, as well as in the distinctive sigmatic formation of the future.

¹⁸ For further information the reader is referred to my description of the modern standards, with particular reference to influence by co-existing languages, published as The Siraiki Language of Central Pakistan: A Reference Grammar (S.O.A.S., London, 1976).Google Scholar

¹⁹ These are /g j d b/ contrasting with the explosive set /g j d d b/. Only the latter are found in Panjabi and Urdu.

²⁰ Exact definition of the original language of these works is anyway impossible, given the unreliability of their transmission in the earlier period. The linguistic evidence from the oldest Sikh sources is examined in Shackle, C., ‘“South-Western” Elements in the Language of the Ādi Granth’, B.S.O.A.S., XL, 1 (1977).Google Scholar

²¹ Cf. the preface to 'Rahman, Azizur, Dīvān-e Farīd (Bahawalpur, 1944).Google Scholar Copies of al-'Azīz are now scarce, and it is doubtful if a complete set has been preserved. The contrast between the more casual attitude of those times and the extremist spirit of the present may be illustrated by the definition of the local language as a ‘branch of Panjabi’ in Rahman, Hafizur, Tamaddun-e Bahāvalpūr kī do mukhtasar tasvīren (Bahawalpur, n.d.), p. 29: this definition, now current among the Panjabi movement, is anathema to the supporters of Siraiki.Google Scholar

²² This official neglect is now a natural source of regret to the Siraiki movement. Reference may be made, however, to an unofficial move in this direction by a group of followers of ‘Ubaidullah Sindhi who published a brief primer for rural illiterates, Riyāsatī mādarī zubān kā qā'ida (Bahawalpur, 1943).Google Scholar I am grateful to Professor Dilshad Kalanchvi of Bahawalpur for the opportunity to consult this and other scarce materials in the unique and valuable collection housed at his residence as the Siraiki Library.

²³ Copies of this journal, too, are now collector's items. The ambiguities inherent in a situation where rival groups are using symbols drawn from a partly shared pool are well illustrated by the current use of ‘Panjnad’ (‘The Five Rivers’) as the title of main Panjabi programme produced by Lahore TV. The primacy of the Indus in current Siraiki symbology is to be seen in the insignia of the Siraiki Adabi Board, where six rivers are represented, not the five which are a major symbol of Panjabi in both Pakistan and India.

²⁴ Vahid, Akhtar, Multānī zubān dā qā'ida (Multan, 1953).Google Scholar While the author describes himself as general secretary of the Multani Research Academy, Multan, nothing seems to be known of the other activities of this body.

²⁵ A number of recent histories written by local scholars in Urdu testify to contemporary interest in this past: cf. Haq, Ikram ul, Arz-e Multān (Multan, c. 1968):Google Scholar'Khan, Abdur Rahman, Āīna-e Multān (Multan, 1972):Google ScholarFaridi, Nur Ahmad, Tārīkh-e Multān, 2 vols (Multan, 1971/1974).Google Scholar Local pride is particularly excited by such statements as that of Al-Hujwiri, the eleventh-century Sufi who is now in effect the patron saint of Lahore: ‘While I myself had become a captive among uncongenial folk in the district of Lahawur, which is a dependency of Multan.’ (Kashf al Mahjūb, tr. Nicholson, R. A. (Gibb Memorial Series, XVII, London, 1959), p. 91.)Google Scholar

²⁶ An account of the origins and development of the Bazm-e Saqafat is given in the preface to Kalām-e Farid, ed. and trans. Jampuri, Kaifi and Anwar, Riaz (Multan, 1963).Google Scholar

²⁷ His tenure of office was brief, and he was soon replaced by Makhdum Sajjad Husain Quraishi, sajjāda-nishin of the great Baha ul Haq shrine. Mir Hassan ul Haidari's role is significant in demonstrating interest from Sind in the Siraiki movement, and he was perhaps partly responsible for the introduction of the Sindhi term ‘Siraiki’ into the central area (although other claims are advanced); later he was the author of the article ‘Sirāikī Adab’ in the large Tārīkh-e adabiyāt-e musulmānān-e Pākistān-o-Hind, vol. XIV, pt 2 (Panjab University Lahore, 1971), pp. 257–343, one of the few semi-official recognitions of Siraiki's separate existence.Google Scholar

²⁸ Information from Khan Rizwani, whose assistance in tracing the history of the Siraiki movement was invaluable: cf. also Akhtar, 6, 5 (1969), pp. 3–4.Google Scholar

²⁹ Produced as the monthly Siraiki edition of an Urdu weekly of the same name and editorship.

