Future of English Studies

 

The changing nature of English in the digital age has already been recognized by linguists. David Crystal, one of the leading scholars of language and the Internet, argues that digital communication has created new varieties and forms of linguistic interaction rather than simply destroying traditional language. His work on Internet linguistics demonstrates that the Internet has become a new medium for linguistic creativity, communication, and language change. 

Evidently, the use of the English language and the creation and circulation of English literature have spread far and wide through the democratization of communication on social media and digital platforms. A large number of people today have acquired the ability to use English for communication on social media and, increasingly, in their everyday lives. However, knowing or using English in this informal sense is not sufficient to justify discontinuing the teaching of English language and literature in the classroom. On the contrary, the advent of artificial intelligence (AI), which has extended the reach of English language and literature to almost everyone, makes systematic and critical English education more necessary than ever.

This transformation is consistent with Henry Jenkins's concept of participatory culture. Jenkins observes that digital media have blurred the distinction between producers and consumers of knowledge and have created environments in which people participate, create, share, and collaborate. He also argues that teachers remain important in such environments because they can guide students in evaluating information, developing strategies for research, and negotiating the ethical challenges of digital cultures. The implication for English studies is clear: students should not merely consume AI-generated language and literature; they should learn how to question, evaluate, revise, contextualize, and ethically use such material.

Indeed, the use of online resources for language learning predates artificial intelligence. Even before the emergence of generative AI, students were using Google, online dictionaries, pronunciation tools, grammar checkers, translation services, language-learning applications, and digital libraries to improve their English. AI is therefore better understood as an advanced extension of this technological development rather than as a completely unprecedented replacement for human learning. If Google did not eliminate libraries, teachers, universities, or academic disciplines, there is little reason to assume that AI will eliminate English language and literature studies. What it will do is change the way these subjects are taught and learned.

The most important transformation required is therefore curricular. English language and literature teaching must move beyond an excessive emphasis on traditional grammar, literary history, memorization, and the reproduction of established interpretations. These remain important foundations, but they need to be complemented by critical thinking, critical communication, AI-assisted writing, prompt literacy, AI-supported translation, digital discourse analysis, media literacy, and digital humanities. In this model, AI becomes a tool for enhancing English language and literary education rather than a technology for eliminating it.

  Katherine Hayles's scholarship connects literature with digital technologies and has been particularly important to the development of digital humanities and electronic literature. From this perspective, AI should become a new object and instrument of English studies: students should learn not only how to use AI for writing but also how AI changes the concepts of authorship, creativity, interpretation, reading, and textuality.

For example, with the assistance of AI, it is now possible to generate a sonnet, short story, essay, screenplay, or even a song within seconds. Yet the mere production of a text does not necessarily constitute literary creativity. Questions immediately arise about intention, experience, emotion, imagination, context, originality, authorship, and ethical responsibility. AI may produce technically competent language, but the human dimensions of literature remain subjects of critical inquiry. Consequently, the English professor is increasingly needed to help students distinguish between linguistic production and meaningful human expression.

Therefore, the role of the English language and literature teacher in the classroom has arguably become more significant than ever. The teacher is no longer simply a transmitter of information. The professor increasingly functions as an interpreter, facilitator, evaluator, mentor, and intellectual guide. Students need to learn how to identify multiple interpretations of a literary text, compare competing interpretations, examine the assumptions behind them, and construct their own arguments. When AI can instantly provide several interpretations of a poem or novel, the teacher's responsibility is to teach students how to evaluate those interpretations rather than simply accept the one that appears most convincing.

For Pakistan, the significance of English language and English studies may be even greater in the emerging digital future. English provides Pakistani students and scholars with access to international academic communities, global research, digital resources, professional networks, and international scholarship. It enables students to communicate with researchers and institutions beyond national boundaries and to participate more effectively in global academic and technological conversations. At the same time, English provides access to an enormous body of knowledge in science, technology, business, media, and the humanities. Consequently, the importance of English in Pakistan is unlikely to decline; rather, its role may become more interdisciplinary and technologically oriented.

