Writings on Subaltern Practice 3031437098, 9783031437090

Citation preview

Writings on Subaltern Practice

Ahmar Mahboob

Writings on Subaltern Practice

Ahmar Mahboob

Writings on Subaltern Practice

Ahmar Mahboob University of Sydney Sydney, NSW, Australia

ISBN 978-3-031-43709-0    ISBN 978-3-031-43710-6 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43710-6 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the ­publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and ­institutional affiliations. Cover pattern © Melisa Hasan This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Paper in this product is recyclable.

Dedicated to the victims of socio-semiotic violence

Foreword

I Ahmar Mahboob, or as he now would like to be known as Sunny Boy Brumby, writes Writings on Subaltern Practice from personal experiences, as well as reading that is wide-ranging, and a perspective that is multi-­ cultural and that transcends borders. Indian in origin, he is from a family that moved from British India to Pakistan to the UAE. His studies took him from the Emirates and Pakistan to the USA and from English literature to (Applied) Linguistics in Australia. But his peregrinations took him in directions not at all typical of diasporic people, for he has now opted to live with an Aboriginal Australian family and pursue “subaltern linguistics”, believing that knowledge should be embedded in Indigenous traditions and that we need to reorient ourselves by understanding our roots. To him, Western traditions assuming a split between mind and nature have taken Westerners away from wisdom gained from intimate contact with bountiful nature, alienating them from knowledge accumulated over time stemming from immersion in unscathed landscapes and eco-friendly environments. Signs of a life attuned to the earth had been strewn thus; if such signs are read properly in our time, they can still lead peoples to healing the scars created by the ruptures resulting from “civilisation”. It is thus that new pathways of communication between humans and nature and ways of seeing and living that will restore harmony between them and their environment can be achieved. In his diagnosis of the malaise into which we have been led by Western, Cartesian readings, and his advocacy of alternative traditions he would like vii

viii 

FOREWORD

to revive through what he calls “subaltern linguistics”, Mahboob is passionate, eloquent, and articulate. He is definitely on a quest to convince us to do so. His exposition of the basic principles of such a linguistics—or what he calls socio-semiotics—is done lucidly; moreover, Mahboob conveys his deeply felt ideas not merely with conviction but also with a sense of urgency. Throughout the brief but value-laden book that Writings on Subaltern Practices is, one feels also that what he has set out to do is call for rethinking of not merely linguistics—theoretical or applied—but also for resorting to pathways to knowledge which will take us beyond the grasp of utilitarian, neo-imperial intentions. His subaltern linguistics is premised on principles that are humane, anti-hegemonic, and archetypal. But Mahboob would also like us to consider potential solutions to problems posed by the excesses of “rational” thinking with solutions that are practical and workable and that may, taken together, provide building blocks to restore communal, transnational harmony between humans as well as living beings and the non-human world. Mahboob’s Writings on Subaltern Practice is thus conceived uniquely. He has created in it a text woven out of prose and poetry, verbal and visual languages. Socio-semiotic images fill the pages of this brief but very suggestive book. It is perhaps a foundation on which he will build later to fill in the details further, convincing us even more to support the route he is working on to establish subaltern linguistics and practice  as a viable discipline.

II Ever since I read Edward Said’s seminal text, Orientalism (1978), I have seen myself as a post-colonial scholar and as one who feels he must read literature in English from his location in space and time. I am thus appreciative of Mahboob’s critique of the still lingering and pervasive presence of colonisation through neocolonial, global avatars. It appears to me that he has ample reasons to be dismissive of some assumptions of “post-­ coloniality”, since we have not gone beyond colonial, rhizomic networks. But I do believe that Mahboob’s arguments have been furthered by his assimilation of the kind of post-colonial thought championed by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak as well as Said. This is why I find his arguments more often than not compelling and worth reading. As a Bangladeshi, I was intrigued by Ahmar’s passing references to the way our country was created when in the nascent Islamic republic of

 FOREWORD 

ix

Pakistan, attempts were made to impose Urdu, a language spoken by a minority even in Pakistan. After all, Pakistan is the country Mahboob calls his own; it is one of his missions to make it a country where the languages of its many Indigenous peoples are respected by its central government and given due importance in education, research, and everyday communication. The majority of Bengali-speaking people of the once impossibly strung country had broken away in 1971—the year of Mahboob’s birth. Bangladeshis themselves have learnt after their independence and over the decades the importance of valuing not merely their mother tongue but the language of other minorities. To me, a very welcome feature of Mahboob’s developing argument therefore is that he feels that Aboriginal languages should be given their due importance. To him, linguistic hegemonies of any kind should be challenged. He believes fervently that linguists in practice as well as theory should devote themselves to not merely languages but sign-systems and plural modes of articulation. I have no doubt that Mahboob’s work, devised as “a call for action”, will stir readers in all sorts of ways. He is provocative and polemical quite often but thought-provoking almost always. At a time when all over the world people are beginning to understand fully the extent of the damage done by insensitivity as far as the treatment of linguistic minorities is concerned and seeing how the ways of living of Indigenous people have been scanted in moves that have in tandem damaged the environment, Mahboob’s re-visioning of language and appeal to unlearn old adages linked to the conceptualizing and learning of languages in discriminatory ways surely deserve widespread attention. His exhortation to himself in one of the poems making up his text is indicative of his overall project— “reflect, rethink, redirect”. At the least, Writings on Subaltern Practice made me reflect and rethink language education; hopefully it will impact on other readers’ consciousness the same way it did mine and even redirect some to what he would like to see—“a linguistics of the people, by the people and for the people”. An agenda for action—idealistic for sure but clearly worth pursuing! University of Dhaka Dhaka, Bangladesh

Fakrul Alam

Author’s Preface

Subaltern theory emerged as a small voice within academia decades ago. Over time, this work generated significant debate and numerous publications, talks, and conferences. However, little has changed in the experienced lives of the masses. This led people to wonder: “the subalterns seem to have a voice, but can they act?” Or, in other words, is there subaltern practice? This collection of essays and poems, written with a broad audience in mind, hopes to demonstrate not just how the subaltern can identify and question hegemonic practices, but how they can create alternative frameworks and material that enable themselves and their communities. In doing so, this book aims to demonstrate not just how deep the colonial and colonising poisons run but also how to detoxify ourselves and the environment around us. Writings on Subaltern Practice is a call for action and a sharing of ideas that may enable us to regain balance and fulfil our human responsibilities. Finally, given that earlier versions of many of the texts included here were published by WeMountains as standalone articles or poems, there is some repetition across the texts. We have maintained this repetition in the book as each time a point is raised, it is extended or related to different issues in different ways. In addition, by keeping the repetition of some key ideas and definitions, readers can start by reading any text first, rather than reading the book in the sequence presented. University of Sydney Sydney, NSW, Australia

Ahmar Mahboob xi

A Note on Citations and References in This Book

The writings included in this book study the inequalities that we experience in and around us and suggest actions and practices that can help us regain harmony. We are aware that there is a long tradition of work that addresses issues of inequality in education and society. This includes work across a range of disciplines and sub-disciplines. We are familiar with some of this work and recognise their influence on our work and writing. At the same time, with due apology, we have chosen not to include references in this book (other than for work critiqued in some of the essays). We did this for several reasons. First, we asked ourselves these two interrelated questions: (1) how can we model subaltern practice if we continue to replicate approaches that are dominant in the work that we are critiquing, and (2) when references are often used to enable silos and silence dissent, should we use them in subaltern work? In addition, five additional interrelated reasons led us into deciding to exclude references in this book: 1. References have to be trusted, as not everyone has or can do the same readings (and with the same interpretations). 2. References relate to other written texts (often in English), which exclude other forms of knowledge (specially in languages that don’t have a writing system or don’t use it in academia). 3. Selecting references can be a political act through which certain people and work are promoted and others dismissed.

xiii

xiv 

A Note on Citations and References in This Book

4. References, when used instead of observations/evidence to make/ support a point, must be taken at face-value as there is little that readers can do to verify them. 5. References can make reading difficult, especially for those uninitiated in the field. While we acknowledge and respect other people’s work and contributions, we have chosen not to include direct references in this book. We apologise to those who might be impacted by this choice. In this book, we have shared our observations and/or pointed to things that you can locate and observe yourselves, and we have included poems that encourage one to reflect on the same issues in a different way. By doing so, in many ways, we are delegating the authority and expertise typically reserved for “the author” to you, the reader: we have shared examples and observations, and you have the agency to verify them—our arguments are not protected by a ($$$) reference-wall.

Acknowledgements

Earlier versions of some of the writings in this book were published on wemountains.com, an Indigenous publication brought out by a consortium of Indigenous peoples of the Hindukush mountains in Northern Pakistan. We would like to thank the WeMountains team for their trust in and support of our work over the years and the readers for motivating us to continue this work. We would like to thank Kiran Mahboob and Rubab Jafri for the artwork. We would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers of the draft manuscript for their invaluable suggestions. And to our editor, Cathy Scott, and the publication team for their feedback and support. A big thank you to all the people who looked through the drafts of these poems and essays at various stages of their write-up. And, in particular, thank you Prof. Fakrul Alam for writing the Foreword and thank you Mona H. Mamac for writing the Introduction. Any errors in the work are our responsibility. Ahmar Mahboob I Sunny Boy Brumby I Prof Nomad June 2023

xv

Contents

I Am Subaltern  1  From Ramsey Centre for Western Civilization to Subaltern Linguistics: A Call for Action  3 Three Rights 11 Modern Linguistics Is “Non-sensical” 13 What Is Love? 21 What Is Subaltern Linguistics? 23 Poster Boy 31 Doing Subaltern Linguistics 33 I Stand on Solid Ground 47 Why English? 49 Beautiful Tomorrow? 55

xvii

xviii 

Contents

One Reason for War: Exploitative Socio-­semiotics 57 “Papa, Why Do People Hurt Each Other?” 63  International Mother Tongue Day: Has Pakistan Learnt Any Lessons? 65 Enlightenment, Renaissance, Reformation 67 The Myth of the Post-Colonial 69 Splendid! Simply Splendid! 77 Unlearn ‘Language’ 79 The River Wept 83 The Unmaking of Paradise: Literacy as Trojan Horse: Part I 85 Thank You 91 The Unmaking of Paradise: Literacy as Trojan Horse: Part II 93 Should I Go to School?101 The Unmaking of Paradise: Literacy as Trojan Horse: Part III103 I Love You Unconditionally113 Colonisation 3.0115 Toba127 Regaining Balance: Rethinking Knowledge Making129 You Need to Start Learning135

 Contents 

xix

Regaining Balance: Learning to Make Sense137 Learning Is Easy143 Regaining Balance: Relearning “Religion”145 The Diamond Jug151 Ten Myths that Keep Us Colonised159 Learn from the Trees169

About the Author

Ahmar  Mahboob  / Prof. Nomad / Sunny Boy Brumby, born of South Asian refugees and South Asian social, economic, and political oppression, grew up in exile in the United Arab Emirates, where they were educated not just through conventional schools but also through relationships with artists, poets, journalists, politicians, and writers—all friends of their parents. With them, they had grown to identify oppressive practices in education, academia, and governance. Working on issues of disempowerment and marginalisation and recently abandoning most colonial teachings, they draw on observation, analysis, and practice to develop their research and practices.

xxi

List of Figures

Doing Subaltern Linguistics Fig. 1 One approach to Doing Subaltern Linguistics: CREDIBLE research Fig. 2 “Free Throw Plastic Bottles”, Pasacao, Camarines Sur, Philippines Fig. 3 Current signage. Notice the signage compromises of a handwritten text: “Do not throw garbage” on the back of a banner advertisement for Globe, a telecom provider. Yes, there are marketing banners sponsored by corporations across many parts of the world; but there is often no signage to educate the public and no places to throw away trash Fig. 4 Evidence of garbage thrown in the caves near some of the main tourist sites around Wawa Dam Fig. 5 One of the new design by Mona Mamac’s team

34 40

42 43 44

Regaining Balance: Learning to Make Sense Fig. 1 Classification of human sensory systems

140

xxiii

List of Tables

The Unmaking of Paradise: Literacy as Trojan Horse: Part III Table 1 The hierarchy of the five material senses based on proximity

106

Regaining Balance: Learning to Make Sense Table 1

Differences between material-biological and socio-semiotic worlds 139

xxv

Introduction

The essays and poems included in Writings on Subaltern Practice are written to question the current forms of knowledge, identify alternative approaches, and share examples of how this can empower people. Whilst the contents of the volumes are, in general, arranged chronologically based on the date of writing, six dominant themes emerge through the work. The first theme focusses on subaltern linguistics. It lays out the foundational knowledge that comprises the field and how it can be carried out. Subaltern linguistics advocates for an interplay of the material-biological world and the socio-semiotics world in meaning creation. Human beings connect with the material-biological world through up to five senses. Meaning is created by interpreting the material-biological interaction based on interpretive frameworks comprising the socio-semiotic world. The constant interchange between the two worlds affects humans’ interpersonal connections, relationships with their environment, beings, and behaviours. Drawing from this knowledge, subaltern linguistics projects deploy CREDIBLE approach realised through broad Positive Discourse Analysis (PDA) as methodological and analytical frameworks. CREDIBLE is an acronym for work that addresses local issues with integrity and responsibility. PDA was first coined by Martin (2002) to complement Critical Discourse Analysis aiming to make the world a better place. Unlike emerging PDA studies that focus primarily on language, Mahboob designs a broad PDA approach that draws from the resources of the five human material-biological senses. The broad PDA approach can be carried out even by people who are not trained in language sciences. Therefore, xxvii

xxviii 

INTRODUCTION

research in subaltern linguistics can be conducted by anyone regardless of academic training. Criticism of European colonisation has emerged throughout the volumes, hence the second theme. Shifting away from the common belief on the ending of colonisation perpetuated by post-colonial studies and discourses, Mahboob contends that colonisation has not concluded yet. The volume points out that people mistake the ending of colonisation to colonisers leaving the geographical area and creating “independent” countries. Instead, Mahboob argues that colonisation is a present phenomenon as communities worldwide continually operate in colonial concepts that penetrate and destroy local knowledges and disrupt harmonious social behaviours. These concepts include, amongst others, language, knowledge, religion, literacy, economics, money, migration, labour, development, and success. This phenomenon is coined as socio-semiotic colonisation. The reproduction and normalisation of these concepts by colonial institutions (e.g., governments and schools) are identified, exemplified, explained, and criticised across the texts. The third theme revolves around the criticism of modern linguistics. Although there is a chapter dedicated solely to this theme, the theme persists throughout the volume. Mahboob offers an alternative way of viewing the field. Specifically, he discusses its colonial past, documenting local languages to translate religious texts and the racism around linguistics scholarships. Modern linguistics is also criticised for its lack of or selective definition of language and for conflating speech and writing as two modes of language. Hence, colonial understandings downplay meaning-making resources through other modes and sensory systems in which other communities and species are more dependent. Lastly, Mahboob reveals the potential socio-political effects of dividing languages based on structural features and naming them. These practices can lead to divisions and conflicts of communities that own the “identified” languages. Countering modern linguistics, boli is the fourth theme that offers an alternative way to study and view language. Boli refers to “speech”. It is derived from Mahboob’s mother tongue. However, the concept of boli shifts away from the Western definition of language. Unlike language, which is countable and dividable, boli is the opposite. It refers to the interrelationships of language systems among communities. In addition, language is a human attribute, but boli is attributable to other living and non-living beings such as animals and rivers. Mahboob suggests that South Asian communities’ pre-colonial conceptualisation of boli reflects a

 INTRODUCTION 

xxix

relatively harmonised society before colonisation. Therefore, boli is a more constructive alternative to studying and understanding languages because of its inclusivity and grounding in interrelationships. Additionally, local science and knowledges are encoded into the local boli. Hence, boli can render a more locally grounded categorisation of the material-biological entities and fields of knowledge. The English language is seen throughout the volume as one of the primary tools of colonial powers to socio-semiotic colonisation, hence comprising the fifth theme. The binarism evolved from English concepts led to the reduction and replacement of complex knowledges of Indigenous communities. Some examples include the anthropocentric and gender-­ reductive pronominal systems integrated into language descriptions. A shift from environmentally sensitive social practices to anthropocentric behaviours has a cost for human and non-human life forms as well as the natural world. Furthermore, the gender-reductive pronominal system of English was the conceptual basis of the criminalisation of the third gender in South Asia. Economic criticism of the English language lies within the colonialists’ coercion of the local people to learn the language at the cost of decontextualisation with their immediate environment. Due to the spread of this colonial language masked in the euphemism of global language, it has become the primary gatekeeper and standard of development and success. Furthermore, the English language is the dominant mode in which the colonial concepts laid out in the second theme are drawn and continuously perpetuated. A sixth theme discusses and exemplifies the issues in modern literacy, such as the disruption of Indigenous knowledges and practices and decontextualisation of education. Mahboob explains the historical increase in  dependency on literacy through the printing press, its spread worldwide, and the destruction of Indigenous socio-semiotics through the importation of concepts and practices that enable colonial power. All these are made possible through modern education that centralises universal literacy as the goal. From an epistemological perspective, the inadequacy of literacy in meaning-making is highlighted. Literacy, the ability to read and write, is dependent on writing systems. To decode writing systems, humans draw primarily on sight or visuals. Based on the subaltern theory of meaning-making, sight is the most easily decontextualised material-­ biological sense and the latest to develop in children. Disregarding this observation, modern education regards sight as paramount to learning and success, often  leaving other material-biological senses out of

xxx 

INTRODUCTION

dominant education practices. This leads to the marginalisation of people  communities not dependent on writing systems. Alternatively, Mahboob puts forward the development of skills for local empowerment as a better goal of education. Writings on Subaltern Practice offers new and state-of-the-art ways of understanding language, semiotics, and concepts that humans often overlook. The book encourages the readers to question the existing dominant knowledge structures and embark on a journey of self-discovery and decolonisation. Albeit critical in orientation, the book renders hope and reconciliation. Ultimately, the book is the foundational resource of subaltern linguistics and practice, an emerging interdisciplinary field that aims to make the world a better place. Prince of Songkla University  Pattani, Thailand

Monaliza Hernandez Mamac

Reference Martin, J. R. (2002). Blessed are the Peacemakers: Reconciliation and Evaluation. In Research and Practice in Professional Discourse. Edited by C.  Candlin, 187–223. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. http://www.isfla.org/ Systemics/Print/MartinPapers/BC-­2002-­Blessed%20are%20the%20peacemaker%20reconciliation%20and%20evalua.PDF

I Am Subaltern

I am subaltern That’s why they don’t like me I am subaltern That’s why they deny me I am subaltern That’s why they devoice me I am subaltern That’s why I don’t know Stupid Crazy Wrong Weak Incorrect That’s what they think of me Rude Arrogant Bull-shitter Unread Fucked up That’s what they consider me

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Mahboob, Writings on Subaltern Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43710-6_1

