Onlykashmir.in | Editorial
The exchange of statements between the daughter of former Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti and Nasir Aslam Wani, a senior leader of the ruling party National Conference and advisor to the Chief Minister, has once again thrust the question of the Urdu language into the heart of political discourse. While Wani has categorically denied any decision to remove Urdu from the Tehsildar examination, Iltija Mufti, associated with the PDP, maintains that Urdu is being systematically sidelined.
The reality is that Urdu, in Kashmir, is not merely a language; it is a civilisational and administrative inheritance. Yet languages do not survive on emotional slogans alone, they require institutional patronage, consistent usage, and sustained public cultivation. Historically, Urdu has served as a bridge connecting the diverse linguistic communities of Jammu and Kashmir, playing a unifying role in the conduct of governance. Any perceived threat to its standing, therefore, naturally gives rise to concern.
This moment also demands a degree of candid and perhaps uncomfortable introspection, particularly from those leaders who have positioned themselves as Urdu’s foremost guardians. A careful examination of their conduct reveals a glaring contradiction. Their Press conferences are conducted predominantly in English or a medley of languages, with Urdu accorded only token usage. Press releases and social media posts seldom feature Urdu. Even on platforms where the choice of language lies entirely within their control, Urdu is conspicuous by its absence.
If genuine protection of Urdu is the objective, then those who have assumed the mantle of its championship must lead by example. Political parties and their leaders must set a precedent, issuing statements in Urdu, engaging with the public in the same tongue, and ensuring its presence in official and digital spheres. Voices raised opportunistically or seasonally cannot sustain a language.
The term “cheap politics” may seem harsh, yet it reflects a palpable public disquiet. Today’s discerning society perceives with clarity the gulf between hollow sloganeering and substantive action. If love for Urdu is sincere, it must not remain confined to rhetoric, it must be embraced in practice.
So long as the chasm between proclamation and deed persists, every outcry will be regarded as yet another chapter of political theatre, rather than a genuine endeavour in defence of a language.