Consequently, university departments of English need to become increasingly interdisciplinary. They can bring together literature, language, linguistics, artificial intelligence, media studies, communication, digital humanities, cultural studies, and computational approaches to language. Such an interdisciplinary environment would not diminish English studies; it would renew them. English departments should become places where students learn not merely how to use English but how English functions in an increasingly technological, global, and algorithmic world.

Outsourcing the Human Mind

Outsourcing the Human Mind

According to the findings of science and technology, human beings have always evolved. A recent remark by Stephen Hawking suggests that humans are merely a refined breed of primates who inhabit this planet and possess the ability to observe the universe. This observation reinforces the idea that evolution is a necessary and ongoing process, continuously shaping human existence. One significant phase of this evolution is the impending metamorphosis into forms of being we have never previously imagined. The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) signals a transformation in which many of the skills humans once took pride in, skills that distinguished them from other species, are likely to diminish and potentially disappear altogether. 

For instance, humans developed writing as a system that required the coordination of the brain and the hand to produce symbols and letters, later recognized as written discourse. Through this system, humans communicated in diverse and complex ways. However, this process has now reached a stage where writing may no longer require direct human effort; instead, AI-driven software can generate text more efficiently, and sometimes more effectively, than humans. While this advancement is beneficial in many respects, it raises a critical question: who ultimately bears the loss? The answer is the human faculty itself, which, through prolonged disuse, risks becoming ineffectual. 

A similar concern applies to the faculty of reading. Reading traditionally involves the coordinated functioning of the eyes, neural processes, and the brain to interpret written or visual messages. Today, AI can process vast volumes of text within seconds and provide concise summaries with remarkable ease. Consequently, humans may gradually lose their engagement with deep reading and comprehension. More critically, this shift threatens the erosion of critical thinking, which forms the foundation of human progress, not only in science and technology but also in social and cultural development. Traditionally, education systems trained individuals to read, write, analyze, and evaluate. At higher levels of learning, critical engagement and independent thought were essential. These processes enabled innovation, discovery, and intellectual advancement over time. However, in the present context, whether at the school or university level, many of these intellectual activities are increasingly delegated to AI tools. As a result, fewer individuals actively engage in rigorous thinking, and the reliance on technology continues to grow. This phenomenon extends beyond educational institutions. Across all domains, from agriculture to industry, from social life to politics, AI is being embraced enthusiastically. It is now present in space exploration, domestic environments, transportation, and academic settings. The same holds good for our faculties, to translate, understand and reproduce the material red or taught by us. Even in the matter of speech, the human developed multiple ways of communicating their thought. When machine will speak on our behalf at every level, the human capacity to effectively communicate is going to disappear soon. These faculties of human beings helped us distinguish between the expert and the non-expert person. Now when all is performed by the machine, there would be no tool to measure the merits and characteristics of a person to award a higher rank than the others. Ultimately, merit will be determined not on the basis of the head and heart of a person but on the basis of the readings of a machine. It means we are very soon morphing from homo sapiens to homo assisted beings if we do not learn to use machine in a rightful way.

 This widespread integration suggests a future in which human labor and cognitive effort may become less necessary. At present, humans are still required to maintain and manage the technological systems that power AI. However, it is conceivable that AI systems may eventually become self-operating and self-sustaining, further reducing the need for human intervention. It is important to clarify that the purpose here is not to condemn artificial intelligence. Rather, AI should be viewed as another significant human invention, one that has the potential to enhance life, optimize resources, and contribute to a safer and more efficient future. The real issue, however, lies in how humans can continue to exercise and preserve the faculties they have developed over centuries of evolution. This moment calls for a redefinition of thinking, reading, writing, and evaluation in the age of AI. Humans must not allow their intellectual faculties to deteriorate into dormancy. Instead, they must evolve consciously, adapting to new conditions while retaining control over their cognitive and creative capacities. The goal should be to remain the masters of our own destinies, even while utilizing AI as a tool.