1

2 

A. MAHBOOB

I am subaltern That’s why they ignore me I am subaltern That’s why they forget me I am subaltern That’s why they override me I am subaltern That’s why I don’t know I am subaltern That’s why I don’t know I am subaltern A child of colonisation I am subaltern Living a life colonised I am subaltern Fighting to be decolonized I am subaltern I survive I am subaltern I reconcile I am subaltern I create

From Ramsey Centre for Western Civilization to Subaltern Linguistics: A Call for Action

Ahmar, my friend, you live in Western civilization, speak and teach the language you see as highly oppressive, yet enjoy the benefits of the freedom it affords you to do so, to criticize it publicly. (a comment on our social media post that shared the following article: https://www.megaphone.org.au/ petitions/university-­of-­wollongong-­reject-­the-­secret-­ramsay-­deal)

This is not the first (nor last) time that people have made such comments to me. We want to take a moment to respond to them. First, it is not just the Western societies that provide freedom to critique a government, policy, or practice publicly. Freedom of speech is, was, and has been part of most civilisations. If freedom of speech is supressed in some parts of the world at points in history, it is most likely a consequence of the politics of the times. Second, we don’t find English or any other language oppressive. Language in itself is not oppressive. It is the use of language (including language policies) that can lead to oppression. Our critique of a Centre for Western Civilisation has nothing to do with where we live and what language(s) we speak. So, why do we oppose the Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation. There is no single reason for this. Western Civilization, as we know it today, would not be if it were not for colonisation. It is the wealth generated by colonizing other

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Mahboob, Writings on Subaltern Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43710-6_2

3

4 

A. MAHBOOB

communities and lands that financed the luxury to develop “western culture” (music, arts, theatre etc.) and showcase these as models of a “civilized” society. Other societies and cultures also have music and arts – but that were/are not always recognised by the colonialists. For example, Bray (1913), in his influential and still-cited publication “The life history of a Brahui”, claims that Brahui has no poets or poetry. (We will come back to Bray later.) Colonisation has not ended. One thing that changed is that the colonial powers now take no direct administrative responsibilities of the colonies. The colonial powers still gain enormous economic and other material and non-material benefits from the colonies – through a complex set of economic, cultural, linguistics, military, and political policies and practices. In his letter of resignation, Jim Mattis (https://www.abc.net.au/ news/2018-12-21/jim-mattis-letter-of-resignation/10645874) notes that the goal of US military is not just defence, but to “sustain strong US global influence”. Building and sustaining global influence is not achieved only through military, as Mattis notes, but also through other means such as grants, aid, loans, education, publication, media, and other discursive practices. These so-called tools of soft power enable the continuation of colonial and exploitative agendas even as many people believe that they live in a postcolonial world. Post-colonization is a myth: colonisation is stronger today than ever before. That many are unaware of this is because they are told that they are living in a ‘post-colonial world’ – and they accept it. The internalised weak positioning of people in the colonies provides evidence of the underlying hegemonic discourses that keep people where they are. Countries that are colonized are and continue to be weak, corrupt, and (in many cases) violent and fragmented. The destabilisation of these countries/communities adds to the glamour of a life abroad, leading to a desire to migrate to a better life. A better life abroad, marketed by the colonial discourses of today – is a myth. For many economic migrants, life abroad is far from the dream that they were sold. Thousands of labourers and working-class migrants from South Asian and South East Asian countries live lives as modern-day slaves in the Middle East and the Far East. And, modern day slavery is not restricted to the Middle East, but also exists in the developed world (https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/linda-­reynolds/modern-­slavery­in-­australia-­is-­hiding-­in-­plain-­sight_a_22114200/).

  FROM RAMSEY CENTRE FOR WESTERN CIVILIZATION TO SUBALTERN… 

5

Point based migration system is another instrument of colonisation. Many of the colonial powers today have point based migration systems in place to evaluate the “eligibility” of people from other parts of the world to live/work there. These point-based systems often include language and education prerequisites (https://www.immiaustralia.com.au/visas/ point-­test/) through which the colonial governments evaluate how candidates perform on tests of colonial language and beliefs. Since a desire to move to the West is now a normalised discourse in many (if not most) colonised communities, the education and other policies/practices (e.g., keeping English as a medium of education and using west-oriented curricula) are designed to give some people a chance to migrate. Upon arrival, new migrants are often expected to re-tool themselves by taking up courses and training in the host country before they can secure appropriate employment. Many immigrants never get employment in the areas of their professional training and instead take up other jobs. And, at the same time, source countries that invested in their people have now lost skilled labour. Migration has a huge social and political cost (in addition to economic cost) for source countries. Absence of one or both parents impact how the next generation is raised. In some cases, it can lead to extremism and terrorism. For example, with large numbers of males from the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan working abroad, their children grow up with few male role-models. These children are easy victims and recruits for criminal and terrorist organisations. Western universities, while they continue to attract more and more international students, have not revised their curricula to suit the needs of these students. International students are expected to read and learn about things that are relevant to their host countries, not the communities that they come from. Upon graduating, these graduates return home – knowing somethings from a Western perspective, but little about their own contexts. At home, because they have a degree from a Western university, they quickly secure promotions and take up influential positions. They are given these positions over people who don’t have the same qualifications but may have worked in local contexts for much longer. The western graduates try to apply what they have learnt at home, but often find that the local communities resist their attempts. This leads to frustration, disappointment, disillusion, and conflict.

6 

A. MAHBOOB

Disciplines taught in Western universities – specially in social sciences and humanities – in many cases, emerged during the colonial times. For example, our own discipline, linguistics, is grounded in a colonial past. Colonial period linguists were interested in translating Bible and/or writing language descriptions and ethnographies to be used by the colonial powers for furthering their rule. They developed approaches to documenting a language, based on descriptions of structural features of languages, and wrote them up as grammars of various languages. This work was often carried out by colonial officers with the specific goal of empowering the colonial powers; not Indigenous communities. For example, the famous linguist G. A. Grierson, in his review of Bray’s 1907 “The Brahui Language, Part I: Introduction and grammar”, writes: “Mr. Bray’s book will be useful, not only to students of language, but also to those whose official duties take them into Baluchistan, for it is built on eminently practical lines” (p. 912). Note that empowering the communities is NOT included as a goal of linguistics here. These linguists studied community languages to further colonial rule. A reading of Bray’s book (as well as his description of the people/culture) indicates that he had only ONE primary source for all his work. This source used to be loyal to the Khan of Khalat, the head of the Brahui Confederacy, before he was employed by the British. In addition to the limitations with his data, Bray discounted variations in language; and he considered Brahui to be an impure race with a primitive language. Similar reductive research methodologies were adopted by many other colonial researchers who often based their research on data collected from a single person and then built a broad description/grammar of language on that. This approach posed many challenges to the communities in question. One such example is the name ‘Kohistani’ given to a large number of Indigenous communities living in parts of modern-day Afghanistan and Pakistan. This name was used by the colonials mainly because these Indigenous communities were so called by the Pushtuns, who the British used as informants and warriors. Regardless of these issues, Bray’s work is still considered an authority. Bray, while noting that Brahui was spoken across a large region by people who were translingual, did not consider that Brahui might have been a dialect or a contact language. Instead, he categorised Brahui as a Dravidian language based only on selected features between Brahui and Dravidian

  FROM RAMSEY CENTRE FOR WESTERN CIVILIZATION TO SUBALTERN… 

7

languages. He discounted the fact that Brahui-speaking people were not like the Dravidian people and that the local etymologies and narratives say/said that the people had come from Aleppo. There are grounds to question Bray’s categorisation of Brahui for a number of linguistic and non-linguistic reasons. One non-linguistic reason was the British belief that the Dravidian people used to live over large parts of north and west India (and not just the south) and were pushed out by the Aryans. Arguing that Brahui has a Dravidian heritage, when there are/ were no other Dravidian languages in the region, was used as evidence to support this theory. Although making strong claims about the relationship between Brahui and Dravidian languages, Bray realised that his arguments were not infallible. In fact, he tried to avoid being questioned about his grounds for making his claims by stating: … room cannot be found in this essay for an exhaustive treatment of the theme: gaps will necessary be left in the arguments, difficulties will be glossed over, all but the most salient features omitted, and the conclusions stated in an inevitably dogmatic form. A full presentation of the case in all its ramifications must in fact be reserved for a separate volume. (p. 9)

Bray never wrote that “separate volume”. The notion that Brahui is related to Dravidian languages became – and continues to be – a common belief (a quick search of Brahui on the internet will confirm this). His categorisation continues to be used today, even though we know the problems with his data collection and analysis; and are aware of his biases against the Brahui people – including considering his primary source of data as uneducated, superstitious, and “backwards”. Not only does Bray discredit local narratives in favour of what he believes to be right, but he writes: There is very general feeling among his neighbours that Brahui is a strange language, a jargon too uncouth for ‘gentility’, and feeling is shared in some measure by the Brahuis themselves, who do not hesitate to employ Baluchi or Pashtu on the slightest excuse. (p. 6)

While, few (if any) modern linguists would consider Indigenous people as an impure race or savages, or their languages primitive or uncouth,

8 

A. MAHBOOB

there is little change in the way that language documentation is carried out today. Linguists still go into the field, collect data (often from more than one source), write their grammars, and leave. They claim that they do it for the benefit of the community – but there is little evidence of any such benefits. What is pretty clear is that such work benefits linguists in their professional lives. Modern descriptive linguists are quick to point out that their work helps to give recognition to the language and is essential for language revitalisation. This new justification now replaces the goal of helping British civil servants and officials. However, there are few differences in the research methodologies and the outcomes produced by modern linguists: they still go to the field with the aim of collecting information about a language and then use their data to write a grammar. Writing a grammar is seen as a key requirement of becoming a ‘linguist’. Descriptive linguists today  – like those during the colonial period  – write grammars that are not accessible to the majority (if any) of local population. And while the linguists make a career out of the work they do, the local communities that they study continue to suffer and abandon their languages. How is such a linguistics post-colonial? Why do we write grammars that cannot be used by/in the communities? To develop a linguistics that supports disempowered communities, we need a subaltern linguistics. With at least some of our disciplines rooted in colonial ways of thinking and doing, one could argue that most parts of western universities are already Centres for Western Civilization. We therefore don’t need an additional Centre for the same purposes. Given the colonial influences on at least some of (or some aspects of) our disciplines, we should call for an independent audit of the western universities to explore how much of what is taught as knowledge for all is grounded in and supports Western civilization. If, like linguistics, other disciplines still carry colonial baggage, then we need to revise our disciplinary agendas, practices, outcomes, and goals to become ‘subaltern academics’  – academics who are not only seeking to publish and get promotions, but who work with communities to empower them – whether these communities be in the west or elsewhere.

  FROM RAMSEY CENTRE FOR WESTERN CIVILIZATION TO SUBALTERN… 

9

Specific Material Critiqued Bray, D. (1907). The Brahui Language, Part I: Introduction and grammar. Quetta: The Brahui Academy. Reprinted 1977. Bray, D. (1913). The life history of a Brahui. Quetta: Nisa Traders. Reprinted 1982. Grierson, G. A. (1910). “Denys De S. Bray, I. C. S.: The Brahui Language. Part I: Introduction and Grammar (Book Review)”. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, p. 908.

Three Rights

Born of this earth, I share three rights with my brothers and sisters who crawl, fly, swim, stand, or whatever: Right to live on earth; Right to nourishment; Right to receive your integrity; These fulfilled, Mother Earth will keep me strong.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Mahboob, Writings on Subaltern Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43710-6_3

11

Modern Linguistics Is “Non-sensical”

This chapter responds to the broad question: Why is it that a study of hard or applied sciences (e.g. physics, chemistry, biology, medicine) is more “desirable” and considered more “valuable” than a study of language and/or linguistics? A one-line answer to the question is: because dominant approaches to study of language/linguistics make limited (and sometimes no, or even negative) contributions to people or community. Or, put another way: we value things that benefit us more. In what follows, we are not saying that ALL modern linguistics is “non-­ sensical”; some is not. But, by far, most of modern linguistics is “non-­ sensical” in many ways. We will share seven of these here. 1. Modern linguists have created an academic discipline called “linguistics”, i.e., study of language, without clearly defining ‘language’. A look through pretty much any introduction to General Linguistics will provide evidence of this. Instead of defining language, the discipline of linguistics is created by contrasting human language with non-human communication. In doing so, it often draws on structural characteristics that can differentiate between how humans and nonhumans create meanings. It then ignores non-human meaning-­ making and focusses on human language only. In doing so, it enables

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Mahboob, Writings on Subaltern Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43710-6_4

13

14 

A. MAHBOOB

an anthropocentric (human-centric) discipline. Furthermore, linguistics draws on Anglo- and Euro-centric epistemologies. As a ­consequence of this, linguistic descriptions are created based on academic traditions grounded in Anglo- and European epistemologies. This creates biased descriptions of language and enables the hegemonic influence of a handful of colonisers to be maintained. Creating a discipline for a study of undefined subject matter is “non-sensical”. Colonial linguists consider language to be a category; it is a system of classification, a taxonomy, a noun. This is why European colonisers gave and give names to languages. This practice of modern linguists suggest that they see language as a thing, an entity. This is why language can be pluralised to languages; languages can be counted. However, observation tells us this not to be the case. Language, in its essence, is an oral practice carried out in space and time. It is verbal. And it is performed in a setting that is shared with others. A recording of the events in audio or visual (which includes writing) forms is a recording of the event; it is not the performance itself. While performance is emergent and unpredictable; a recording of a performance is not emergent and is predictable. Language is human practice, which can be realised in many ways. The variations between these different ways of languaging celebrate the diversity of human practices and epistemologies. Any attempt to reduce this socio-­ semiotic diversity and to standardise epistemologies is an act of socio-­ semiotic violence. Turning a human practice into an entity/noun/thing is “non-sensical”. 2. One can’t study language like one studies material stuff. In material and natural sciences, a study of features can help one classify and categorise different entities. This differentiation allows one to separate out different composite parts of an entity; and, by manipulating these, one can create new things. For example, if one knows what enzymes and chemicals in a particular plant are beneficial to humans and for what purposes, one can use this information and develop medicines. Similarly, if one understands the nature of the atom, what it comprises of, what the characteristics of each of these sub-­ entities are, then one can learn to manipulate it to generate atomic power (or produce atomic bombs). Scientists, engineers, doctors, et  al draw on understandings of material entities and use these understanding to create things that are useful to us.

  MODERN LINGUISTICS IS “NON-SENSICAL” 

15

Modern linguists, following these material and natural sciences, attempt to do the same: they isolate contrasting features of a language and then label them (whether this is sound, word, grammar, or text). However, this is where the similarity ends. Whereas, people who understand material and natural sciences can use their understandings to create new things; the descriptions provided by linguists do not necessarily lend themselves to application. The grammars that modern linguists write have restricted real-world uses. One reason for this is because language is not a static system. It is dynamic. Trying to reduce a dynamic system to a static one leads to descriptions that have limited, if any, real-world uses. Some may argue that there is application of these descriptions in education. We counter: yes, but is this a beneficial application? On the contrary, the use of grammars developed by modern linguists may have severe negative impacts on our communities. For example, general/descriptive linguists, out of necessity, often exclude descriptions of variation in language. The grammatical descriptions provided are based on a limited set of a data collected from a few informants and in a handful of contexts. These grammatical descriptions are further distanced from context by turning them into abstract linguistic rules or concepts. These descriptions, based on limited data and context, are not sufficient for use in education. Yet, they are used in education. Including in testing and assessment, leading one to ask: how can an assessment be valid if it is NOT grounded in or constitutive of real-world experiences? Language in education cannot be restrained by grammars produced by modern linguists. When they are, it leads to futile learning – learning that is not based on real-world and that cannot be used for community benefit. Modern linguistics is “non-sensical” because it continues to write descriptions that are of limited (if not of negative) value to a community. 3. Modern linguistics reduces language primarily to oral and written modes. In some contexts, it includes a study of sign language and Braille – but, note that these are often not considered part of mainstream linguistics. In fact, many linguists think of Braille as another form of written expression (a quick search of the definition of Braille will confirm this). They are wrong.

16 

A. MAHBOOB

Why can we be so sure? Because oral language, written language, sign language, and Braille are aspects of three different sensory systems: hearing (oral), sight (written; sign), and touch (Braille). These three sensory systems operate independently but work together to help one create meanings. In fact, meaning making is not restricted to these three sensory systems. Humans also use the sense of smell and taste to make meaning. And we can compensate for the lack of one or more of these sensory systems. For example, a person who doesn’t have vision, may have a much more developed sense of hearing or touch or smell or taste – or, all four of these. Reducing meaning-making to essentially two sensory systems is “non-sensical”. 4. Modern linguistics reduces language to listening-speaking and reading-­writing. Other forms of meaning making, for example, gestures and facial expressions are considered “paralanguage” or ignored. Some modern linguists have started paying more attention to these and call their study ‘multi-modal’. This work is often problematic because it over-emphasizes language and discounts other sensory systems. It also often confuses different aspects of each sensory system. For example, many linguists consider that speech (auditory) and reading (visual) are two ends of a continuum. And, they exclude a study of sign language and Braille as a core aspect of a study of language. The belief that oral and written language are two modes of one system is a fallacy. Modes may exist within a sensory system (e.g., music, noise, whistles are modes of the auditory sense) but not across sensory systems. The minimal engagement with sign language and Braille in linguistics programs around the world reflects modern linguists’ non-interest and non-engagement with issues of real people in real communities. One can argue that this is a consequence of modern linguists’ fascination with theoretical questions: studying for the sake of studying; not for application or community benefit. It is possible to say that written language, sign language, gestures, facial expressions, body movement, location, colours, size, etc. are all modes of the visual system. Just as oral language, music, other sounds are modes of the oral system. Writing-reading and oral language are not two modes of one system, but modes of two independent sensory systems. This is

  MODERN LINGUISTICS IS “NON-SENSICAL” 

17

because modes are differences in how a single sensory system operates, not across sensory systems. Let us consider more examples. Imagine that you are watching a movie and, all of a sudden, the screen goes blank – but you can still hear the sounds; you may still be able to understand some of what is happening, but not everything. Conversely, imagine that you are watching a movie and the sound disappears (including music) – you may still be able to make some sense of what’s happening by watching the images, but you will miss out on a lot. Or, if you are attending a presentation with a PowerPoint; you may stop paying attention to what a speaker is saying and focus more on what the PowerPoint is showing. Or, the PowerPoint may stop working, and you only have the speaker’s sounds (and perhaps gestures and body movement) to understand what they are talking about. In each of the cases, the meanings we make will be different based on the sensory systems we use. At this point, you are probably saying: well, this is all pretty common sensical. Yes, it is. And, this is why it is “non-sensical” that modern linguistics fails to recognise and correct this. This fallacy in modern linguistics leads to multiple problems and may seriously limit the application of linguistic descriptions. And, they may produce results that work against the well-being of a community. For example, if one considers written language to be a visual representation of oral language, then writing can be done in many ways. One key distinction between types of script is whether a script is phonetic or non-­ phonetic. The English letters, the Urdu letters, the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), are all examples of phonetic scripts – where there is some degree of sound-symbol correspondence. Most modern linguists use and advocate for a phonetic script (manifested in their promotion of the IPA). Using phonetic scripts leads to multiple problems. People may want to spell words based on how they pronounce them rather than how they ‘should be’ spelt (as codified in dictionaries, education, and testing material). A standardised spelling system based on a phonetic script can work against people who do not recognise the spelling and sound relationships in the same way as others. In Pakistan, this has fuelled ethnic jokes and conflicts. For example, writing the word ‘school’ as ‘‫ ’اسکول‬or ‘‫ ’سکول‬in Urdu can mark a person’s ethnicity. Urdu speakers prefer the spelling ‘‫’اسکول‬, whereas people in other