³⁰ Cf. ‘Panj-sāla khidmāt-e Sirāikī Adabī Majlis Bahāvalpūr’, Sirāiki, 13 (1969), pp. 36–40.Google Scholar

³¹ Cf. ‘Sirāikī Sube dā mutālaba’, Akhtar, 6, 19 (1969), pp. 2–6.Google Scholar

³² Cf. Hashmi, Riaz, Brief for Bahawalpur Province (Bahawalpur, 1972), whose cover is in fact decorated with an outline map of a larger Siraiki Suba.Google Scholar

³³ E.g., the Siraiki Sangat established in Multan by Chakar Khan in 1974 as a breakaway from the Siraiki Academy.

³⁴ Cf. Schimmel, A., ‘The Activities of the Sindhi Adabi Board’, Die Welt des Islams, NS VI (1961), pp. 223–43.Google Scholar

³⁵ The publications of the Board (established in March 1974) mark an improvement in appearance over most of their predecessors: typically, however, all printing operations other than the scribal writing of the lithograph (kitābat) must be carried out in Lahore.

³⁶ Cf. Brass, (1974), pp. 303–6, also p. 77 for the dangers of biased entries by officials, of which Pakistanis are also well aware. Earlier Pakistan censuses classify Siraiki under Panjabi. Indian censuses still record entries under traditional local names, but the enumeration of refugee speakers from the western Panjab is very partial: there is no coherent community of Hindu Siraiki speakers in India comparable to the Sindhi-speaking community.Google Scholar

³⁷ Also resented is the regular feature of a Panjabi page in this Urdu paper; this is produced in Lahore, where one of the leading members of the Panjabi movement occupies a senior position on the staff.

³⁸ Cf. Rizwani, Khan, ‘'Arz-e Hāl’ in Vasdiān Jhokān (Multan, 1971), p. 8.Google Scholar

³⁹ Cf. Shackle, (1970), pp. 254–5.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Cf. ‘Umar Kamal Khan, 'Multān dī pukār’, Sirāiki Adab, 5, 3 (1975), p. 47.Google Scholar A booklet giving an account of the proceedings of the conference in Urdu was subsequently published under the title Pahli Kul Pākistān Sirāiki Adabī Kānfarans Multān (Multan, 1975).Google Scholar

⁴¹ Obvious examples from northern India are the roles of the Gurmukhi and the Persian script in preserving the identities of Panjabi and Urdu respectively from Hindi, while in Pakistan the British imposition of a distinctive script for Sindhi in 1852 is today gratefully acknowledged by the Sindhis: cf. Schimmel, A., Sindhi Literature (Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, 1974), pp. 26–7.Google Scholar

⁴² The system used in Bahawalpur in the 1940s is probably still the most widely used, but there is no shortage of new inventions. One of several articles on the subject is Kalanchvi, Dilshad, ‘Sirāikī de izāfi hurūf’, Sirāikī Adab, 5, 3 (1975), pp. 23–4, 26.Google Scholar

⁴³ And there has been Sindhi representation at most important Siraiki functions, including the Multan conference, at which the Chief Minister of Sind (himself a Siraiki-speaker) was to have presided on the final day.

⁴⁴ This is a rough estimate, and the proportion is probably declining with the increased emphasis on the general use of Sindhi. The publications of older Siraiki texts by the Sindhi Adabi Board constitutes an exception to the general neglect of Siraiki in Sind, where the older Siraiki poetry does however still enjoy great popularity at concerts and musical gatherings.

⁴⁵ The literary and cultural activities of the Panjabi activists in Multan are organized under the aegis of the Majlis Varis Shah, which is naturally linked with similar societies in Lahore and other cities in the province.

⁴⁶ Cf. the interesting pamphlet Hamlets will hum again (Lahore, c. 1971),Google Scholar where the proposal is made for a common ‘mid-western’ base for literary Pakistani Panjabi, embracing both ‘Panjabi’ and ‘Siraiki’; this anonymous pamphlet, whose title is a translation of a famous line of Khwaja Farid, reflects the views of the Panjabi circle centred round Najm Hussain Syed, which does try to use such a language for creative writing—bitterly regarded as bastardized Siraiki by the Siraiki enthusiasts.