This transformation will not occur automatically, nor will it be imposed externally. It requires deliberate effort. Individuals must train themselves to adapt, to think differently, and to remain intellectually productive within this new technological paradigm. Consequently, it is imperative that educational curricula at the school, college, and university levels be thoroughly restructured to align with contemporary realities. Such reforms would ensure that humans continue to evolve intellectually and creatively, rather than becoming passive consumers, reduced to merely observing screens and consuming what is readily available.

Rewiring Learning for Jobs

 

The latest developments in the world, particularly the emerging “new world order” associated with recent leadership in the United States, suggest a troubling assumption: that global problems can be resolved through brute military force. This shift has caused widespread concern across the globe, especially in Pakistan. One significant impact of this development is on fundamental human rights, particularly the right to education and healthcare. These sectors once provided not only intellectual satisfaction but also stable employment and livelihoods. Today, many university graduates, even if they possess good academic degrees, are finding it hard to find stable jobs and are mostly struggling to achieve some level of satisfaction. Young people, after getting frustrated when see the rise of the powerful and the mighty without any such struggle in this very society, increasingly feel compelled to acquire secondary, non-academic skills, such as flattery and submission to authority, rather than pursuing merit-based scholarship. Many believe that power, whether obtained through fear or unethical means, and wealth, regardless of its source, are the keys to success. This rapidly spreading menace will result in unacceptable social consequences of grave nature and hence needs to be tackled on war footing.

In my view, we need to come out of this misguided perception and see the world with a cleared and objective view. History shows that societies have functioned in similar ways before. In earlier times, warriors and guards were favored and well-supported by ruling authorities. A similar pattern is visible today, where professions linked to the military and administration receive greater resources and rewards, while other sectors face increasing neglect. Although, it is a reverberation of Fredrick Jameson’s concept of late capitalism and is in conformity with the creation of the elite system to rule over the vast number of people working as laborers to the capitalistic system, the Marxist philosophy says that the situation can be solved by a more holistic approach. When white-collar jobs are rapidly declining, and for many individuals, blue-collar work should remain the primary option. This shift necessitates a change in mindset. Individuals must now strive to acquire practical and specialized skills to secure employment. The era of guaranteed jobs based solely on academic degrees is fading. Employment is no longer a right; it must be earned through competence and fully developed skills.

In this context, universities must fundamentally reform their curricula, degree structures, and teaching methodologies. Higher education institutions must ensure that their graduates are equipped not only for current demands but also for future challenges, thereby safeguarding both individual and institutional survival. Simultaneously, the rapid advancement of technology is transforming the labor market. Automation and artificial intelligence are replacing human labor in many sectors. However, these developments also create demand for new technical skills. In my opinion, five broad categories of work will remain relevant and in high demand in the technologically advanced future. First, Technical experts who can maintain and manage digital infrastructure, including computers, the internet, satellites, and communication networks. Second, Professionals who can operate and manage AI-based humanoid machines. Third, Entertainers, such as performers, comedians, and artists, who provide recreation and emotional relief. Fourth, individuals involved in food production, preparation, and culinary arts, where human taste and creativity remain essential. Finaly, Service providers, particularly in emergency services, electricity management, and basic healthcare. 

Given these realities, policymakers, educational leaders, and societal institutions must recognize the urgent need to redesign education systems to prepare future generations effectively. Another critical issue is the accessibility of knowledge in today’s world. With vast information readily available through digital platforms, one may question the role of educational institutions. However, while technology can provide information and technical skills, it cannot replace human values, ethical reasoning, and social understanding. Martin Heidegger warns that modern technology reduces the world, and human beings, to mere “resources” to be optimized and controlled. Therefore, the humanities remain indispensable. They provide the ethical foundation, cultural awareness, and social cohesion necessary for a balanced society. Without this human dimension, a purely technology-driven world risks becoming mechanical and devoid of meaning. Yuval Noah Harari warns that humans may become “hackable animals” in a data-driven world, where algorithms understand and predict behavior better than individuals themselves.