18 

A. MAHBOOB

parts of Pakistan may prefer the spelling ‘‫’سکول‬ – depending on the sound system of their languages. This contrast – which is grounded in the phonetic features of the script – can thus fuel conflict. Modern linguists’ lack of recognition and utilisation of all sensory systems is “non-sensical”. 5. Modern linguistics uses contrasts between structural features (sounds, morphemes, words, and grammar) of a language to differentiate between dialects and/or languages. The principle here, as in hard sciences, is to identify features of language that can be used to contrast one language/dialect from the other. While such an approach may work in hard sciences, it is counter-­productive in social sciences – specially, in linguistics. Language operates through the auditory sense and contributes to the meanings that we make through other senses. Language is a natural system; it is, like most other natural systems, a complex dynamic system. If modern grammars are not responsive to the dynamic nature of language, then they are reducing them to features and rules that do not fully explain the language phenomenon. By limiting a study of language to structural features and ignoring (other) aspects of meaning making, modern linguists provide descriptions that are limited and divisive. By studying – and hence advocating for a study – of contrasting features, modern linguists (inadvertently?) enable others (including non-linguists) to use these features to identify different ethno-linguistic communities. This can lead to people making fun of others based on their accent and dialectal features. This is quite common in, for example, Pakistan, where people make fun of each other’s accents. And, often, it is people from ethno-­ linguistically dominant communities that make fun of people from minority communities. In colonised countries with weak governance and economy, these ethno-linguistic identities  – once enabled through modern linguistics  – may lead to conflict and violence. For example, one of the reasons for separation of Bangladesh from a unified Pakistan was non-recognition of Bengali as an official language of the country. The modern state of Pakistan continues to be plagued by ethno-linguistic conflicts. And many of the present day ethno-linguistic identities can be traced back to the damaging linguistic work carried out by the colonial and missionary linguists. This

  MODERN LINGUISTICS IS “NON-SENSICAL” 

19

poor and damaging work by colonial and missionary linguists needs to be corrected. When modern linguists claim that they have “described” a new dialect or language; they create ethno-linguistic identities in a complex web of community relationships that may not have existed prior to the linguists’ work and which, now, will impact the communities for an extended period. A neglect of social, economic and political consequences of writing grammars and dictionaries makes modern linguistics “non-sensical”. 6. Language is shaped by and shapes society: most readers are aware that language, culture, and society are interrelated. Yet, modern linguistics separates out language from both culture and society. Culture is the focus of study for anthropologists; and, society is the focus of study for sociologists. Modern linguists (and sociologists and anthropologists) carve these out as separate (and often independent) disciplines of study in western universities. This separation of disciplines fragments one’s understanding of how language works in communities. Instead of thinking about how one can use understandings of language to harmonize communities, modern linguists spend their time identifying structural features of languages. Given the conflicts in the world today, and our awareness that language plays an extremely important role in human engagement, it is “non-­ sensical” that modern linguists continue to write grammars that lead to conflict; rather than using their study to build peace, harmony and prosperity. 7. While we – including modern linguists – lament the weakening and demise of our languages, modern linguists continue to write grammars based on ways of thinking about language that are based in colonial history. It is no secret that linguistics was developed and used as a tool for colonisation. Most linguists realise this. Yet, while modern linguists distance themselves from the politics of early linguistic research (carried out to support colonial and missionary interests), their methods of enquiry and their end products haven’t changed much. One may question: if our goals and practices are interrelated; then, if we don’t change our practice, can our goals change? In other words, if

20 

A. MAHBOOB

modern linguistics has rejected its colonial and missionary heritage; then, why does it continue to collect the same type of material and answer similar theoretical questions? While modern linguists continue to champion languages by documenting them, languages continue to die. And the people who speak/spoke these languages are further marginalised and/or assimilated. If the work that modern linguists are doing helps communities to maintain and empower their languages, we should have seen a stabilization  – if not reversal – of language loss over the last 50–100 years or so. However, we have little evidence of this. This suggests that modern linguistics claim that it helps maintain languages and empower communities is “non-sensical”.

Concluding Thoughts So, what now? Having challenged some of the dominant approaches in the discipline that we are a part of, where can we go next. Our response to this is to develop a subaltern linguistics. We will write more about what we mean by subaltern linguistics in a following essay. For now, we will restrict ourselves to the following: subaltern linguistics is a linguistics based on an understanding of how we make meaning using all sensory systems available to us; and, how these meaning work in the context of our communities (including variations across and within communities). The goal of subaltern linguistics is not to write grammars for the sake of describing languages or answering theoretical questions; the goal of subaltern linguistics is to develop and draw on understandings of socio-semiotics to empower our communities by creating projects that benefit our communities. By taking a subaltern approach to linguistics, we can work for the benefit of our communities. If our communities benefit from our work, then, we, our work, and our field of study will gain recognition and value.

What Is Love?

“Papa, what is love?” Guddu asked one day. What an interesting question, Guddu No one really knows. Some people think it is a feeling, But I am not so sure. “Why Papa?” Guddu followed up, As I had expected him to. I see love as an action: It is something we do, a practice, Which builds our integrity and strength. Without it, love is a meaningless word. “What do people in love do?” Guddu wanted to know. We cannot make such lists, Guddu; Love can be in everything one does. Love is harmony between saying and doing And it is performed in all aspects of life. “What does that mean, Papa?” Guddu was confused.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Mahboob, Writings on Subaltern Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43710-6_5

21

22 

A. MAHBOOB

It means that our actions, goals, and words Create trust and respect, which we call love. Think of it this way, I know you love me Because of who you are and what you do. “Papa, I love you so much”, Guddu said while giving me a big hug. I love you too Guddu.

What Is Subaltern Linguistics?

Subaltern linguistics is a linguistics carried out by and for a community’s self-empowerment, well-being, and prosperity. Subaltern linguistics can be carried out by anyone. And, it can be done in any language – it does not need to use or rely on English or on technical jargon. The goal of subaltern linguistics, or, more broadly, subaltern practice, is to create economies, practices, projects, and resources that can be made and used by community members and leaders to develop and promote community beneficial socio-semiotic processes in their own language (or a language of their choice). Socio-semiotics can be broadly understood as ways in which various meaning-making resources (including, but not limited to, images, texts, colours, symbols, gestures, movement, sounds, smells, tastes, touch) relate to the lives of people. Subaltern linguistics can be – and is often – carried out by people who do not have a training in modern linguistics. There is no one way of doing subaltern linguistics. Work in subaltern linguistics can be characterised by: . its goals: community empowerment, well-being, and prosperity; 1 2. its use of up to five material senses: visual, oral, smell, touch, and taste [note: these five senses are presented in a particular hierarchy; we will discuss this hierarchy and its significance in a later essay]; and, 3. its recognition of the relationship between socio-semiotic and material systems. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Mahboob, Writings on Subaltern Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43710-6_6

23

24 

A. MAHBOOB

Our worlds can be broadly classified into two systems: material-­ biological systems and socio-semiotic systems. Material systems include physical and biological systems. Physical systems are the primary building blocks of our existence. A study of these (e.g. through physics or chemistry), and the use of these studies (e.g. through engineering) helps us to manipulate the physical world to suit our needs. Biological systems give us life. A study of these (e.g. through plant and animal sciences), and the use of these studies (e.g. through medicine) helps us to fight off diseases. Physical and biological systems are not independent of each other. All biological organisms are made of physical matter; however, not all physical matter is biological (e.g. tables, computers). Biological organisms can impact physical objects; and physical environment can impact the evolution of biological organisms. We can also use studies of the physical world and apply them to biological creatures, e.g., by using x-rays and nuclear medicine. And, we can use a study of biological creatures in working with physical objects, e.g., designing helicopters based on studying dragonflies. However, there can be little development or application of the physical or biological sciences without our ability to form socio-semiotic systems. Socio-semiotic systems include sociological systems and semiotic systems. Sociological systems are ways in which a group organises itself. All sociological systems are biological. Semiotic systems are meaning-making systems; and all sociological systems have some form of meaning-making processes (this includes but is not limited to language). This is because sociological beings need tools to live in their ways. It is the socio-semiotic systems that give us our understandings of the world, including our belief systems, economic systems, ways of thinking, ways of being, and ways of doing. Socio-semiotic systems can help explain and predict the relationship that an individual or a community has with other social systems, biological organisms, and the physical world. Language plays a small, but crucial, role in creating and enabling our socio-semiotic systems. Language is created, changed, and used by people. People use language as one way of understanding and sharing the world around us: both material-­biological world and socio-semiotic world. Language responds to and changes as people change or the things that they do with language change. Language, like the people who create language, changes all the time. To understand language, we need to understand people: what people do with language. Thus, people are at the centre of our understanding

  WHAT IS SUBALTERN LINGUISTICS? 

25

of subaltern linguistics. Not language. Language is one meaning-making resource amongst many; and people use this resource for benefit  – or, for harm. Indigenous communities developed respectful relationships with the material-biological world and lived in harmony with it. This was reflected in their socio-semiotic processes. For example, Indigenous people of Australia believe that earth (and rivers and mountains) are living things and deserve respect. Their languages give human-­like characteristics to animals and birds. They understood that other living thing also have meaning-making systems and navigate their lives and the world through them. Their social, cultural and linguistic practices reflected these beliefs. And, these beliefs led them to develop a respectful relationship with their environment – and all objects and beings that were part of that environment. Readers familiar with Indigenous languages from other parts of the world will be able to quickly add to these examples: of how Indigenous languages embedded a respect for material-biological, and other sociosemiotic systems. However, these practices and ways of being were disrupted by colonisation – and have led to many of the problems that we experience in the world today. Colonizing communities (a.k.a. exploiting communities) tend to speak and promote language, culture and social practices that do not share this respect of the physical or biological systems. Colonizing powers’ belief in the superiority of humans over other creatures; and of the superiority of some human belief systems and practices over others. They believe that their own ways of doing things are “developed” because they control other parts of the world; and that others need to follow their lead to become “developed”. As a consequence, they create policies and practices (including education and academic disciplines) whereby other people and communities give up their own ways of being and doing to become “developed”. This leads to a devastation of Indigenous communities and local ways of being and doing. Once on decline, “experts” from exploiting communities (and those trained in the approaches developed by the exploiting communities) go into the exploited communities to “document” the ways of these societies. This include “experts” from across social sciences, education, and humanities, including linguists. And, while the linguists (and others) document languages (and other practices), the communities that speak these languages (and have different practices and beliefs) continue to suffer and gradually disappear.

26 

A. MAHBOOB

Subaltern linguistics recognises these inherent discriminatory and subjugating practices carried out and encouraged by academics and experts from (or trained in) exploitative linguistics and other social sciences (including education and economics). The goal of subaltern linguistics is not to document languages or write grammars. It sees these practices as subjugating practices – practices that further weaken and marginalise communities and languages. A deemphasis on language documentation and writing grammars in subaltern linguistics is based both on theoretical and practical concerns. In terms of theory, subaltern linguistics recognises the impossibility of writing a comprehensive grammar of any language. This is because language is a dynamic system that changes and varies all the time; one cannot capture all the language changes and variations in a single grammar of language. The most that one can hope for is to document language use in one context, by one person (or group of people), at one time (or across a few instances). The writing and use of grammars contribute to discriminatory practices: since one set of language features is considered “standard” and others are seen as deviancies and deficiencies. There are at least three inter-related practical reasons for subaltern linguistics not to focus on writing linguistic descriptions or grammars. First, if the goals of subaltern linguistics and “modern linguistics” are at odds, then how can it follow the methods used by “modern linguists”? Second, if subaltern linguistics focuses on people and communities, and considers language to be a minor, albeit crucial, resource for meaning-making, then how can it focus on just language? And, third, if subaltern linguistics can be carried out by anyone in any language, then how can it be tied down with heavy theoretical and terminological knowledge that is only accessible to people who are trained in particular types of “linguistics”? Having said this, subaltern linguists can include some documentation work. However, this is limited in scope and is only done in order to achieve the goals of a specific project (which are about empowerment of people and communities). Subaltern linguistics documents and analyses the use of language (along with other meaning-making systems) in as far as it helps them to create economies, practices, projects, and resources that benefit their communities. We will now give three examples of subaltern linguistics. Notice that these come from very different contexts and “modern linguistics” has little contribution to any of these.

  WHAT IS SUBALTERN LINGUISTICS? 

27

Example 1 Sequoyah was a Cherokee (an Indigenous people in north America) who realised that the colonizers used writing to create and maintain power. Cherokee, at that point was an oral language. Sequoyah set out – with no training in linguistics – to develop a writing system for his language. He first experimented with a phonetic system but realised that it did not suit his purposes. He therefore invented a set of characters that were syllabic, not phonetic. Once he had completed his script and published it, the Cherokee script spread quickly through his community. Sequoyah’s script, which is a socio-semiotic resource, is still used today and is one reason why the Cherokee people and language have survived the onslaughts of colonization and genocide. 

Cherokee_syllabary. (Photo Wikimeida Commons)

28 

A. MAHBOOB

Sequoyah can be considered a champion of subaltern linguistics. He saw a need in his community and addressed it by creating a new writing system – a writing system that is arguable much better than the phonetic scripts used and promoted by “modern linguistics”. Example 2 National Road and Motorists’ Association (NRMA) is an organisation that offers roadside assistance to motorists in Australia. Recently, NRMA started a “drive nice” campaign and placed large advertisements on highways that read “Drive nice…” and then a message in a child’s writing along with drawings. An example of one such advertisement is given below: 

National Road and Motorists’ Association (NRMA) advertisement

This text uses not just language, but Tom’s handwriting and drawing to create an impact. Tom, as the advertisement states, was 6-year-old when he composed this text. This – and other advertisements in this campaign – are powerful because they draw on socio-semiotics and our understanding of how using a child’s handwriting and drawing can influence adults. This is an example of subaltern linguistics as it draws on an understanding of socio-semiotics to influence practices that can save peoples’ lives. A subaltern linguist, if they so choose, can review this (and other successful campaigns from around the world) and create their own resources – with an understanding of their own people and communities – to influence unsafe driving (or other) practices that are harmful to the community. A subaltern linguist will analyse these texts not only to understand how they work (their goal is not to document or describe language use), but to create their own resources (for their own goals, in their own languages, and in ways that work for their communities). The resources created, which

  WHAT IS SUBALTERN LINGUISTICS? 

29

are socio-semiotic in nature, can influence material-biological systems: e.g., these resources may decrease the number of accidents in the area and thus improve the physical and biological environment in which people live. Example 3  Elders and children from the Kristang community in Melaka, Malaysia, in collaboration with FLC Group and the University of Malaya, organised a Language Travels in late 2018. The goal of this Language Travels was to enhance the prestige of Kristang by creating economic opportunities that use and strengthen the community language (see http://www.flcgroup.net/upcoming-­c onference-­2 018/language-­ travels/). Language Travels in Melaka was coordinated by the community elders, who supervised their youth to take on the role of language teachers. This project provided an income to the community, including to the children, and gave them pride in their own language.  In this subaltern linguistics project, the community developed and ran a successful project that brought an income to the community through the use and teaching of their language. The community elders and youth worked together to study their own language and developed material and methods to teach their language to Language Travelers. As a result of this first Language Travels, the Kristang community set up additional programs and ran them independent of FLC. In time, the group published the material developed for the course and continue to use it in Language Travels as well as other programs (https://www.facebook.com/ FllumOfficial/videos/1287066778293260). This example shows how communities can create economic opportunities for themselves by using and empowering their own languages. They use socio-semiotic resources to bring material and other benefits to the people of their community. To summarise, subaltern linguistics is a linguistics of the people, by the people, and for the people. It is inclusive and does not discriminate between people based on their language, training, education, age, gender, sexual orientation, social class, or other demographic features. Anyone who uses language (or a study of language) to empower their communities is a subaltern linguist. This can be a child, or a grandmother, or the two together. The goal of subaltern linguistics is community enhancement – done by and in terms of the members of the community. We can all participate in subaltern practice – to create more prosperous and harmonized societies.

Poster Boy

Stop, Ahmar, stop! What are you doing? What have you become? Remember your roots; Remember your people; Remember your goals. Yes, some applaud you as a success. They consider you a model: Someone they look up to, And, sometimes, want to become. They are fooled by illusions Endowed upon a poster boy. A poster celebrating How colonial subjects shine When they play white man’s games In a white man’s world. A technicolored advertisement Empowering hegemonic discourse.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Mahboob, Writings on Subaltern Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43710-6_7

31

32 

A. MAHBOOB

Stop, Ahmar, stop! Reflect, rethink, redirect. Remember your people; Remember your goals. Success doesn’t come Until your people succeed.

Doing Subaltern Linguistics

Subaltern linguistics is work that empowers local ways of being, doing, and saying by encouraging and supporting local economies, practices, projects, and resources. This work can be done by anyone and in any language/dialect. That’s because subaltern linguistics is practice; not theory. Doing subaltern linguistics is a CREDIBLE approach to research. CREDIBLE (which is an acronym, see Fig. 1 below) research enables and supports practices that bring harmony and prosperity to a community. Subaltern and CREDIBLE research differentiates between material-­ biological, and socio-semiotic systems. We have written about material-­ biological and socio-semiotic systems in other essays (earlier and later in this volume), here we will attempt to exemplify how socio-semiotics (meanings that we make and communicate in social contexts) influences economies, practices, projects, and resources. In other words, we will focus on Doing Subaltern Linguistics. However, first, we would like to talk a bit about how we make meanings.

Material-Biological Senses and Socio-semiotic Senses There are two broad types of worlds that we live in simultaneously: the material-biological world; and, the socio-semiotic world. We learn about the material-biological world through our senses: sight, sound, smell, touch and taste. And, we interpret and respond to these by using our

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Mahboob, Writings on Subaltern Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43710-6_8

33

34 

A. MAHBOOB

Fig. 1  One approach to Doing Subaltern Linguistics: CREDIBLE research

socio-semiotics. Socio-semiotics can impact material-biological systems: like one community’s belief that another is an enemy can lead to conflict and war. And, material-biological systems can influence socio-semiotic ones: like the availability of raw material and weather impacts our beliefs about what to eat or not, and how. Material-Biological Senses There is a natural hierarchy in our material senses: sight, sound, smell, touch and taste. We will exemplify this hierarchy by giving three sets of examples: (1) our survival; and (2) our relationship with other humans; and (3) marketing. However, before we share these examples, we need to stress that many of us do not have or use five senses. This is in no way a limitation; all it means is that we use other senses. And, by using (combinations of) different senses, we create different worlds. One premise of subaltern linguistics is to respect diversity and plurality. Imagine this: one hears an animal that you believe is dangerous, but one can’t see it. One would very likely be scared in such a situation. One would want to be able to see the threat. If one can see the dangerous animal, one can observe what’s it up to and act accordingly. If one sees something dangerous, one will try to avoid it; if one sees someone who is aggressive, one will try to avoid them.

