Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR 's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR 's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Modern Asian Studies.
Modern Asian Studies31, 1 (1997), pp. 177-207. Printed in Great Britain
The Urdu-English Controversy Pakistan in
TARIQ RAHMAN National Institute of Pakistan Studies, Quaid-i-Azam University
I. Introduction Pakistan is an ideologically inspired state and Urdu was a part of this ideology. During the development of Muslim separatism in British India it had become a symbol of Muslim identity and was the chief rival of Hindi, the symbol of Hindu identity (Brass, 1974:
References: TARIQ RAHMAN eral framework of the theory of elite rule (Pareto, 1935; Mosca, 1939; Mills, 1956), the controversy is seen as part of the conflict for power and resources between the ruling elite and the proto-elite because they were lacking in strong organizational development ' (1979: 115). Since THE URDU-ENGLISH which despised Bengali (Murshid, 1985: 131) also echoed the senti-