The need of the hour is to establish a balance between machines and humans. If such a balance is not achieved, we may witness a future dominated by cyborgs and artificial systems, where human experiences and emotions are marginalized. The consequences of such a transformation could be far more distressing than the challenges we face today at the threshold of the technological age. Ultimately, regardless of the prevailing world order, survival will depend on adaptability and resilience. To thrive, young people must reshape their mindset and focus on acquiring relevant skills. Not everyone can become a warrior or an administrator; therefore, it is essential to guide individuals toward diverse, meaningful, and sustainable career paths that ensure both personal fulfillment and societal stability. 

The Politics of Female Education

 The Politics of Female Education

Although Margaret Atwood does not explicitly claim to be a feminist writer, in her novel The Edible Woman, she explores how a university-educated woman may lose her sense of self, which she names as ‘core’, after marriage. According to this perspective, women can become increasingly hollow as they transition into roles of wife and mother. Atwood seems to suggest that university education enables women to recognize themselves as thinking and analytical human beings. Through interaction with teachers and peers, they develop a sense of identity, autonomy, and intellectual agency. However, once a woman leaves the university, enters social life, marries, and becomes a mother, the impact of that education may begin to diminish. She is then often confined to the roles of wife and mother, and the “core” or self that she developed during her education risks being eroded. Other than this fictional analysis, the whole situation creates a mess for the young women with university education. She gets educated along with her male fellows which is meant to make a career or at least to make place in the society and as soon as the degree is over men go to make their career and the women are supposed to give up and take up the domestic responsibilities, even when they are walking on the path of career. In most cases, it is pretty problematic for a young woman to carry both dimensions of her social and moral duties.  This creates a paradoxical situation: should women pursue higher education only to become misfits in traditional society later, or should they avoid education and remain within conventional roles? A third possibility lies in a liminal or intermediate space, where women receive education, but society is structured in such a way that their essential identity remains intact.

Marriage and family life are nearly universal social institutions, experienced by most individuals, regardless of gender. In societies like Pakistan, marriage has traditionally been considered essential for a woman’s respectable social status, as was propounded by Jane Austen in her world-famous novel ‘Pride and Prejudice’. However, this belief is gradually changing. As more women attain higher education and enter professional fields, their social and economic status increasingly depends on their qualifications and careers rather than marriage alone. Today, a woman can live independently, support herself financially, or choose a partnership based on equality rather than necessity. These changes, however, bring new challenges and are rapidly changing the feministic landscape, especially in the conservative societies like that of Pakistan. Now women are more visible in the university level education and in the services and business field in Pakistan. This has created many new challenging dimensions for the traditional social set up. A woman who is educated and employed often cannot be expected to fulfill traditional domestic roles without support. She may require assistance from family members or professional service providers. When she becomes a mother, this need for support becomes even more critical. In Pakistan, reliable institutional support, such as childcare services, maternal care systems, and workplace accommodations, is still underdeveloped.

This reveals a structural imbalance: while women are being educated and encouraged to participate in the workforce, the necessary social infrastructure to support them has not evolved at the same pace. Men, in contrast, are generally less burdened by domestic responsibilities. Therefore, support systems such as daycare centers, state-supported childcare, and safe living environments for single women are essential. Unless this imbalance is taken care of or at least minimized, Atwood would prove right when she talked about losing of their ‘core’ by women. In the absence of such support, the intellectual and personal “core” developed through education is likely to be weakened. However, if social structures are redesigned to accommodate women’s dual roles, they can continue their professional lives without sacrificing their identity. Women do not reject roles as wives or mothers; rather, evidence suggests that educated and working women often perform these roles more effectively and with greater emotional engagement. What is urgently needed is the development of infrastructure that allows women to balance professional and domestic responsibilities. This includes institutional childcare, workplace flexibility, and shared domestic responsibilities. Only then can women fully utilize their education and contribute meaningfully to society. Other than improving sociopolitical infrastructure, the system of education, sociocultural organizations, education and media must also come forward to build a conducive environment for the working women. Sensitization of men, in this connection, is the most essential track. If men are sensitive for the uplift of women’s work and skill, these obstruction without further delays would be reduced.