  DOING SUBALTERN LINGUISTICS 

35

One reason why we get worried when we can hear something but can’t see it is: because sight helps us in defending ourselves. Animals and plants use colour to create particular meanings. For example, some mushrooms warn other creatures not to eat them by using bright colours. Vision also allows us to track movement, notice expressions, and navigate our way through space, amongst many other things. If we see a threat in distance, we can keep an eye on it and watch it. If it changes or gets closer, and if we can hear it, we may want to take steps to protect ourselves. If we can smell a threat, it is too close. If we can feel it, then we are way too close. And, if we can taste a threat, we are in real danger. In a different way, the hierarchy of these senses also help us understand human relationships. While we can see many people out in the street, we don’t know them. We get to know a person better, when we interact with them. Our relationship will probably be stronger if we engage with a person. Our sense of smell tells us whether we like them or not; we tend to keep a distance from people who are “smelly”. We restrict touch to people we are relatively close to and/or feel comfortable with. And, we restrict taste to most intimate relationships. This hierarchy can help us understand the strength of a mother-child relationship. A mother and child, in the early days of their lives are connected by all material senses. This is another reason why breast feeding is good for the child. Not only does it provide nutrition and protection from diseases, the touch, smell, and taste of mother enables communication and bonding between them. This is one reason why a mother-child relationship is amongst the strongest in the world. Love between adults can sometimes be as close to or even supersede the bonding between a mother and child. This happens when, in addition to having a physically intimate relationship, there is also a strong bonding between the socio-semiotics of the partners. In adult relationships, the importance of socio-semiotics may become stronger than physical. Socio-­ semiotic senses operate very differently from material ones. In marketing, we are shown things using people, colours, images, and movement, including images and movements that create a sense of smell, touch, or taste; and, these are accompanied by sounds, including music, language, beeps, bells, whistles, ocean, animals, birds and so on. In marketing something (including ideas), marketers try to connect with projections of different material senses – ones that can evoke particular senses in the viewer to embed a potential desire of purchasing the marketed item.

36 

A. MAHBOOB

A successful marketing campaign, say, for a soft drink, is one that not only shows the image of the drink or it’s price etc., but it creates a feeling of desire in the viewer. This is done by invoking material-biological senses. In addition, they form, use and promote particular socio-semiotic practices and believes. For example, Coca Cola’s campaign showing Santa Clause as red has resulted in many people believing that Santa wears/wore red. Marketing, by using material-biological and socio-semiotics systems, is able to influence peoples’ beliefs, behaviours, and actions. Our material-biological senses are our aids in interacting and navigating through the physical world: they connect us directly to the material-­ biological world. Socio-semiotics, on the other hand, can work independently of the physical world. Socio-semiotic Senses Socio-semiotic senses include our beliefs, ideas, attitudes, thoughts, etc. Socio-semiotic systems influence our engagement with the material-­ biological systems. For example, our beliefs about economic systems and what is “valuable” impact what natural resources are exploited for what purpose by the humans. At the same time, the material and biological world can influence our belief systems. For example, while sharks remain sharks, people/communities vary in their fear of them and have different belief systems about sharks. Our socio-semiotic systems vary greatly based on which community we are a part of, what our experiences are, what our interests are, which part of the world we are in, etc. This is why the same material-biological stuff can be interpreted differently by different groups of people around the world. For example, some people might believe that everything in the world can be classified and categorised and will therefore work towards that goal; while other people may believe that everything is interconnected and develop more holistic approaches to life. These beliefs change across time and space and cannot be predicted in the same ways as studies of astronomy can predict lunar and solar eclipses. Both the material-biological and the socio-semiotic senses interact with and respond to each other  – and may influence and effect material-­ biological systems. That is why ideas can turn into actions; or changes in material things can be (re-)interpreted metaphorically. The belief that something is a threat can lead us to take actions. Similarly, the physical

  DOING SUBALTERN LINGUISTICS 

37

characteristics of something can influence what we think of it (something that designers and artists keep in mind in their work). As opposed to the physical world, which exists in time and space, socio-­ semiotics are ideas, beliefs, patterns, and practices – these are not bound by the constraints of time-space imposed on the material-biological world. This is why physical objects and biological species do not evolve as quickly as ideas change. Ideas do, it needs to be remembered, impact behaviour and the physical world. For example, if we think that keeping streets clean is the responsibility of the government, then we might throw garbage out on the streets. However, if we are aware of the negative impact that garbage makes on our health and life, and we can see, hear, smell, touch, and taste the destruction that is borne through a lack of proper garbage disposal, then we might not throw garbage on the streets. Doing subaltern linguistics draws on these understandings of material-­ biological and socio-semiotic systems to create projects and act.

Doing Subaltern Linguistics To learn to do subaltern linguistics, we need to observe and learn from case studies. Appropriate case studies for a subaltern linguistics project use material-biological and socio-semiotic systems to influence action and change in a community. If there is evidence for positive change and influence, then we have a case study for a positive discourse analysis (PDA). For example, the Australian anti-tobacco campaign has been successful because the rates of smoking in Australia have reduced and teenage uptake of smoking has decreased. Thus, we can study the Australian anti-tobacco campaign as a case study and apply our learning from this and other case studies to design material for issues that are relevant to our context – using material-biological and socio-semiotic resources that are relevant and appropriate for our contexts. Positive discourse analysis (PDA) can be both broad and narrow. Here, we will focus on broad PDA. [A narrow PDA will require different tools of analysis.] A broad PDA has two goals: (1) to review examples and case studies of projects that make a positive impact and take notes on how this is achieved; and (2) to design and implement projects that draw on understandings of local material-biological, and socio-semiotic resources to benefit one’s own community and environment.

38 

A. MAHBOOB

In achieving the second goal, broad PDA helps analyse multiple case studies and then plan and execute a project that respond to a local issue by respecting the local material-biological, and socio-semiotic resources. In searching for projects to use as case studies, it is useful to collect examples from diverse sources and regions, as each place and people have different ways of being, knowing, and doing. We can learn from and invest in diversity. PDA is a complementary approach to the popular Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). In contrast to CDA, which often explores how power impacts communities by looking for patterns of oppression in discourse, PDA is focussed on looking at good practices and using understandings of good practices to improve ourselves and our communities. PDA is not focussed on examining discourses for the sake of examining discourses; PDA is about doing. PDA is not just about identifying power structures that disable us; rather, it is about creating alternatives and possibilities for people to improve themselves on their own terms and by doing things that are relevant to them. To do PDA, we can look at successful projects from around the world  – not just the west  – and consider questions such as: how each of these is designed? what material-biological senses are drawn upon? what socio-semiotics is assumed and/or projected? Example 1: Australian Anti-tobacco Campaign The Australian anti-tobacco campaign is an example of a successful project because it has resulted in lowering of tobacco use and uptake. This project is multi-thronged and uses advertisements, taxes, laws, and education to influence a change in the community. The advertisement material that the campaign developed relates to all five material-biological senses and makes one see, hear, smell, touch and taste the negative impacts of tobacco. The campaign impacts sight by enforcing laws and policies that prohibit smoking in public places, parks, school zones, restaurants, public transport, etc. This prohibition implies that smoking and smokers cannot be seen, heard, or smelt in most public places. An absence, or at least a reduction, of smoking and smokers in public spaces implies that many children grow up with minimal exposure to smoking. This reduces the likelihood that children will grow up smoking. The campaign includes television, radio, and internet advertisements which include sounds of people coughing or gasping for air. These sounds and associated visuals create a negative association of smoking with health

  DOING SUBALTERN LINGUISTICS 

39

and well-being. The material also implies that smoke smells bad and effects our ability to smell other things; that it leads to diseases with skin deformities and inflation – connecting to our sense of touch; and, that one can’t taste food and other things well if one continues to smoke. In addition, the campaign provides alternative discourses that project positive images of how one’s life can improve if one gives up smoking. It provides educational resources and materials. It projects the monetary savings one can make along with other benefits of quitting smoking. And, in doing all this, new jobs and sub-specialisations are created. For example, people are trained and employed to provide support to individuals who want to quit smoking. A broad PDA of the Australian tobacco campaign demonstrates how an effective campaign relates to all our material-biological senses, using multiple modes, along with advocating for and reaffirming particular socio-­ semiotics. It needs to be noted that there are examples of successful campaigns and projects all over the world. The reason we chose the Australian example here is not because it is the only one; it is because we currently live in Australia and are more familiar with it; and, because, we are working with Aurlie Mallet and Yaegan Doran, on developing and carrying out a PDA (both broad and narrow) analysis of the Australian tobacco campaign. Later, we plan to use this PDA to design and lobby for an Anti-Sugar Campaign. Projects that can work as good examples exist everywhere. If a community is peaceful and prosperous, we can look at how it manages to achieve that harmony. And, by reflecting on multiple case studies across a range of contexts, we can start experimenting with and designing projects for our own communities. Example 2: “Free Throw Plastic Bottles” One example of an independent subaltern project is the design and installation of a disposal for plastic bottles in Pasacao, Camarines Sur, in the Philippines. Using an understanding of how Filipinos love basketball, John Robrigado, a local youth councillor, designed and installed a “Free Throw Plastic Bottles” area to encourage people to discard plastic bottles in a safe manner. This project uses language + understanding of people + some engineering to design a garbage collector for plastic bottles. As such, it is an example of #subalternlinguistics: the application of socio-semiotics for the betterment of people  – in this case, the protection of our environment.

40 

A. MAHBOOB

In teaching language/linguistics, we should share such examples and encourage others to develop projects for and with the community. Language/linguistics is not really about grammar rules and pronunciation; it is about the use of language to benefit our communities (Fig. 2). While the “Free Throw Plastic Bottles” is a good example of how socio-­ semiotics are used to create a resource, the design can be enhanced in many ways. For example, there can an additional hole in a lower part of the “court”, so that people who are unable to throw can still discard their plastic waste in an appropriate manner. In addition, there could be signage that educates people about the harms of plastic and pollution. This signage can be in images with supporting text in local languages and can be

Fig. 2  “Free Throw Plastic Bottles”, Pasacao, Camarines Sur, Philippines

  DOING SUBALTERN LINGUISTICS 

41

designed by local communities. Making, placing and maintaining such projects can create jobs for people in  local communities; jobs that give economic incentives to people to maintain their languages and to use their languages to empower themselves. In addition to enabling an economy in the local languages, it will also create a greater involvement of the community in developing its own resources and material. This project can also be expanded and other measures brought into place. The purpose of these measures could be to educate the communities in ways that help them. The current school curriculum in many parts of the world has little to teach children about the places where they live and grow up; and more to do with faraway places and abstract ideas that are not always relevant to one’s own context. One reason for this is an over-emphasis on books and reading, and less on doing. And, many of the corporate-published textbooks today, which are considered the “best” in the developing world, are written to train children to work for corporations and endorse the values of the corporate world. Instead, educational curricula can be conceived as ways of educating our students about doing things. By learning how to engage with communities, they can learn ways to create and do things that respect and are in sync with local ways of being. Such a curriculum would need to be designed with a vision of how the community sees itself to be. Education is successful when our students develop projects that aid in community empowerment. Such projects raise students’ self-esteem and self-respect, two key goals of education. In current schooling in many parts of the world today, tests, assessments, and exams frustrate many and many students leave school (if they graduate) with broken self-esteem and low self-respect; they graduate with a belief that the west has the answers and that living in the west is a desired goal. Their low self-esteem of themselves and their communities leads them to imagine a “better life” elsewhere. If we want to keep our people home, we have to develop economies in and through our own languages and boost the self-esteem and self-­ respect of our peoples. Example 3: Wawa Dam Clean-Up Mona Mamac and her team of scholars and students worked with the Municipality of Rodriguez, Philippines, to design and initiate a clean-up campaign around Wawa Dam. This project was multi-thronged and, extending on the PDA analysis of other campaigns, developed a range of

42 

A. MAHBOOB

material and resources by relating to all five material-biological senses, and with some understanding of people who visit the area. The team visited the site several times to take pictures of existing signage, as well as documenting garbage and identifying areas with higher concentration of garbage (Figs. 3 and 4). After spending time in the region, reading about the native environment, researching what other communities were doing about similar issues, talking to the local government and others, the team developed a

Fig. 3  Current signage. Notice the signage compromises of a hand-written text: “Do not throw garbage” on the back of a banner advertisement for Globe, a telecom provider. Yes, there are marketing banners sponsored by corporations across many parts of the world; but there is often no signage to educate the public and no places to throw away trash

  DOING SUBALTERN LINGUISTICS 

43

Fig. 4  Evidence of garbage thrown in the caves near some of the main tourist sites around Wawa Dam

set of new design ideas, as well as of other measures and practices that can influence people not to thrown garbage in public spaces. Figure 5 is an example of one of the new designs. This is how Mona’s team designed the material to relate to all five senses: Sight: IMAGE: trash bag with red slash that means that throwing of garbage is not allowed. The dirty water that can be interpreted as river or flood and washed away the house (there have been lots of incidences of flood in Rodriguez). These images can also be interpreted by those who cannot read. Sound: the movement of water and the destruction of houses

44 

A. MAHBOOB

Fig. 5  One of the new design by Mona Mamac’s team

Smell: the dirty garbage bag and water Touch: the line “itapon ang inyong basura sa…” throw your garbage into the designated areas. The team is also designing sets of segregated trash bins (biodegradable, non-biodegradable, recyclable) Taste: First line of the “Alam mo ba?” – garbage chemicals contaminate the fish we eat (appealing to health) Other senses that are appealing to emotions: –– Opening statement – water is like you and your crush’s relationship, it gets blurry (catchy: Filipinos like romantic punch lines)

  DOING SUBALTERN LINGUISTICS 

45

–– The multa at parusa (fine and punishment) is from Republic Act 9275 that gives an idea of what will happen to them when they transgress the ordinance The goal of the project is to catch the attention of the trekkers, educate them about the environment and trash by stating facts, offer alternatives to dumping, and inform them of potential consequences of their actions. This is an example of a group of youth, led by their teacher, to identify a local problem and create resources to address it. We can all learn from them and do it ourselves ☺

Quick Recap Doing Subaltern Linguistics is about learning about strategies that can be used to influence positive change: change identified, designed, and led by local communities in a harmonious and ethical manner. If we learn how to do this using our own material-biological and social-semiotic resources, and for purposes agreed upon in our communities, then we can gradually begin to harmonise our communities and enable people to prosper and be well wherever they are; instead of having to leave home for jobs and a “better future”.

I Stand on Solid Ground

Broken for generations from ancestral lands, Where mythical beings (now strangers to me) Enchant and bring meaning to lives And breathe the fresh air of here and now: A world as full of sciences as stars above; I roam the earth: a child turned nomad. Robbed of the wisdom of my ancestors, Which was hidden in melodies of native songs, I have learnt, forgotten, learnt, and forgotten From written signs that smell of authority So often that I lose myself in their worlds and I know not where I am nor what I observe. Here, then, I am: unknown to me or my forebears. Lost in symbols from outside my world, I scramble to collect scraps that I make sense of And build my castle, hoping that I dazzle You into believing that I stand on solid ground.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Mahboob, Writings on Subaltern Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43710-6_9

47

Why English?

The editor of a volume of poetry that we recently contributed to sent us a short bio text that they included in the book. The bio included this: Not atypical of linguists from South Asia, his first degree was in English literature. He dropped the formal study of English literature pretty soon after graduating; but, has continued writing.

There is nothing wrong with the bio – it is correct. What bothers us about the text are the reasons why we first studied English literature, and then English linguistics, and then Applied* (English) Linguistics & TESOL. [*we still don’t know how “applied” our degree was.] And this bothers us because the decisions that led to our study of, in, and about English were taken before we were even born and by people who do and did not know of our existence. Those in power when Pakistan came into existence had already decided on maintaining English in the country. In fact, the decision had been taken back in 1835 when Lord Thomas Macaulay, who served on the Supreme Council of India between 1834 and 1838, stated:

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Mahboob, Writings on Subaltern Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43710-6_10

49

50 

A. MAHBOOB

… How, then, stands the case? We have to educate a people who cannot at present be educated by means of their mother-tongue. We much teach them some foreign language. The claims of our own language it is hardly necessary to recapitulate. It stands preeminent even among the languages of the West… Whoever knows that language, has ready access to all the vast intellectual wealth, which all the wisest nations of the earth have created and hoarded in the course of ninety generations. It may safely be said that the literature now extant in that language is of far greater value than all the literature which three hundred years ago was extant in all the languages of the world spoken together. Nor is this all. In India, English is the language spoken by the ruling class. It is spoken by the higher class of natives at the seats of Government. It is likely to become the language of commerce throughout the seas of the East. It is the language of two great European communities which are rising, the one in the south of Africa, the other in Australasia; communities which are every year becoming more important, and more closely connected with our Indian empire. Whether we look at the intrinsic value of our literature or at the particular situation of this country, we shall see the strongest reason to think that, of all foreign tongues, the English tongue is that which would be the most useful to our native subjects… (Source: Thomas Babington Macaulay, from “Minute on Indian Education”, 1835)

Here, in this short extract, lies a description of the present state of many of our colonised nations. Many of us have now adopted Macaulay’s belief* that we “cannot at present be educated by means of [our] mother-tongue”. Our colonised governments and elites also believe that “whoever knows that language [English], has ready access to all the vast intellectual wealth”. These two reasons are amongst the most common ones given in support of English today. [*Macaulay’s minutes are based on his beliefs, not on data or factual information; “I have no knowledge of either Sanscrit or Arabic.” he wrote in the same document.] The reasons why our elites promote English today were also identified by Macaulay back in 1835: “In India [which was partitioned in 1947], English is the language spoken by the ruling class. It is spoken by the higher class of natives at the seats of Government.” The elites were already learning and using English to better themselves (not the larger community) – even before the Mughal period ended. When the British (like most other colonisers) left the direct control of their territories (because it no longer served their interests), they transferred the power to that group of people who were already benefiting from the coloniser’s socio-semiotics:

  WHY ENGLISH? 

51

coloniser’s ways of being, knowing, and doing. Doing so enabled the colonisers to maintain control of their colonies through socio-semiotics, not direct rule. They could now transfer the pains and responsibilities of everyday management of the lands and peoples to those who would continue colonial policies and practices introduced by the colonisers; and, so, even today, successive governments continue to provide material and other benefits – including human resources – to the colonisers. Macaulay underestimated that English “is likely to become the language of commerce throughout the seas of the East”. Today, English is often the preferred language of education and corporations; and, hence, has become the language of commerce world-wide. He proudly proclaimed that English “is the language of two great European communities which are rising, the one in the south of Africa, the other in Australasia”: the two “great European communities” that followed (and continue to follow) the precedence set in India to suppress and destroy Indigenous languages, ways of being, ways of knowing, and ways of doing. Today, Indigenous, colonised, and/or other marginalised communities in all these parts of the world are still led to believe in the hegemonic discourse that English and knowledge in and through English is the only path to success. The quote ends with Macaulay’s assumed conclusion that “of all foreign tongues, the English tongue is that which would be the most useful to our native subjects”. Ironically, by listening to English-first advocates throughout the colonised world, it appears that Macaulay’s words are truer today – over one hundred and eighty years after he spoke them – than when he spoke them. Macaulay Minutes from 1835 explains why we and so many others are given no choice but to learn English and through English. Those who succeed in achieving these targets are given access to lucrative corporate and global jobs – much like those who spoke English were given positions of power by the British. Most others have to make by with what they have – while continuing to believe that if only they had learnt English well or payed attention on their studies, their lives would have been better. These people are given no alternatives to “succeed” in life. This limitation of opportunities to succeed in local contexts through local languages and local ways of doing is one cause of crime, corruption, poverty, and violence in many parts of the world. The political agenda of promoting English and knowledge in English dates back centuries. It was published and promoted by the colonial governments, universities, and educational systems. It formed the basis of the

52 

A. MAHBOOB

curricula in social sciences, law, business, humanities, and even the sciences in the elite British universities. Universities which serve as models for other parts of the world. Many of our political leaders who later fought against direct colonial rule were educated in colonial universities and practiced their professions in English (or another colonial language). Their education was often carried out in English and sometimes in British universities, e.g. Gandhi, Jinnah, and Nehru all received their training in law in England. The curriculum that they studied was based in and promoted western interests. Many of our founding leaders believed in the discourses that they had been taught during their education and work. For example, Jinnah’s belief that a nation needs one language to succeed was based in western European thought. It is this thought that contributed to the decrease of linguistic diversity across western Europe to create modern-day nation-states. And, it is our leaders’ belief in the colonial thought that a country needs one common language (and religion) that has led to creating language policies that empower just one (or a few) languages as national or provincial languages. The majority of Indigenous languages are disempowered through non-recognition and a lack of support. No investment is made to develop economies in Indigenous languages; and, hence, speakers of these languages are forced to abandon their own ways of being, knowing, and doing in order to seek employment elsewhere. This has lasting individual and communal implications. For example, when either of the parents are absent from home for long periods of time in order to make money, there is a higher risk that their children will be exploited. Policies that empower English and one (or few) local languages are made on purpose because the elites continue to believe (perhaps out of ignorance or out of self-interest) in the western myth that a country can only succeed if it has one common language. And, in the meanwhile, English is protected as the language of development and the corporate world. It is in this context that the government of Pakistan (and many other colonised countries) chose to maintain and continue to promote English over all other languages. In doing so, successive governments  – either through corruption or neglect or poor policy and practice – continue to destroy Indigenous ways of being, knowing, and doing. And, by doing so, these governments destroy the very peoples whose care and welfare is their responsibility.

  WHY ENGLISH? 

53

Our governments are able to maintain the prominence of English by continuing to create policies and practices that demonstrate to the masses that they need English to be “successful”. By doing so, they also retain their own power and position. The power and position that Macaulay said will be passed on to “a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect.” However, Macaulay made a mistake in his follow-up statement. He was wrong in predicting that this “class of persons”, who became leaders of the country in time, will translate the western knowledge into their own languages: “To that class we may leave it to refine the vernacular dialects of the country, to enrich those dialects with terms of science borrowed from the Western nomenclature, and to render them by degrees fit vehicles for conveying knowledge to the great mass of the population.” Macaulay believed that the class of persons that they train will translate the knowledge learnt and share it with others to “benefit” their communities. This, at best, was wishful thinking. More than the knowledge that they learnt from the books, this class of persons learnt how the British used language, education, and economics as tools of building power, control, and influence. In turn, when they took over the everyday governance of our lands, they maintained the socio-semiotics of the British and now use them to keep themselves in power. By doing so, they have maintained and extended colonisation, one where we now have layers of colonised and colonising communities within and outside our countries. Even if it were true and English was indeed the only key to success, access to the English of “success” is a myth for many. The type of English that one needs to succeed through English is controlled by testing corporations (e.g. TOEFL, IELTS, Pearson) and corporate publishers (e.g. Oxford/Cambridge/Harvard/Princeton University Presses). The English needed to meet the requirements of corporate tests, universities, and jobs is restricted to those who come from certain socio-economic backgrounds: people who are able to study in schools where elite English medium curriculum is used and afford the exorbitant charges for corporate tests and other training. By using money to both define and control access to “good” English and education, the elite control who gets access to the language and knowledge of power. The elite’s support of English is in their interests; not the majority. For the majority of people, English is a gatekeeper that keeps opportunities shut.

54 

A. MAHBOOB

The above – in a nutshell  – is what bothered us about why we were given no choice but to study (in) English: to make the dreams of Lord Macaulay, a colonial agent, come true. And even after we left our formal study of English literature and shifted to linguistics, we studied linguistics in a Department of English. That is, we studied English linguistics. And, furthermore, the linguistics we studied was designed to train us as an English language teacher. We were hardly taught any linguistics. We were taught English grammar and ways of teaching English. We were not even taught how many languages were spoken across Pakistan. There was not – and is not – a Department that focuses on Indigenous languages of Pakistan (excluding some provincial/national languages). But, we have Departments of English and French and… Why have we never invested in understanding our own peoples and communities? Why have we not cultivated our own ways of being, knowing, and doing? Why do we continue to follow the socio-semiotics of our colonisers at the cost of our own peace and prosperity? And, when we say this in the context of Pakistan, we mean, why has the state not invested in languages other than Urdu and English. Why has it neglected and suppressed speakers of other languages? Why do we not have sustainable economies that use and empower local languages? Why does this continue to happen today? How can there be a ‘naya’ (new) Pakistan, without ‘nayi’ (new) socio-semiotics: without a new approach to supporting and enhancing the diversity of local languages, ways of being, ways of doing, and ways of knowing? Perhaps, if we and our governments invest in diversity, things can change. We can learn about and from each other; and develop respect for each other. This will develop harmony, prosperity, and most importantly: self-­ respect and self-esteem. This would mean that we have really become post-colonial: our socio-­ semiotics are no longer colonised by others. To make this happen, we need to “do” things (i.e. take action) in our academic, personal, and professional lives. Do things that are grounded in our contexts and are developed for the purpose of empowering ourselves.

Beautiful Tomorrow?

In the desolation of today, I hang on to the promises of tomorrow: When life will be in harmony And struggles gone. I believe that things will change And I will fly again over the rainbows Looking down at forests and rivers Spotting wildlife, as they enjoy their day. Waiting for tomorrow, I watch Videos about nature and read books About wildlife; I imagine the future And think of stuff to take along. And, then, I remember, yesterday and today: Where we pump more oil and burn more coal Cut more forests and mine more gold. And then, I wonder, how tomorrow will be. How will tomorrow be, if today: We kill each other and nature too; We build more borders and weapons too? Will tomorrow be beautiful, if today we neglect?

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Mahboob, Writings on Subaltern Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43710-6_11

55

One Reason for War: Exploitative Socio-­semiotics

Even though many people in both India and Pakistan want peace, the threat of war always looms on them. And when we say war, we mean not only the war with other countries, but wars within the countries: wars fed by greed and corruption, which lead to disempowerment of many. Problems that are found in all countries, but much more in the so called “post-colonial” and “developing” world. People in South Asia are aware that many of the fights that they are fighting today started after the British invasion of India. They are right. And, in colonising India, the colonisers not only used material weapons, but used socio-semiotic (including linguistic/language) ones too. Socio-semiotics are ways in which all social species, including humans, make meanings, traditions, cultures, and practices. All social species have meaning-making systems; without them, they would not be social. Socio-­ semiotic weapons are those that disrupt, disable and destroy the socio-­ semiotics of the target population. For example, by using script as a weapon, the British enabled a divide between Urdu (which adopted a Persio-Arabic script) and Hindi (which adopted Devanagari script), which were and (largely) continue to be mutually intelligible. This split led to a division between Urdu and Hindi and between Muslims and Hindus. And this conflict continues to disrupt our lives and keep us weak. To end this engineered hostility, we need to create and enable alternative socio-semiotics.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Mahboob, Writings on Subaltern Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43710-6_12

57

58 

A. MAHBOOB

The socio-semiotics of the colonised and invaded worlds were severely damaged by their Masters. For example, in pre-colonial India, khwaja sira were recognised as a third gender and had equal rights. The British did not recognise three genders and persecuted people of the third gender by outlawing them in the late 1800s. The British socio-semiotics, over time, created a shift in how the local populations viewed khwaja sira. The change in status of khwaja sira was also marked in language by the emergence of new (derogatory) terms such as ‘hijra’ and ‘chukka’. This influence of British socio-semiotics and beliefs on the local populations, through a shift in laws, education, as well as language, is an example of how local socio-semiotics were disrupted, disabled, and destroyed. Over the recent years, South Asian countries have re-recognised people of the ‘third gender’; however, the social attitudes that were engineered by the British Raj continue to influence local socio-semiotic practices and khwaja sira continue to face social and economic discrimination. Another example of how the socio-semiotics of English impacted local practices can be understood by looking at how the pronoun system of English operates. Of the three pronouns in English, two (‘he’ and ‘she’) refer to humans and one (‘it’) is used for all other things (including all living and non-living beings and things). The English grammar fails to mark a difference between non-human living beings and non-living things in its grammar. For example, we often use ‘it’ to refer to anything non-human, including living things: fish, koalas, trees, plants… If we use ‘he’ or ‘she’ for non-human beings or inanimate objects, it is marked  – language experts call this personification. Personification is defined as: a figure of speech in which a thing – an idea or an animal – is given human attributes. The non-human objects are portrayed in such a way that we feel they have the ability to act like human beings. For example, when we say, “The sky weeps,” we are giving the sky the ability to cry, which is a human quality. Thus, we can say that the sky has been personified in the given sentence. (Source: https://literarydevices.net/personification/)

The pronominal system of English reflects that English embeds a preference for humans (two pronouns, marking only two genders) over non-­ humans (one pronoun, and no marking of gender). This impacts people who develop their understandings of the world through English and who tend to assume that humans are superior to non-humans.

  ONE REASON FOR WAR: EXPLOITATIVE SOCIO-SEMIOTICS 

59

For example, many people today believe that the Aboriginal peoples of Australia were classified by the British as part of the local fauna and flora – not humans. Reports do not support this popular claim and point out that when this meaning was first projected, it was used as a metaphor – not a fact. The metaphor projected a meaning that Aboriginal peoples have been dehumanised. Regardless of its origin, this idea was/is interpreted as being a fact by many. And, today it continues to be used to show the disrespect and violence against Aboriginal peoples, whose children were taken away from them and their languages were barred. The taking away of the children, known as the Lost Generation, was a physical and social violence against the Indigenous peoples; and, the suppression of language is an act of semiotic violence. It needs to be pointed out that the socio-semiotic violence today is not only a result of the impact of English. For example, in Pakistan, the adoption of Urdu as the sole national language has also led to violence against its own citizens. Urdu, as it has been standardised for education and official use, is based on dialects used by the elite in urban areas, not of minorities and non-­ urban dialects. For example, while “proper” Urdu prefers a single third person pronoun “aap” (you + respect), most other dialects make a two or a three-way distinction in their third person pronouns. The use of pronouns is used as a marker of social class: “tu” (lower/working class), “tum” (middle class; marks solidarity), and “aap” (upper class). This use of pronouns to mark social class reflects an aristocratic social-semiotic practice, one which exploits minorities. We see the impact of this on the ways in which our communities are hierarchised by the use of Urdu as a social marker. To change this, we need to recognise all languages as national languages and to use “boli” (the oral language of the people, not ‘standard’ Urdu) as the lingua franca. The policies, practices, laws, and violence of the British (and other colonising communities, including those within a country/region) negatively impacted the socio-semiotics of the local communities. The dehumanising experiences of the locals, where, for example, local populations (“natives”) were equated with dogs: “Dogs and Indians not allowed”, impacted peoples’ self-esteem and self-respect and changed the ways that the locals thought, behaved, and acted.

60 

A. MAHBOOB

The socio-semiotic weapons of the colonisers succeeded to severely damage and often destroy the local civilisations: local ways of being, knowing, and doing. They encouraged greed, sexism, ethnicism, sectarianism, and materialism, which were the driving forces behind colonisation, and endangered and destroyed local languages, cultures, economies and practices. The socio-semiotics of our colonisers influenced how we began to think and act. People who learnt English were employed and promoted by the British, creating a belief that English is a necessity for “succeeding”. The British encouraged the establishment of an Indian elite who were encouraged to be brown in colour and white in their ways of being, thinking, and acting i.e. they adopted the socio-semiotic practices of the colonisers. By doing so, they altered the socio-semiotics of the local communities. The British gave recognition to locals who learnt English and joined them in governing over other Indians; while, at the same time, making fun of the locals, specially the Indigenous and minority groups. They helped establish social attitudes and a social-class system that gave higher status to those who thought and acted like them; and poked fun and violence towards those who did not. And, as a final blow, when ending their direct rule of India, they transferred power to the elites of the country, who had been trained and educated by them. By doing so, they guaranteed that the socio-semiotic practices that they had set up would continue. Many of our current wars – including wars against neighbours and wars against groups of people within the country – are one outcome of exploitative socio-semiotic practices. If the British and other European colonising powers used socio-­semiotic weapons to disharmonise and destroy us; we can study and use applications of socio-semiotics to reinvent and strengthen ourselves. If we want to celebrate our lives and communities – not greed, injustice, suppression, and war, then we need to draw on understandings of socio-semiotics in the development and application of our policies and practices. If colonisation of the mind is a result of socio-semiotic strategies, then decolonisation of mind requires alternative socio-semiotics.

  ONE REASON FOR WAR: EXPLOITATIVE SOCIO-SEMIOTICS 

61

And this can best be done by respecting and recognising diversities: by enabling groups and communities to develop economies in and through their own languages. English or another international, national, or regional language is fine as a lingua franca, but we need to urgently adopt using our own languages for building economies, knowledge, jobs, training, and education. And, we mean all languages. Not a select few. Creating alternative socio-semiotics can allow us to bring prosperity to our societies and communities. And, to end the wars that disable us.

“Papa, Why Do People Hurt Each Other?”

“Papa, why do people hurt each other?” Little Guddu asked one day. What do you mean, Guddu? “All the news you watch, Papa, It is only about war and hurt”, Guddu replied. Yes, Guddu, you are right, The news does paint a poor picture of us. But, there is also news of hope Of love, of care, of respect. “So, the world is not bad?” he continued. I wish I could say that, Guddu. There is indeed a lot of suffering In the world today; But not is all lost, You are our hope. “How, Papa? When there is so much pain?” Continued Guddu, obviously worried.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Mahboob, Writings on Subaltern Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43710-6_13

63

64 

A. MAHBOOB

Well, when you grow up, You can help fix it, Guddu. “How Papa? When we are not even allowed to leave our homes*?” Well, one day, that will change, You will see. “So, we just wait and wish?” He asked next. Of course not, Guddu. We can make the world better By taking little steps. “I see, so, we can help ourselves?” Guddu wondered. Yes, you are right, Guddu, It is us who needs to fix things. It’s best to take care of oneself And not wait for others’ help. “Ok, Papa, I will do that. I will start by cleaning my room.” Yes, Guddu, good job! If others do what you will do, Then all our homes can be shiny and clean.

*This poem was written during COVID19 restrictions.

International Mother Tongue Day: Has Pakistan Learnt Any Lessons?

Every 21st of February, countries around the world – including Pakistan – celebrate the International Mother Tongue Day. This holiday is a recognition of Bangladesh’s Shohid Dibôsh (Martyr Day) by UNESCO in 1999. Shohid Dibôsh is a celebration of the martyrs of the Bengali language movement in 1952, when Pakistani police open-fired on a protest injuring many and killing Abdus Salam, Rafiq Uddin Ahmed, Abul Barkat and Abdul Jabbar. These four students were killed by the Pakistani police because they wanted Bengali to be recognised as a state language. While Bengali was finally officially recognised as a state language in 1956, this occurred at a high cost. And, while it is possible to argue that language was not the main factor in the break-away of East Pakistan from the Islamic Republic of Pakistan; one can also argue that the status of a language in a country is reflective of the status of the people in a country. Bengali, even though the language of the majority of the population of Pakistan at so-called independence, was not considered a national language until 1956. This International Mother Language Day, as many politicians and others make speeches and write/read articles about the International Mother Language Day across Pakistan, one may ask: What has Pakistan learnt from her mistakes of the past? If the status of a language alerts us to the status of the communities that speak the language, then what does it tell us about the status of the

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Mahboob, Writings on Subaltern Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43710-6_14

65

66 

A. MAHBOOB

majority of Pakistani languages and the status of the people who speak those languages. With exceptions, a large number of Indigenous communities in Pakistan continue to be poor: there is no economy or appropriate mother tongue education in and through their language. In addition to research, most people with a common-sense will know that learning in mother-­tongues is easier and better for the children. Yet, the governments insist on Urdu or (selected) regional languages as the medium of instruction in education, while English is preferred as the marketable medium-of-­ instruction in private schools. Within these languages, the dialects spoken by the urban elites are considered standard. This further discriminates against people who speak non-urban or non-elite dialects of the language – and there is an almost total neglect of speakers of Braille or sign languages. Pakistani government today continues to follow policies and practices – inherited from her colonial master(s) – that lead to the disempowerment of most people. How can this be good for the country or her peoples? The empowerment of elites continues to happen at the cost of the disadvantaged. And, one argues has to wonder: Has Pakistan learnt any lessons from an internationally recognised day that commemorates the loss of lives caused by Pakistani forces? Does Pakistan continue to maintain the control of resources by the few who have access to standard dialects of recognised regional, national, and international languages? Does Pakistan continue to oppress people who come from non-standard language backgrounds? Can Pakistan achieve unity and harmony if most people lack access to their fundamental human right: language?

Enlightenment, Renaissance, Reformation

Enlightenment, Renaissance, Reformation What nice words to hide the barbarianism Unleashed by ruthless stealers of lands and lives Who manufacture misery at a mass scale. Fuelled by an insatiable greed of infinites And theft from faraway lands, The Enlightened take what they like And leave darkness behind. Breaking up systems, exploiting sciences, Turning others’ knowledge into weapons of conquest: Gunpowder from the Chinese Navigation, mathematics, chemistry from the Middle East. And, once done with their mischiefs, They put on nice clothes, Go to an opera or a museum, To celebrate Civilisation and Progress.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Mahboob, Writings on Subaltern Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43710-6_15

67

The Myth of the Post-Colonial

Some people just can’t seem to let go of colonization; they still continue to blame it for their living conditions even though they have had local governance for years.