Therefore, instead of discouraging women from pursuing higher education, society, both men and women, must work collectively to support them. Such support will ensure not only the preservation of their core identity but also their active participation in national development. An educated woman, supported by appropriate social structures, can be both a productive professional and a fulfilling partner and mother. 

Wars Steals our Future

 

Wars Steal the Future

The ancient world was deeply engaged in wars and battles, which were often believed to be fought not only for the glory of individuals but also for that of the nation. Such conflicts were frequently justified as necessary for mobilizing and uniting the people of a country. While these claims may appear valid on the surface, many wars—even in ancient times—were driven by hidden motives. These included the desire to seize land, exploit resources, and gain control over the labor, wealth, and material assets of conquered territories. In many cases, rulers waged wars to expand their domains and consolidate their power. These conflicts inevitably brought death, destruction, and bloodshed, costing countless lives and dismantling established social, economic, and political structures. Over time, wars have been romanticized, producing narratives of heroes and warriors, yet such glorification often obscures the devastating human cost of conflict. As history progressed, warfare became increasingly sophisticated and far more destructive. This is evident in global conflicts such as World War I and World War II, as well as numerous smaller wars driven by regionalism, imperialism, capitalism, and ideological struggles such as the clash between capitalism and communism. Despite their scale and intensity, wars have ultimately failed to resolve the fundamental problems of humanity.

It has long been believed that wars bring destruction not only to men but also, and often more severely, to women and children. However, it must now be added that the youth of a country are among the most affected by conflicts and wars. War destroys infrastructure, including employment opportunities, manufacturing sectors, and production facilities; consequently, jobs become scarce, placing immense strain on a country’s employment ratio. This resulting rise in unemployment exerts significant pressure on the psychological, physical, and mental well-being of young people, especially that currently pursuing education in universities, colleges, and professional institutions. They often feel deeply distracted and disillusioned, as they foresee a bleak future unless systems are rehabilitated and restored. Although wars have occurred throughout human history, bringing similar patterns of destruction, their impact today feels more intense. This is largely because many people now depend on daily earnings for survival, spending what they earn on a day-to-day basis. When war disrupts economic systems, everything envisioned in the name of democracy and prosperity collapses, placing enormous strain not only on the economy but also on the youth. One may argue that war creates new professions and employment opportunities in reconstruction and rehabilitation. However, such benefits are largely confined to elite or capitalist classes, who accumulate greater profits in times of crisis as Orwell argued that War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it. The burden, meanwhile, falls disproportionately on young people from lower and middle classes, who suffer due to inflation, shortages of supplies, reduced production, and economic instability caused by rising import bills.

Moreover, wars rarely resolve underlying problems. Historically, powerful states or groups have initiated wars to gain territory, resources, or assert dominance. In the process, countless innocent people who played no role in causing the conflict, are killed, without satisfying the ambitions of those who wage war. This reality is evident in the contemporary world, where conflicts in Ukraine, Palestine, and Iran, among others, continue without meaningful resolution. Smaller-scale conflicts across parts of Africa further reinforce this pattern of perpetual instability. In such conditions, educational activities are disrupted, prices of essential commodities rise, and production declines as resources are diverted toward war efforts. Frustration, psychological distress, and social instability increase, while literary, humanitarian, and social development activities decline. Entire nations become consumed by conflict, often taking decades to recover. While some capitalist states may benefit economically through reconstruction efforts, these gains come at the cost of increased debt burdens on war-affected countries, which must repay loans and profits to external investors.

Ultimately, war leads to widespread destruction with little to no meaningful gain. Resources are depleted, prosperity is shattered, and both sides, when viewed critically, achieve nothing of lasting value. Wars are therefore not solutions but catalysts for further problems, particularly for young people. Many young people seek to migrate from conflict zones, yet increasingly restrictive immigration policies in Europe and North America make this difficult, leaving them trapped in deteriorating conditions. It is therefore imperative that wars not be used to resolve conflicts between nations. Instead, dialogue, rational discourse, and diplomatic negotiations must be prioritized. History demonstrates that solutions achieved through dialogue are more sustainable, whereas those imposed through conflict often perpetuate further instability. Indeed, many of the world’s ongoing crises today are the direct consequence of wars that created more problems than they resolved.