Of all the myths that were established in colonial times, the myth of post-colonization is perhaps the most oppressive and dangerous. This is because the discourses of post-colonialism, and its ensuing practices, which are at the foundation of how we are governed today, are fake news. A people cannot be post-colonial until colonization actually ends. Colonization of peoples’ ways of being, knowing, and doing. Colonization today is grounded in the subservience of our socio-­ semiotic systems (ways of being, knowing, and doing) to our colonizers (this may include layers of global and/or local colonizers). We can observe this in the fractal patterns of oppression around the world: those dominated often dominate in turn. From a handful of the people who manage the majority of the resources of the world and dictate policies and practices to a child bullied into submission in school – a pattern of suppression that is indicative and constitutive of the oppressive world that many of us live in. Very few are free of such oppression. However, these fractals, as fractals in any complex dynamic system, are unstable and can change. And, these changes can be triggered by creating alternatives.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Mahboob, Writings on Subaltern Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43710-6_16

69

70 

A. MAHBOOB

One way in which prosperity or oppression is created and managed is through an engineering of socio-semiotics. Socio-semiotics can be engineered to create stability and prosperity; or, they can be engineered to create disability and poverty. How we envision and create our own communities is largely based on how our socio-semiotics are engineered  – through creation of beliefs, policies, practices, and possibilities. We can either own our own socio-semiotics and thus take responsibility for and respect our own ways of being, knowing and doing; or, we can accept someone else’s theories and beliefs and try to adopt them even if they were not designed for our benefit or contexts. For example, there is a broad belief that a major indicator of success is money. The modern belief in money as a measure of success is a quintessentially colonial thought that has permeated most colonized places and peoples. Economics, and the use of money as a (symbolic) currency, allows for money to become an exploitative tool that keeps us colonized today. Note that money in itself does not need to be exploitative, but it can be used as such. In other words, money can be weaponized and used to force others to submit. Note also that while money existed in many parts of the pre-colonial world, it was not global. For example, most Aboriginal languages in Australia did not have a word for money; and they did not believe in human ownership of land and resources. The desire to succeed is embedded in our current societies. Which, in itself, can be a positive indicator. Unfortunately, many of our current models of success are based on our colonial experiences and the models set by pockets of population in the “developed” world. These models are and were based on exploitation of minorities and Indigenous populations. The great wealth that allows the “developed” world to exist continues to be drawn on the exploitation of their colonies, done in the guise of development, democracy, globalization, and corporatization  – to name a few terms used today to mask colonization. Development discourses are so naturalized in today’s world that most people – including much of our current political leadership – just assume that our own architectures (material, social, political, semiotic) should be similar to the “developed” world. Trying to attempt to recreate what we see as symbols of development in our own contexts has consequences. For example, many of the labor resources from across parts of Pakistan work or are linked with different types of employment in the Middle East. A lack of economies plus conflict/violence in source countries fuels migration and leads to

  THE MYTH OF THE POST-COLONIAL 

71

unquantifiable personal and social consequences for local, minority and Indigenous peoples. My own family history is linked to the migration of people from across South Asia to the Middle East in the early 1970s. Today, parts of the Middle East may have some of the highest linguistic, cultural, and national diversity in the world. Yet these are not seen as a resource by any of the Middle Eastern countries. They all support and empower English; and, more recently, Arabic, which has a long historical, political, and geographical outreach. And, they all operate based on a need and desire for money. The problem here is not with a desire to succeed; but, with ways in which success is defined. Success can be defined in terms of the self-respect and satisfaction that one achieves in contributing to their life and community, rather than in terms of money earned. Notice, for example, the language that we use to demarcate life span: birth; school-age; work age; retirement. We are normalized into following this timeline, which is based on colonial ways of identifying periods of a person’s life – and each stage of these life stages are supported by various corporate, commercial and economic interests. Notice, it’s often only after one retires and if one has sufficient savings and is in relatively good health, that one is relatively free to do things as they please. We abandon our languages and peoples and lands to become developed. But often we end up in spaces that none of us imagined or planned for. For example, today there is a growing number of older migrants in the Middle East, whose children have migrated to the West. These parents, without appropriate visas, cannot live with the children in the west; and because they no longer work or have local sponsorship, they lose their visas to stay in the Middle East and return to their home countries. Homes that they are foreigners in. This is one social consequence of migration to the Middle East. There are others. For example, Indigenous architecture has become a sign of a lack of development for many; as opposed to concrete, metal, and glass structures, which have become a sign of development. A shift in people’s opinions of ‘developed’ architecture has led to a replacement of Indigenous architecture in favor of concrete/brick homes and glass (sliding) windows (which can only be bought with money). While the architectural style of the Middle East might work there, given access to cheap (and environmentally polluting) energy, it leads to problems in other parts of the world. For example, 80,000 people were killed and 32,000 sub-standard brick/ concrete structures crumbled with the 2005 earthquake in northern

72 

A. MAHBOOB

regions of Pakistan. And, even in non-emergency contexts, they are not designed for the local climate or environment and often lack appropriate ventilation. These new architectures have a higher demand for energy, a limited and exploitative resource that is environmentally devastating. This desire to develop and/or leave one’s colonized lands for a “better” future elsewhere is a global issue. We have yet to visit a colonized country where a large proportion of people we interact with have no desire to leave their homes for a more “developed” place. And, we have yet to visit a part of the world where the differences between the rich and the poor are not becoming more pronounced and visible. In Lagos, Nigeria, where people experience regular power outages, the rich are building high-rise glass and metal towers which require enormous power supply (and cost a lot to build). Nigeria, a country with immense natural resources, has some of the poorest people in the world  – why, because they stay colonized. In Philippines, another country with immense natural resources, the rich are reclaiming land along Manila Bay – property to be sold for millions of pesos. While, on the other side of the road, people in slums can hardly afford to feed their children three meals a day. These are signs of how colonization continues today – oppressing millions of people. The development discourse, which is infatuated with the desire to become “developed” is one symptom of our hegemonized socio-­semiotics. Our beliefs and ways of being are often influenced by what we see or learn through media, books, or experience through travel (often facilitated by a colonizing language). And these are often designed to support corporate agendas and serve their political interests. There is a dearth of independent publicly funded and sustainable research in the colonized world that creates practices through projects and designs that enable local communities and sustainable economies. In other words, our academia, which is responsible for creating the knowledge base that enable sustainable economies is weak. One reason for this is our subservience on western knowledge and languages. What we often neglect to see in our disciplinary studies (disciplines that are often mirrored on western academic traditions, rather than Indigenous ones) is the impact of our research on our communities: this includes both a lack of impact as well as negative impact. It lacks impact because the social, economic, and environmental problems in our communities stay largely unresolved and unaffected by our research and publications. And, it can have a negative impact because we continue to “educate” others to

  THE MYTH OF THE POST-COLONIAL 

73

also write papers following western norms, traditions, and practices  – which support western knowledge building and economies, not of the colonies. Have we not asked ourselves this question: Why do we continue to suffer when we know the causes of our suffering? Why don’t we create local economies that strengthen our communities and bring prosperity and harmony? To achieve these goals, we need models of knowledge, media, and economies that create such a shift. To do this, we need curricula, teaching resources, and responsible media practices that help build participatory citizenship through education, media, and training. Education, media, and training that is designed for action that protects our environment, resources, and life. In education, this will require material to be developed that teaches our students to design and create material, rather than just teach them to read and write. Literacy skills should support creativity, not restrict it. Our curricula should aim to produce participatory citizens. Participatory citizenship implies that the curricula is about doing and creating things to support and build our communities. This can be done best in local languages, with the aim of creating local economies and communities. One which is respectful of diversity, including other biological creatures and environment. It is only after cycles of retraining and reeducating our populations by creating alternative practices and policies that we will start to see a reharmonization of our own societies. A sign that we have finally shed colonizing socio-semiotics. The push for western-style modern democracy is part of the socio-­ semiotic attack on Indigenous and non-western communities and has also resulted in empowering exploitative and disrespectful governments in many parts of the colonized world. The problem with modern day democracies are many, one of the most crucial ones is its placement of human interests over all others. This can be seen in the very way in which democracies operate based on one-human (conditions apply, e.g. age): one-vote. Those who win (let’s not critique the election process, funding, and procedures) create policies that influence not just humans but all other life forms on the planet. Western democracies, as opposed to Indigenous ways of governing, tend not to embed understandings of and respect for environment and other life forms in their approach to governance. Many of the traditions and beliefs that western sciences ridicule(d) and made fun of as being primitive and backwards were those that showed

74 

A. MAHBOOB

how Indigenous and non-western cultures made sense of their environment and contexts, serving their own purposes. The push for western-style democracies – as the only acceptable form of governance by the colonizers – and western-style sciences – as the only acceptable form of knowledge making by the colonizers – are two socio-semiotic weapons used by the colonizers to maintain control of their colonies. The very notion of ‘country’ as a sovereign political state is a creation of the colonizers. Countries did not exist in the way we see them today in the pre-colonial era. A study of the shifts of the meaning of the word ‘country’ can reveal how the etymology of this word is related to changes in the geo-political landscape, and the emergence of new “post-colonial” countries. The forms of government in pre-colonial era allowed for much greater human independence, diversity, and heterogeneity to exist – especially in areas far from cities and larger towns. In comparison, modern countries, shaped by non-Indigenous ways of governance, attempt to administer and dominate Indigenous communities and peoples by forcing them to assimilate and accept the government’s (dominant) views, even if these views and beliefs are not based on any particular reference to the local people, climate, environment, or other beings and things. The use of human demographics as the only criteria for assigning the number of representatives in government in modern democracies implies that human interests are the basis of political representation. This, in Indigenous ways of governance, would be frowned upon as disrespectful of other living beings and the environment. English, one language of colonization, is particularly discriminatory to non-human life forms. For example, boli, our mother tongue – along with many other languages from around the world, assign gender to everything. Its grammatical system does not distinguish between human and non-human things (including non-animate entities): everything is assigned a gender. This can be seen as one aspect of a system of personification, where non-humans are assigned human characteristics. By assigning human characteristics to non-humans and objects, these things are considered living and equal to humans – and, hence, respected within the grammar. English does not do this. In fact, the pronominal system of English does the opposite: it assigns two pronouns (he and she) to humans and one (it) generic pronoun to refer to anything non-human (including other animates). This system of identification and discrimination in English

  THE MYTH OF THE POST-COLONIAL 

75

allows humans to be treated in special ways, with little regard of everything else. This allows colonization of other peoples, because they are seen as less than human. The idea of savages, bush/jungle/primitive people are all discourse strategies of creating ‘others’ within human populations and dehumanizing them. Once dehumanized, they become objects to be ‘civilized’ and ‘developed’. To do this, western socio-semiotics are given as examples and models of what other people and countries should try to imitate. This discourse builds influence and power through which the colonial world continues to prosper, at the cost of the colonized. The goals of the colonizers are aided by use of particular languages and genres. Through language and education, certain values, beliefs, and ways of thinking are promoted while others hidden or villainized. Language and education, in addition to other tools, enable discourses that promote certain ways of thinking and acting as opposed to others. This creates barriers against Indigenous and dis-empowered people, who do not find their own voices reflected or welcomed in discourses of nationalism or globalization (other than for marketing and ceremonies). One example of this can be seen in academia. The top ranked journals are written in English and are considered authoritative and credible. Other forms of publication are ranked less and are considered less trustworthy. This ranking system in academia influences how policies are shaped across the world  – in order to improve university rankings. These top ranked journals have relatively narrow ways of doing and writing research, which are described and regulated by genre and disciplinary specialists. These specialists tend to be either based in or trained at universities in colonizing countries. Ranking systems as well as our organizational structures in education are designed to regulate what kind of work is done and recognized by the universities. Since our universities desire ranking (another symbol of success, like money), our academia spends time writing papers, which is a frustrating and expensive endeavor for many scholars in the colonized world. Instead of spending countless hours writing research papers, which are often read by a handful of people (if that), our academia can spend that time creating and doing things – the results of which are visible in their communities. People in academia in the colonized world are just as hard working – if not harder working – than those in the colonizing world. However, while academia in the colonizing world contributes to the development of their own communities, the academia in the colonized world mostly fails to do

76 

A. MAHBOOB

so. One key reason for this is that our socio-semiotics are colonized: our ways of knowing and doing are colonized. Instead of considering how the grammars of our own languages and communities operate and enable respect and diversity, our academia is largely colonized. Our communities will find it difficult for things to change unless we have decolonized our institutions of knowledge building. We need to carry out an independent audit of our educational systems and curricula (including research) to evaluate the impact of colonization; and, at the same time, actively create alternative pathways that enable local, Indigenous, and diverse ways of being, knowing and doing.

Splendid! Simply Splendid!

1850s “Sir, the danger is increasing, The natives are resisting.” How ignorant! How savage! They don’t appreciate our attempts to salvage? How can they know what’s best for them? Let‘s save them — in our God’s name! Burn their books, destroy their bonds; Let us teach them what we want Introduce money, buy us friends Give them greed of wealth and lands Teach people religion, to hate each other Break their union into different nations Create new symbols, build new systems Change the ways they think and function When this is done, come back to me And I will tell you what next can be.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Mahboob, Writings on Subaltern Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43710-6_17

77

78 

A. MAHBOOB

1940s “Sir, I am pleased to report our progress Your directives have brought us success: The natives are divided and broken They are killing each other in dozens.” Splendid! Simply splendid! And now for the next bits: Let us retire to our beautiful estate Let our friends govern their new states With our stories to guide their future We can relax and let them suffer Sell them books and let them know If they want progress, they can come for more Invite some natives, give them means Turn them into posters for the rest to dream When this is done, it will be seen: Those who fought us, now fight in-between. Splendid! Simply splendid!

Unlearn ‘Language’

We along with dozens of colleagues with a diverse range of expertise and from different parts of the world have started working on a project, ‘Profiling & Promoting the Languages of Pakistan’, that aims to develop a publicly available (open access) profile of language use across Pakistan, with a focus on mutual intelligibility. As you can imagine, this is a ginormous undertaking and methodologically difficult. Nothing like this has ever been attempted before. This is an extremely important project as the Government of Pakistan does not collect or provide detailed information on nation-wide language use in its census. Consequently, there is little reliable or valid information about language use in Pakistan. Without such information, our economic, educational, health, security, and social policies  – amongst others  – are unlikely to be locally relevant or implementable. In an absence of local knowledge, we are dependent on imported knowledge. Theories and practices in social sciences – unlike material and physical sciences – are very context sensitive. They are not generalizable; generalization may result in damage to our peoples, societies, and our environment. Without appropriate knowledge and information, it is difficult to develop policies that can empower people. Understanding and encouraging respect for diversity is critical for the very existence of a country. At the moment, violence has become a norm; ignorance is forced on people;

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Mahboob, Writings on Subaltern Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43710-6_18

79

80 

A. MAHBOOB

poverty is everywhere, even the “rich” are poor as they cannot drive to the next suburb without security and/or weapons; and, there is no coherent or shared public vision or direction in the country. Two reasons for this are: (1) Pakistan has never invested in profiling her own peoples; (2) Pakistan is still colonized. While the material and resources that this project will generate will be useful for a number of purposes, our initial goals for doing this work include (these will be revised and updated at intervals): 1. To create an open-access repository of resources and information about language use across Pakistan; 2. Use the material to develop educational material, policies, and practices; 3. Create resources to help regain our heritage of respect for diversity of beliefs, knowledge, traditions, and practices. The project poses multiple challenges. These challenges include developing and implementing valid and reliable methods of collecting and analyzing language use, as well as securing funding for the project. But, perhaps, the most urgent challenges are those related to ways in which we name and classify languages. ‘Language’ in its everyday use is seen as an identity marker: we identify people based on the languages they speak. In English, the word ‘language’ is seen as a distinct entity that can be counted and categorized based on a set of structural features. ‘Language’, in English, is a singular word. The plural of ‘language’ is ‘languages’. Language – as understood in and through a monolingual English perspective  – can be defined, described, codified, added, subtracted, and counted. However, not all languages or communities understand language in the same way. In parts of South Asia, a region with thousands of languages, locals understood language through a multilingual lens, not a monolingual one. This leads to different ways of understanding and referring to language in South Asia. For example, one term for language in our mother tongue, is बोली / ‫( بویل‬boli); please note that बोली / ‫ بویل‬is NOT the only word for language in boli. बोली / ‫ بویل‬is a collective noun. बोली / ‫ بویل‬are diverse, situated, contextual, and connect us to different people in different ways. Derivatives of बोली / ‫ بویل‬include words like ‘bol’ (utterance), ‘bolna’ (to speak), ‘bolta/i/ay’ (verb, with gender markings).

  UNLEARN ‘LANGUAGE’ 

81

बोली / ‫ بویل‬is also used to refer to non-human speech. This reflects an inherent respect for non-human lives in our बोली / ‫بویل‬: our बोली / ‫ بویل‬do not differentiate between human “language” and non-human “communication” (like English and other western languages do). Humans have बोली / ‫بویل‬, just like elephants and whales and cats have बोली / ‫بویل‬, even the wind and the leaves have their बोली / ‫بویل‬. Variations of forms and functions of बोली / ‫ بویل‬exist across many South Asian languages, each with its own way of viewing language. Other languages across South Asia use different terms for language. For example, in the Torwali language, one बोली / ‫ بویل‬spoken in the high mountain country of Swat, the local word for is ‫( جیب‬jeeb). According to Zubair Torwali, linguist and language activist, ‫ جیب‬is used for both language and tongue. Torwali does not differentiate between language and tongue; from a Torwali perspective, ‫ جیب‬is about what is spoken, not identity (like बोली / ‫)بویل‬. The multilingualism and diversity in our communities reflects the network of relationships (and intermarriages) in and across our communities as well as our respect for other life forms and natural environment. Unfortunately, at present, the respect for life and diversity that we see encoded within the deep grammars of our boli has been suppressed because we have no real information or knowledge about ourselves. Much of the mainstream information that we have about our own communities today was produced by or under the patronage of our colonial masters. It was grounded in monolingual and monocultural perspectives that saw British as the best; other western nations as good; and the rest of the world as savage, primitive, and/or tribal. In our communities there were and are at least two types of multilingualism: (1) where people can speak multiple languages; (2) where people can understand more languages than they can speak. This second type of multilingualism exists in other parts of the world too. For example, the 500 members of the Warruwi Community on South Goulburn Island, Australia, are receptive multilinguals in nine languages. They all understand the nine languages but may choose not to speak all for various reasons, including as a sign of respect for other speakers. In South Asia, we also classify बोली / ‫ بویل‬in relation to the network of relationships (as well as location and style). For example, if our parents come from different regions (note, that there were no “countries” prior to colonization), then they probably spoke a different बोली / ‫بویل‬. Children grew up in multilingual environment and developed multiple

82 

A. MAHBOOB

languages – without having particular names (proper nouns) for “languages”. बोली / ‫ بویل‬served us well. बोली / ‫ بویل‬united us. In communities that were inherently multilingual and multicultural, naming languages created divisions. Where people had बोली / ‫بویل‬, they now have languages (with a plural ‘s’). In poor countries, where resources are limited and we have huge populations, language becomes a tool for creating political divisions, leading to ethno-linguistic conflicts – people across Pakistan (and many other parts of the colonized world) have experienced (and continue to experience) the consequences of ethno-linguistic conflicts. Most of us are aware that the colonials used a divide-and-rule strategy to weaken and dominate us. What we often fail to realize is: naming languages and creating a strong relationship between language and identity/community is one of the most powerful tools of dividing people. We were (and are) people who speak many languages, not just one language that defines our identity. Using variations in sounds and structures, western (trained or influenced) linguists create labels and divisions (through linking language to identity) in communities. These divisions are based on procedures developed by western linguists. Encouraging language-based identities may lead to ethno-linguistic divisions, disagreements, and conflict. To promote respect and diversity, we need a respectful way of classifying and naming languages. One that is not grounded in identity and not exploitable for political purposes by the elites and those in power. One that respects and promotes diversity. Our ecology of languages (like the ecology of natural environment) is under severe stress as a consequence of western greed – seen in the shape of colonization, globalization, corporatization, and development. This needs to be reversed by creating alternatives that serve our goals and reflect our contexts. We will end this essay with a question for you: what can an alternative classificatory system and nomenclature for language look like?

The River Wept

The river wept, as we left But her tears were not for us. She cries not for those who leave; She cries for those who stay: The fish that live in acid rapids And the birds that prey on them; The trees that struggle to stay green Amidst all the dust and grey. The river wept, as we left But her tears were not for us. She cries not for those who leave; She cries for those who stay: The fields of plastics amidst the wheat And lands drenched in chemicals; The children who grow up in dirt Never knowing what pristine means. The river wept, as we left But her tears were not for us. She cries not for those who leave; She cries for those who stay.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Mahboob, Writings on Subaltern Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43710-6_19

83

The Unmaking of Paradise: Literacy as Trojan Horse: Part I

Artwork by Kiran Mahboob: https://www.instagram.com/kirandraws/

You are entering a valley, a valley blooming with flowers of all colours, lush green forests, birds: flying, singing, dancing in the skies. Skies with a beautiful sun, perhaps a couple of clouds, even a rainbow or a double rainbow, if you like. As you walk into the valley, news of your arrival spreads quick. (continued)

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Mahboob, Writings on Subaltern Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43710-6_20

85

86 

A. MAHBOOB

(continued) The wind, the birds, the animals, the insects, the flowers, the river, the people, and everything else stops and looks at you with a welcoming curiosity. As you walk, there’s a spring in your gait. A freshness in your breath. Soon, you become part of this valley. Anyone else entering the valley at this point would not be able to identify you. You are part of the rhythm of the valley, its colours, its aromas, its life.

This above is a metaphor for South Asia at time of first colonial contact. South Asia, before European colonisation, was a rainbow of dynamic systems, inclusive of all forms of living and non-living things. A host of local boli were used across the region. Boli was only spoken. Boli was a non-count noun. Boli was not named. We spoke several boli nd understood even more. Boli did not mark identity; it reflected relationships. Boli symbolised our relationships with others. Boli varied when one related with different people, beings, and non-living things at different times and places & for different purposes. We referred to boli by the relationship(s) they construed, e.g., ‘nani ki boli’ (maternal grandmother’s boli), ‘susral ki boli’ (in-laws boli); or, ‘Lucknow ki boli’, ‘Swat ki boli’ (there could be more than one boli associated with a location). There was widespread receptive multilingualism. And, everything was considered to have boli: living and non-living things alike. These practices are still preserved in some of our boli. For example, in our parents’ boli, who were born in different parts of British India and migrated with their parents to Karachi soon after the British created Pakistan. In our boli, everything is interconnected and living, even the lakes and the rivers and the mountains. This is noticeable in, for example, how our boli marks gender on everything – living and non-living. Assigning gender to non-living things is a type of personification: it represents life. When the colonisers first started settling in South Asia, our ancestors were inclusive and lived in prosperity (not based on cash/money). For example, Akbar was married to a ‘Hindu’ and practiced ‘Deen-e-Ilahi’.

  THE UNMAKING OF PARADISE: LITERACY AS TROJAN HORSE: PART I 

87

Deen-e-Ilahi means ‘one God’ and recognises that people have different ways of representing and paying homage to God. And that all of them are welcome. Akbar encouraged diversity of practices and celebrated them. This is one reason why Akbar’s period is seen as one of prosperity and integration. Deen-e-Ilahi was lost when Aurengzeb defeated his elders and took over the Mughal throne. This happened after the colonial traders were already established in South Asia and had started exerting their social, political, and military interventions. Deen-e-Ilahi is grounded in some of the boli of South Asia. For example, in our boli, we make a three-way distinction between deen, iman, and muzhab. Deen is our diety, it can be anything or nothing. Iman is our practice of integrity (imaandari). Muzhab are our individual and local ways of celebrating our deen and iman. Muzhab, by definition, recognizes and respects diversity. Akbar’s conception of Deen-e-Ilahi can be understood as one way in which these distinctions (encoded in boli) were used to develop an inclusive, diverse, and prosperous people. This three- way distinction shows how our own boli is built on understandings of inclusivity and respect. [Not peace; peace is only an absence of war; and, not tolerance; tolerance is only an absence of aggression.] This harmony, which is represented in the image above, began to change when the three distinct ideas about deen, iman, and muzhab were reduced and translated into a single English word, ‘religion’. There are a number of other observations that suggest that Akbar’s period was one of harmony. Akbar did not have a jizya tax for non-­ Muslims. His advisors included people of all beliefs, genders, and boli. Akbar’s key advisors included people of science and arts  – of all backgrounds. Akbar himself was an artist, a poet, a philosopher, and a writer. These histories are, however, mostly lost to us. Instead, we are taught a past of violence, conflict, and exploitation based on colonial myths and documented in the work and publications of colonial and colonial-era authors. It is these publications which form the basis of most of the common knowledge about South Asia today. An understanding of this leads to many questions, such as: Do we need to unlearn colonial myths and learn from our own heritage and boli? If so, how? Like other life forms, our ancestors had their share of conflict as well. But, this was nothing of the scale of today. Governance in South Asia was carried out by diverse peoples, was grounded on relationships, and was inclusive.

88 

A. MAHBOOB

It was in this era of inclusivity, harmony, and prosperity that the colonials first started “trading” with South Asians. With them, they brought their languages, beliefs, money, practices, and  – most importantly  – the printing press. It is the printing press and the practices of literacy that are necessary for the press to operate that played a pivotal role in the unmaking of paradise. As the colonials took over lands, they destroyed local knowledges and replaced them by colonial knowledge. They did so because they believed that theirs was the best and only way for a civilisation to develop. We see evidence of how the colonising groups within Europe first colonised their own peoples and lands, wiped out numerous Indigenous languages and traditions, replaced them by ‘national’ languages  – languages tied to national identity, and used cash/money to trap the farmers and other disadvantaged people into working for the industrialists and elites. This brought money (seen as wealth) and power (experienced as exploitation) to some people and made others poor. Any questioning of power was suppressed through force. As these people with insatiable greed became more powerful, they set out to make more riches across the seas. As part of this expansion, they wrote, sponsored, and published books on the lands and the peoples that they dominated. They used their printing presses to make copies of it and introduced it into education. Today, in many parts of the world, we have almost no access to Indigenous histories and are dependent on colonial era for any information/knowledge about our own pasts. In South Asia, the colonials made sure that all copies of key Mughal literature, for example, Babarnama and Akbarnama (chronicles of the two of the greatest Mughal leaders) were destroyed or removed from South Asia. The writings of two Mughals who are best known for their inclusivity are not available for study and to learn from. All access to our own literary traditions were/are controlled by the colonials. As far as we have been able to trace, all copies of Baburnama (written in Chagatai) have been destroyed. There appears to be one copy of Akbarnama (written in Farsi) in a European library. The original texts are not available to the public. Access to these texts are now through their translations in English or translations sponsored by the colonial agents (or people trained by them) into local languages. It needs to be noted that Babur wrote in Chagtai (using a Persian script), not Arabic. The Mughals traced their roots back to Chagatai and the Mongols, not to the Arabs. They were

  THE UNMAKING OF PARADISE: LITERACY AS TROJAN HORSE: PART I 

89

most likely multilingual in Chagtai, Persian, and other dialects/varieties of Turkic and Persian languages. With the originals destroyed or missing, the colonial-era translated texts have now replaced the originals and become the foundational knowledge today and is taught and learnt through educational institutions and media world-wide. Through this, we lost our own histories. To compensate us, our Masters wrote new histories for us. It is these histories that were the unmaking of our paradise. The world has known many powers in history. However, none like the western European colonial powers. The western colonials, in addition to trade and warfare, used the printing press and literacy to create an ‘empire of the language’. An empire that continues to enslave a large proportion of the world’s population to economic, social, and political models that are embedded in the vocabularies and grammars of a few western European languages. It is this literacy that has led to a continuing enslavement of peoples around the globe. This is what we mean by ‘Literacy is a Trojan Horse’, as we will elaborate on in the next part of this essay.

Thank You

They took away my land, I said: Thank you for building the railroad. They took away my wealth, I said: Thank you for giving me loans. They took away my language, I said: Thank you for teaching me to speak. They took away my traditions, I said: Thank you for giving me culture. They took away my wisdom, I said: Thank you for building us schools. They took away my values, I said: Thank you for making me civilised. They took away my honour, I said: Thank you for being so kind. They took away my people, I said: Thank you for giving us jobs. They took away my life, I said: Thank you, you have saved my life.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Mahboob, Writings on Subaltern Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43710-6_21

91

The Unmaking of Paradise: Literacy as Trojan Horse: Part II

Artwork by Kiran Mahboob: https://www.instagram.com/kirandraws/

Our valley changes with seasons. Each as beautiful as the other. The dynamics of landscape, of life, of beliefs keeps shifting and changing – each image a perfection in itself. (continued)

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Mahboob, Writings on Subaltern Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43710-6_22

93

94 

A. MAHBOOB

(continued) Then, we see large wooden vessels floating through the oceans and arriving at the entrance to our paradise. Vessels full of humans, even if they look a bit different from the ones in paradise. Full of welcoming curiosity as ever, the valley shared all that it had. At first these humans appeared like any other. But, then, they brought out things and diseases–of body and mind–that spread like a dark cloud. The clouds get heavier and heavier. From outside, they take shape of trains, of goods, of factories, of education, of industry, of commercial farming, of taxes, of guns, of cash, of slavery, of loans, of wars… From inside, they are an ever darker and suffocating smoke. And, from below, they weigh like a dark tar drowning paradise.

Our paradise was/is lost to colonial schemes through very simple, yet efficient, socio-semiotic warfare. This was/is done through a two-step process: 1. Change people’s socio-semiotics and behaviour by creating new practices and policies enabled by systems of rewards (e.g., jobs, awards) and punishments (e.g. law, violence). 2. Turn infinites into finite (e.g., control the production, value, and distribution of things like money, knowledge, religion, beliefs); and, turn finite things into infinites (e.g. make people focus on past or future instead of present; turn minerals and resources into money). The result of this two-step process is a socio-semiotic subjugation of the target populations. In South Asia, the colonials achieved their desired

  THE UNMAKING OF PARADISE: LITERACY AS TROJAN HORSE: PART II 

95

result in many ways. For example, as outlined in part 1 of this essay, the replacement of a three-way differentiation between deen, iman, and muzhab, which celebrated variations in beliefs and harmonised the society, by a single term ‘religion’ led to (ongoing) conflicts in the region; and, these conflicts helped/helps the colonisers gain strength. The British in India noticed the strengths of local beliefs and practices as well as systems of education and literacy. They realised that to rule India they needed to dismantle local ways of knowing, doing, and being and replace them with their own. To achieve this, they (as recorded in Macaulay’s Minute on Indian Education, 1935) promote(d) English as being superior in every way to local languages and support education in and through English at the cost of local boli and educational practices. Macaulay argued that people in India “cannot at present be educated by means of [their] mother-tongue” and must therefore be taught in a foreign language. He then went on to state, with no evidence, that English was “preeminent even among the languages of the West” and should therefore be the language that the Indians should be taught in and through. This promotion of English as the only language that “has ready access to all the vast intellectual wealth” is what led to the establishment of a new type of empire: an empire of language. In setting up an empire of the English language, the British contributed in setting up an academia in English which established and promoted ways of thinking about language (and other socio-semiotic systems) that devalue(d) Indigenous boli and ways. This was/is done in different ways. For example, one way in which English is seen as the “preeminent” language is to argue that one cannot do science in boli. This is supported by arguing that boli are not written and therefore cannot be used for education. As a result, English (or a handful of other languages with writing systems) are promoted in education and used as “official” languages. The success of the British approach of altering the socio-semiotics of a people is visible around the world in the belief that we are all expected to learn English, the language of science and development, if we are to prosper.

96 

A. MAHBOOB

However, these beliefs are based on biased interpretations and study of “languages” (and other socio-semiotic systems).

Boli Is Science Contrary to the claim that boli are “under-developed” and that English is the language of science; a study of any boli will illustrate that boli – whether it has script or not – is science. To understand this, we need to understand how science operates. Science at its foundation, based on various (arbitrary/different) sets of criteria, classifies and categorises things. This knowledge is then applied in various contexts. As such, science is not limited to any ‘one’ (or more) language(s). All boli categorise and classify the world that they represent (and construe) using criteria that are relevant to the people who speak the boli and the context in which it evolved. For example, we are confident that you will find labels for different categories of fruit, vegetables, animals, etc. in your own boli. If you are proficient in your boli, you will also have learnt about how the various categories interact with each other and with humans. You will also know, e.g., how to use particular types of plants and herbs found in your region for various medicinal/other purposes. This is science – your boli helps you separate out and classify and categorise things around you and teach you how to use these for your and your community’s benefit. When we give up our boli for English (or another colonial language), we give up our own science: our ways of understanding the world around us. This contributes to a dis-harmonisation and dis-empowerment of our peoples and communities. An understanding of boli as science is marginalised/ignored in dominant English academia. Instead, the academia (and colonial governments) promotes English (or another colonising language) as “the” language of science and development. This marketing of English as the language of development is, unfortunately, accepted by many (including Ministries of Education) with limited or no reflection and is manifested in the higher ranking of English medium educational institutions. The wide-spread belief/practice of promoting English at the cost of local boli reflects the success of Macaulay’s strategies – and the unmaking of our paradise. Not only is it untrue that boli cannot be used to teach science or to educate people, one can argue that giving up one’s boli is giving up one’s Indigenous sciences and ancestral ways of understanding the world around us.

  THE UNMAKING OF PARADISE: LITERACY AS TROJAN HORSE: PART II 

97

The reason that colonials claim that English is the language of science is because the English travelled across the world and built their theories based on observations from different parts of the world; in contrast, boli are more localised in their evolution and applications. In their colonial expeditions, the colonisers engaged with diverse material-­biological and socio-semiotic systems, and developed their theories based on their observations and experiences. For example, Darwin would not have written his work if he had not travelled on colonial voyages of “discovery” [Note: what colonials “discover” is often already represented in Indigenous boli]. Darwin, like most other western scientists at that time, created taxonomies of relationships between various species. These taxonomies focussed on classifying and categorising various species and sub-species (think language and dialect) based on a set of structural features. Darwin, like most colonial taxonomists, did not consider the inter-­ relationships between and functions of different species, e.g. how does a Koala contribute to the ecosystem and other beings? This is one reason why we do not realise that before a species becomes biologically extinct, it becomes functionally extinct, i.e., it stops performing the ecological functions that it has within an ecosystem. As a consequence, the whole eco-­ system becomes destabilised. Similarly, before various boli around the world become extinct, they become functionally extinct, i.e., they stop performing their socio-­semiotic functions in the community. That is, boli is no longer used to understand and interact with the world around us. Instead, boli is replaced by an outside language (this, in the current world, may be English, or may be another colonising language, such as Urdu in the case of Pakistan). In replacing boli with another language, we are, in fact giving up the most valuable inheritance from our ancestors. Boli, which we learn from our parents, and they from theirs, and so on, is the essence of our ancestors’ understanding of both the living and non-­ living worlds, and their relationship with these worlds. Boli is a distillation of the experiences, beliefs, and practices of our ancestors across millennia. Boli is our ancestors’ socio-semiotic inheritance to us. Boli is science: its vocabularies and its grammars are our ancestors’ ways of being, knowing, and doing. And a loss of boli is a loss of our socio-semiotics. That is why boli (not language, as language includes and is based on written symbols) is an aspect of our heritage and a fundamental human right.

98 

A. MAHBOOB

Boli and Writing Systems Are Two Separate Things If you can read this, you learnt to read at some point of time in your life. You may remember who and in what context you were first taught to read. Some of you might have learnt multiple scripts (e.g., Roman, Persio-­ Arabic, IPA); some of you, e.g. those educated in Japanese schools, might have learnt multiple types of scripts (phonetic, syllabic, logographic). While there will be differences in our histories of and experiences with scripts and reading, we all share one thing: we learn to speak/sign first before we learn to read and write. Why is this the case? For children born with hearing, verbal interaction takes over as a primary tool to interact with others around them. This verbal interaction develops into boli. And we use boli to learn about and engage with the world around us. Children who can see but do not have hearing, look for visual cues (including, but not restricted to, signing) to engage and make meanings. And, children who can neither see nor hear, use touch, smell, and taste to learn about and engage with the world. Each of the sensory organs that humans draw on add complimentary sets of socio-semiotic potential. Sensory systems do not substitute for each other. They may, however, provide us with overlapping sets of information; e.g., some of us can both hear (auditory) someone give a talk and read (visual) their presentation slides at the same time. As humans, we have the same range of sensory systems. Each of us draws on and uses similar sets of resources, but, does so differently. There are numerous material-biological and socio-semiotic reasons for this [material-biological reasons include, e.g., sensory/physical ability, height of a person, placement of eyes on a person’s face; and, socio-semiotic reasons include, e.g. socio-economic status of the family, education/training, beliefs]. An understanding of how boli and reading are related to different sensory systems explains why reading/writing comes after boli (boli is primarily auditory; reading is primarily visual). Reading is the ability of a person to use their visual sense to interpret a set of symbols that carry a (static) representation of some aspects of boli. These symbols can be organised along different sets of principles (phonetic, syllabic, or logographic). Written symbols have been used by humans for an unknown number of millennia and evidence for these emerge thousands of years ago. It is also well known that different communities developed different

  THE UNMAKING OF PARADISE: LITERACY AS TROJAN HORSE: PART II 

99

types of writing systems independent of each other and at different times; and, that some of these writing systems were shared across large regions. Thus, reading/writing is not a modern thing. And reading/writing, in and of itself, is neither good nor bad. It is the use of “literacy” in a select number of “languages” as a primary tool for education, economy, and evaluation of all humans (and non-humans) that contributes to the unmaking of the paradise. Colonial theories and practices of language and literacy, based on limited/no understanding of Indigenous literacy practices, leads to continuing marginalisation of disempowered peoples. This is why literacy can be seen as Trojan Horse. In Troy, it was the neglect of the wooden horse that the Greeks left behind that was its unmaking. In our world, colonial literacy is the Trojan Horse that our Masters left behind. It is not that we did not already have literacy before the colonisers arrived: we did; and, it is not that we do not want to retain literacy, we do; but, we should not neglect the weapons hidden in colonial models of language and literacy – the Trojan Horse – that they left behind (and continue to reinforce). If we neglect them, we will continue to be dominated, supressed, and exploited. Colonials use one aspect of the visual sensory system  – reading  – to measure, label, and discriminate against people. As a remedy to a lack of literacy, they promote particular models of education and literacy, which are often provided in a colonial (or a colonial-sanctioned) language (not boli). This is noticeable in the dominant educational practices and material across the globe: they are biased in favour of colonial (not Indigenous) ways of being, knowing, and doing. Instead of being seen as one aspect of a visual system used by some groups of people for specific purposes, literacy is seen as a skill that can and should be made available to all. This push for universal literacy is a goal of most (if not all) major developmental organisations, including UNESCO. This is in spite of the fact that most of the worlds languages do/did not have writing systems. One reason why colonial literacy is the unmaking of paradise is because the colonisers interpreted everything they saw, observed, and/or heard about based on their own preconceptions and biases. They used their interpretations of selective observation/participation as “evidence” for their theories. The evidence they provided laid the foundations of much current colonial literacy and academia.