 

English in the Age of Linguistic Flux

 English in the Age of Linguistic Flux

While commenting on the gatekeeping of the English language, Bruce Gilley, in his essay “Guarding the Gates of Our Language,” argues that once a culture loses control over its language, everything else is bound to follow. This argument opens up two important dimensions of English. The first is the dimension of colonial hangover, and the second is the role of English as a language shaped and circulated by twenty-first-century technology.

It is well known that Pakistan was born out of a colonial legacy when the Indian subcontinent was decolonized. Even before independence, the people of the Indo-Pak subcontinent were required—or at least strongly encouraged—to imitate the pronunciation and speech styles of their colonial masters, not only to secure employment but also to gain favor in various social and professional fields. However, once the colonial era formally ended and India and Pakistan emerged as independent states, it was expected that linguistic matters would also be addressed accordingly. This, however, did not happen. English continued to function in these countries, as in many other parts of the world, as a lingering colonial legacy.

Pakistan occupies a particularly striking position in this regard. As near-perfect mimics of the colonial era, and as “mimic men” surviving into the postcolonial period, Pakistanis made persistent efforts to copy English pronunciation, grammatical structures, and stylistic norms as closely as possible. The most obvious examples are English-medium schools and the widespread use of English across various institutional and professional domains, often at the expense of the national language. What has happened to the national language is a separate debate; however, it is undeniable that English has survived and flourished in Pakistan in remarkably powerful ways, continually reinforcing its prestige and dominance.

This leads us to a crucial question: should we continue to follow English as rigidly regulated by gatekeeping mechanisms—such as dictionaries, grammar books, and teachers who insist on “correct” or “pure” forms of the language? Or should we move forward with English as it has historically developed and continues to evolve? After all, English is a language that has borrowed extensively from other languages. Its own history reveals that in the fourteenth century it was primarily the language of farmers and laborers, not of the educated elite or the clergy. Modern English itself emerged through the interaction of Latin, French, and Anglo-Saxon English. Later, as colonial expansion carried English across the globe, it absorbed words, expressions, and structures from numerous indigenous languages.

As a result, English underwent continuous changes in usage, pronunciation, and structure. This dynamic process became even more pronounced through the contributions of postcolonial writers, who reshaped English by infusing it with local idioms, rhythms, and vocabularies. Writers from Africa and the Indo-Pak subcontinent, for instance, incorporated indigenous linguistic features into fiction, drama, and poetry to reflect local realities and cultural identities. Clear examples range from Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart to Ahmad Ali’s Twilight in Delhi. For example, Achebe says, “Proverbs are the palm-oil with which words are eaten.” The sentence is evidence of English language carrying the epistemology of Igbo culture and hence formulating a new variety of English. Indian writers further developed this practice, which was famously described as the “chutnification” of English. Arundhati Roy, particularly in The God of Small Things, employs a hybrid language that blends English with Indian linguistic and cultural elements, including regional dialects from Kerala.

Through these practices, postcolonial writers and speakers initiated a transformative process in which English became increasingly localized. This led to the emergence of multiple “Englishes” and eventually to the establishment of the academic field known as World Englishes. Within this framework, traditional gatekeeping by native or “pure” English speakers proved ineffective.

Today, not only do multiple Englishes coexist, but English itself continues to undergo noticeable changes in pronunciation, verb usage, grammatical structures, and stylistic patterns—even among native speakers. The twenty-first century has further accelerated this process by dismantling linguistic barriers through digital platforms, social media, artificial intelligence, and machine translation technologies such as ChatGPT. ChatGPT has given birth to an English language variety called AI mediated Globally Neutral English, a variety of English meant more for clarity, speed and cross-cultural intelligibility rather than native speakers idiom and local identity. These forces have collectively contributed to the emergence of new forms of English.

While it is true that contemporary English may not resemble the “pure” forms spoken by native speakers in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, it is equally true that colonial expansion had already enriched English with linguistic material from countless other languages. Globalization, following colonization and postcolonialism, has intensified processes of addition, deletion, alteration, and transformation. Americanization has played a particularly significant role, as American English developed distinct patterns of pronunciation, spelling, and morphology. Consequently, English is no longer the possession of the English alone. It has become a global language—belonging not to one people or nation, but to the world at large.

Politics of Language and Literature in Pakistan

 Politics of Language and Literature in Pakistan 

Language has always been a tool of not only communication but also that of identity, and so, came the concept of national and regional languages, common to almost all the nations of the world. If they don’t have regional languages different from their national language, they have at least multiple accents and dialects of national language. But in a country like Pakistan this variability has level that demands identity as well as cultural affinity. In a country like Pakistan this linguistic diversity has multiple type of pros and cons. If, on the one hand, this bunch of regional languages lends a rich cultural diversity, on the other hand, these have their sociopolitical repercussions as well. The wide variety of regional languages and their impact is further heightened because Pakistan is postcolonial country and so has English language dominance even over the national language also. This has its own chain of conflicting demands and opportunity of opening multiple debates. 

One of the ways to harmonize the existence and functioning of this linguistic diversity is to write literature and translate it into national language also so that all diversity is harmonized under the umbrella of national language and yet these are represented individually as well. But this sociopolitical duty has not been performed the way it should have been done qualitatively as well as quantitatively. Firstly, in the pre-partition era although literature was produced in Urdu but still English dominated and progressive writers either wrote in English or translated their works into Urdu. Regional languages could not find an ample space to represent themselves. Post Partition Pakistan also could not harmonize the same and in the name of popularizing nationalism, one Urdu language was stressed without caring for the worth of regional languages. Consequently, the speakers of these languages felt threatened about the loss of their linguistic identity. And more stressed individuals took it as an opportunity of regional politics and even demanded small administrative units based on regional languages which further resulted in sociopolitical disintegration and the dream of linguistics harmony remains still to be achieved. 

While there is no harm in creating smaller administrative units in Pakistan for a better and improved management of public affairs in the provinces like Punjab and Baluchistan, but these should not become linguistic units because in this way, people will over stress their linguistic identity instead of stressing their micro-identity within the macro national identity. But in no way, this means that a few regional languages may be done away with; instead a comprehensive dialogue with all stake holders must be held to avoid language based divisions yet the rights and duties of the people in general may be ensured. 

Speaking linguistically, any language would die instead of evolving if it is not spoken by the speakers or no literature is written in this language. So, as a matter of policy, the regional languages of Pakistan should also be equally strengthened along with the national language, otherwise Pakistan is going to get deprived of this diversity of linguistic culture. The promotion of this linguistic diversity will ensure diversity in harmony. Diversity in harmony can impact other areas of our life also in the same way. Intolerance and impatience as a hallmark of frustrated life in this age of technology can also be harmonized to intermingle the diversity into social harmony when all sections of society would be sure of receiving their due share of representation in the national psyche. The celebration of linguistic harmony can therefore become a way for the solution of sociopolitical issues. 

Now, the time has come that regional languages must be given their due share in the representation matters by attempting to incorporate regional content into the national language by writing literature and popularizing the same throughout the country. The initial primary school teaching in regional languages also along with the national language should be enacted so that regional languages in no way feel underrepresented and the political cards of this nature may not be played. Pakistan is rich not only in cultural diversity but also 

literary production in English and Urdu language. Further support can come from the masterpieces produced by the regional language writers which may be further translated into English and Urdu language for the benefit of all. The same should be done with the masterpieces of Urdu and English language that can be translated into multiple regional languages. This will strengthen the linguistic harmony as well as national goal of one national language will also be achieved. English is to remain as a dominant English language, and let it be so but the national and regional languages deserve to he protected, popularized and harmonized as per the psyche, aspirations and culture of Pakistani people. Many countries with cultural and linguistic diversity have practiced this model and have successfully implemented without causing any sociopolitical issues in their country.