100 

A. MAHBOOB

One consequence of neglecting the Trojan Horse of colonial literacies and academia is the division of people, based on structural distinctions (labels created and given by the colonials, such as language, race, religion, gender). A division of people along these distinctions both reflects and contributes to a common perception that one group of people are different from another. These divisions can lead to conflict, for example, across South Asia. Conflict can lead to violence, which, in turn, can lead to destruction and poverty. The impact of a process of division can be observed in the constant increase in the number of ethno-linguistic groups around the world (as well as new ‘countries’), especially in the “developing world”. And, each new identity-group, in time, sub-divides and splits along another sets of characteristics. This continual breaking up of our peoples, non-human life forms, and lands are the dark clouds that suffocate us. However, not all is lost. And there are ways in which we can move forward. We will consider some of these in Part 3 of this essay and outline things that we can do as individuals and groups to realign our language and literacy practices to enable ourselves and our communities.

Should I Go to School?

The other night, I heard elders Talking about me. Granddad Fox wondered If I should go to school And, which one should it be? Before Granddad Fox added more Granddad Brumby said: “Nooooughhh way!” “We teach the Brumby our ways To love and listen to Mother Earth And he will roam free, not afraid Of even the Man from Snowy River.” The conversation scared me a bit But, then I smiled, When Grandma Parakeet sang: “Brumbies roam free They live in the now Aware of what is And what is to do.”

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Mahboob, Writings on Subaltern Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43710-6_23

101

The Unmaking of Paradise: Literacy as Trojan Horse: Part III

Artwork by Kiran Mahboob: https://www.instagram.com/kirandraws/

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Mahboob, Writings on Subaltern Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43710-6_24

103

104 

A. MAHBOOB

The valley, now dark, continues to change. The dark clouds change with the wind. In one image, we see smoke take the shape of the factories and blowing more smoke. In another, some of the smoke looks like a landscape shot of a modern city, with dark looming towers rising. And, with slums of black tar covering any part not constructed. Then, we see some movement, something moving under the tar. We see it again. And again. And again. Across many different locations. And then we see the tar being pushed off from below. As it rises, it turns back into smoke. And this smoke, unlike the rest, moves fast towards the end of our frame. This happens faster and faster and across more and more locations. As we zoom out and end this animation, we see a new beauty arising. Not what it was before. But, equally beautiful: full of new colours, aromas, and life. And, then, as if by magic, the tar mostly disappears. A little smoke and a few patches remain. We see them being cleaned out by people.

If we can learn to identify how our paradise is being kept hostage by a dependence on colonial approaches to literacy and education, then, it is possible for us to gain independence from colonial powers by developing and using alternative approaches: ones that are designed to empower us, our communities, and our environment. However, given the almost total obliteration of our local histories and knowledge – and their replacement by colonial and colonial-influenced narratives and histories, this is not an easy task. In many ways, in order to do what we need to do, we will have to: (a) Rethink almost everything that we know, assume, and/or believe about ourselves and our histories; and, (b) Realign our material-biological and socio-semiotic worlds.

  THE UNMAKING OF PARADISE: LITERACY AS TROJAN HORSE: PART III 

105

What are Material-Biological and Socio-semiotic Worlds? Everything around us is either material or non-material, i.e., it exists in the material world or it does not. If something doesn’t exist in the material world, it doesn’t mean that the ‘thing’ cannot exist at all. There a number of things that don’t have material existence, but they may exist for individuals and/or groups of people. Ideas, beliefs, and thoughts are examples of socio-semiotic systems that exist essentially in our heads (some of which may be shared with others). These ideas can and sometimes do impact the material-biological world through engagement and action, e.g. we thought of having ice cream and then walked to the ice cream shop to get one; or, differences between peoples’ beliefs can lead to conflict, which may have an impact on the material-biological world. We engage with the material-biological world through our five material senses: sight, sound, smell, touch, and taste. In Part 2 of this essay, we differentiated between the visual and the auditory systems to understand how writing systems and boli (oral language) do not necessarily have to be dependent on each other. The visual and the auditory systems are two amongst five material senses that humans have access to. All other senses are socio-semiotic, i.e., they are non-material. Material senses allow us to interact with the material/physical/biological world around us. Non-­ material senses provide us with the interpretive frameworks that are used to understand material stimuli; non-material systems also play a part in how we respond to particular stimuli (this response can be material and/ or socio-semiotic). It needs to be noted that not all humans have access to or use the five material senses in the same way. Which material senses a person has access to, to what degree, and how they use them does NOT imply superiority or inferiority of any one person over another; however, they do help us in understanding how different people and groups of people interact with the world and each other. For example, a person may or may not have sight: this does not mean that a person who has sight is better than one who doesn’t. Similarly, people may use sight for reading or not: people

106 

A. MAHBOOB

who do not use sight for reading may engage with the world in different ways than those who do; this does not make them better or worse, just different. The five material senses can be distinguished by considering two factors: proximity (distance from us) and ingestion (whether we put something inside our body or not). Of these two factors, proximity allows us to organise the five material senses in a hierarchal order (see Table 1 below). Table 1 shows how we use sight and sound to engage with things that are more distant. Notice here that touch requires no distance (0 proximity) and, in some instance, it can, e.g. a cut, penetrate through our skin (− proximity, + ingestion). Table  1 can also help us to see that the five material senses can be grouped into two groups. Group A, which includes sight and sound, can sense things that have a long range: they can be close or far from us; however, in either case, we don’t ingest through sight or sound (this is not to say that light and sound cannot penetrate us, they can and do). Group B, which include smell, touch, and taste require things to be close to us and ingestion is possible (and, in some cases, essential). The job of our material senses is to receive material stimuli which are then interpreted through our socio-semiotics systems (which act as our interpretive frameworks). Socio-semiotic systems, or the non-material world, is essentially everything that is not material. This includes, but is not limited to, religion, beliefs, economic systems, culture, and language. Some readers might be surprised that language is a socio-semiotic system, and not a material system. This is because sound waves, which are material, don’t carry any meanings in themselves. It is people who parse sounds and give meanings (or not) to them: while, one language may use one set of sounds, another might use a different one to refer to the same meaning (e.g. ‘apple’ and ‘seib’ (in our boli) are two sets of sounds that refer to the same fruit); or, in some cases, languages might use the same sound or a set of sounds, but for different purposes and different Table 1  The hierarchy of the five material senses based on proximity

Sensory system

Proximity Ingestion

Sight Sound Smell Touch Taste

+++ ++ + 0/− −

+ −/+ +

  THE UNMAKING OF PARADISE: LITERACY AS TROJAN HORSE: PART III 

107

meanings (e.g., /bɪn/: refers to ‘something we throw trash into’ in English; and refers to ‘being without’ in our boli). Similarly, while we can all smell the same things, our interpretations of what the smell is or how it makes us feel might differ (e.g. things we might have found OK in the past may become unpleasant: observe how people find cigarette smoke very unpleasant once they give up smoking). One way to grasp the difference between material and non-material things is to ask the question: Can I halve it? While material things can typically be halved (e.g., one can cut a potato into two equal halves); one cannot halve non-material things (e.g., one cannot cut an idea into two equal halves). An understanding of what material-biological and socio-semiotic systems are and how they operate can help us understand how the colonisers have maintained and continue to strengthen their hold over the colonised peoples. In this, education and literacy are the secret weapons hidden in the Trojan Horse given to the colonised people as gifts. A Trojan Horse, while it may appear to be a gift, carries hidden weapons that can destroy the recipients of the ‘gift’. We looked at examples of how literacy and education have negatively impacted South Asia in Parts 1 and 2 of this essay. Here, we will focus on how we can use our understandings of material and non-material systems to set-up alternative ways of education  – ones that are designed to empower people and communities, rather than making them dependent on colonial powers.

Decolonising Education Indigenous education in South Asia, not unlike many other places worldwide, was based on an apprenticeship approach. People learnt skills that were needed in the community from elders and experts. People who focussed on different things developed specialised language for their needs, which is how languages naturally evolve. These specialised skills and associated knowledge and language was transferred across generations through diverse practices. Literacy, while it existed across South Asia, was not the goal or primary tool of education/assessment. In other words, education in South Asia was embedded in practice (not literacy) and practice was learnt from experts in community through observation and engagement. This implied that people spent time together as they did and learnt things. The practices learnt by people in community

108 

A. MAHBOOB

were those that were deemed necessary by the community and had emerged and evolved over time. This learning did not depend on literacy; it depended on observing, listening, and practicing. While, literacy evolved and was used in certain contexts in South Asia – mostly in trading centres, it was not a wide-spread practice across the region. This was because education was not grounded in literacy and literacy was not considered an essential tool for human existence or survival. The local apprentice-type approach to education changed with colonisation. Colonial education draws primarily on two sensory systems: sight and sound. Through an emphasis on literacy (which is dependent on sight and therefore allows us to engage with things in a distance), it includes and often focusses on things and abstractions that may not directly be present or relevant to the lives of the people in the colonial world. However, these non-local (and often unverifiable) knowledge is turned into a requirement in colonial schools and becomes, in the absence of any counterevidence/narrative, the ‘truths’ and ‘facts’ that people believe in. This use of literacy as a key tool in colonial education serves to alienate the students from their own immediate contexts and link their socio-semiotics to non-present systems and practices, which are projected through educational texts and media resources. A large number of schools across South Asia (as across the world) focus on literacy (sight) and oral teaching (sound); little attention, if any, is paid to other sensory systems or the interrelationship between the various sensory systems. For example, schools in South Asia can be over-crowded, dirty, smelly, and noisy: this impacts all aspects of the students’ material-­ biological being and their socio-semiotic learning – but is disregarded by educational authorities, who focus on the curricula and tests/examinations. An over-emphasis on reading and a neglect of the local context and needs of the learners enables an educational system which situates students outside of their own contexts and does not help people address their own concerns and needs. This removing of humans from their immediate contexts is a strategy used by colonial powers to influence individuals into acting in the interest of the colonials (and often against the interests of their own communities and environment). As people become more engaged in activities that are dependent on Group A of our material senses, i.e., senses that allow us to focus on things that may not be in our present (or directly verifiable), we pay less attention on things that are closer to us and that we are surrounded by. By doing so, we can lose our connection with our material

  THE UNMAKING OF PARADISE: LITERACY AS TROJAN HORSE: PART III 

109

being and instead rally around things that only have a socio-semiotic (non-material) existence for most of us. We see evidence of this in how educational system trains graduates who want to find jobs to make some cash, instead of thinking about how they can improve the material situation in which they and their communities live. Similarly, we find that our educational systems across South Asia teach and promote colonial and colonial-influenced histories that further divide the people and lead to conflict, violence, and poverty. Most learning/teaching in colonial schools is based on textbooks and curricula that are controlled by governments. Often, as in the case of the development of the recent National Education Curriculum in Pakistan, there is no wider public consultation or engagement in the development of educational policies and material. The educational policies developed by various ‘countries’ are designed by experts to (purportedly) aid in the economic progress of the country. In order to do this, the country prioritises content and goals that will lead to higher employment rates or achieve other government-set agendas. Currently, education in the colonised communities is geared to serve the needs of colonial masters, not our own people. In other words, the current educational system is designed to keep us colonised and subjugated rather than become independent and prosperous. This can be observed in how so many of our educational institutions pride themselves on having graduated students who have found jobs overseas, i.e., they have trained people who left their homes and communities to earn wages overseas (including the author of this work); and, hence, not trained people to stay home and contribute to the betterment of local communities. To decolonise, we need an educational system that enables decolonisation, instead of colonisation. An education that decolonises is an education that: ( a) Is not consumed by the goal of spreading universal literacy; (b) Is not designed to only prepare people to work for others for (petty) wages; (c) Considers the needs of the community and then trains the citizens to learn to address those needs; (d) Values all form of knowledge and skills, not just ones included in colonial textbooks/languages; (e) Is designed to make people independent and able to manage their own needs and resources; and, (f) Involves all stakeholders in its development and management.

110 

A. MAHBOOB

If we are interested in creating such a decolonising education, we need to support our own people, instead of constantly criticising them for not meeting colonial ‘standards’. We also need to realise that wisdom and expertise comes through experience, engagement, practice, and reflection, not by simply reading or being a critical thinker. Nor is knowledge restricted to English: boli is science. A decolonised education values expertise and ability, not the language it is in. If we are interested in supporting our own people through education, we need to reset the goals of education and focus on skills and practice rather than just literacy. Skills, which require knowledge that can be orally (or visually, e.g. through drawing/animation) communicated and do NOT necessarily require literacy, can be used to make and do things: e.g., build systems and processes to manage air, water, and land pollution in our regions. These ‘doings’ can, in turn, help generate local economies and break the dependence on colonial knowledge and economy. Giving skills, rather than focussing on literacy, requires an engagement with multiple material-biological senses. Education practices that engage multiple material and non-material systems tend to be much more embedded within a community than those that engage with just a few. For example, an educational system that is mostly dependent on written texts may not be reflective of or relevant to people in different contexts. Since writing, a visual system, uses stimuli that are most distant from a person, it can also be difficult to ascertain the reliability and validity of the visual stimuli (e.g., most of the fake news on social media exploits our visual and auditory systems). While in some cases we can check to see if what we saw was right or wrong, e.g., if we see a fire in the distance, we can move closer to inspect it; in other cases, e.g. in case of written texts or media, the referents are not necessarily accessible to us and cannot be verified. In such cases, if we believe the information we receive, then, we are putting our trust in the source of the text. And, this is where potential problems lie. If texts that students are exposed to in their education include lies and fake news, then students’ socio-semiotics and their actions can be directed to achieve harmful goals. Unfortunately, at present, across South Asia, educational texts are designed to engender socio-semiotics of divisions and conflict and violence. That we find violence and poverty across South Asia should not come as a surprise – what we are seeing are the outcomes of colonial education and literacy practices that we have now consumed and replenished for scores of generations and have internalised as ‘facts’.

  THE UNMAKING OF PARADISE: LITERACY AS TROJAN HORSE: PART III 

111

However, if we consider the non-material basis of these ‘facts’ and ask for evidence to support them, we can start to unravel the threads that have kept us bound to colonial chains. Identifying and breaking the chains of socio-semiotic dependency is one key strategy to decolonising education. In doing so, our goal is not to take our people/communities back-in-time, but rather to move forward with a shared vision of what we need to achieve. And, in order to achieve these goals, we will need to develop tools, strategies, and resources – using a range of material and non-material systems. In doing this, literacy can continue to play a role – but, this use of literacy will be based on need: it will not be set as the goal of education. Instead, we can develop tools that can be used to engage all people – regardless of their literacy, English language skills, and/or access to particular (aspects of) material and non-­ material systems. And, as we shift our educational goals and practices, we will start to observe that the dark clouds that kept the sunlight away from us and our lands slowly starts to disperse. And, as these clouds disperse, a new landscape emerges. Not the same as before. But, just as colourful and diverse and pluralistic.

I Love You Unconditionally

“Papa, how much do you love me?” Guddu asked one day I love you unconditionally, my love “How much is that Papa” I had used too big a word for him Ah, it is not a number, Guddu It means I love you as you are “How many people can one love, Papa” We love everyone and everything “Everything?” Guddu was puzzled again Yes, we all have the same right To receive love from everyone and everything “What about those who are bad to you?” Guddu had been bullied at school recently It doesn’t matter, if we love them, They will learn to love us back Regardless of how long it takes. “Papa, I love you unconditionally too.”♥

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Mahboob, Writings on Subaltern Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43710-6_25

113

Colonisation 3.0

Artwork by Kiran Mahboob: https://www.instagram.com/kirandraws/

Preamble This chapter is based on an understanding that European colonisation was carried out through both physical and socio-semiotic violence. This socio-­ semiotic violence includes the formation of new concepts and categories in English, e.g., ‘country’, ‘language’, and ‘religion’; an introduction of new forms of education and literacy; and, using these categories and processes to divide up and influence peoples’ beliefs and practices. While the

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Mahboob, Writings on Subaltern Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43710-6_26

115

116 

A. MAHBOOB

Europeans physically retreated from their colonies starting the middle of the twentieth century, the socio-semiotic processes that they put in place continue today. In this essay, we will identify some of these processes and see how they allowed the Europeans to turn Colonisation 1.0 into Colonisation 2.0, while their colonial subjects celebrated ‘independence’. The chapter further looks at signs of another on-going transition, which can be considered a shift to Colonisation 3.0. The chapter identifies possibilities that are available during times of flux and shares strategies that can be taken to help people end socio-semiotic colonisation.

Colonisation 1.0 Most people are familiar with Colonisation 1.0. This was when the European powers went out on a contest for World Domination. They sailed across the world either claiming lands as their own or snaking their way into existing civilisations to take control of them and rule them through both material (physical) and non-material (socio-semiotic) violence. Once captured, they traded these lands and people and animals between each other and some emerging powers (e.g. the United States of America, or more suitably the United Settlements of America). Colonisation 1.0 evolved out of a long battle between the powers in Europe, who used their power to benefit a few people and exploit the rest, against other traders (who had strong local networks) and were networked with Constantinople/Istanbul. Unable to penetrate these strong, pluralistic, and harmonised bonds of the “Muslim” trading networks, the colonial forces found ways to go around them and weaken their bases. In order to do this, the Europeans learnt to navigate from the Muslim astronomers, mathematicians, and traders, and then went on their own explorations of “discovery”. However, unlike  many of the previous civilisations, the Europeans used this knowledge to conquer other lands through both material and socio-semiotic violence. For example, while the Muslims traded across the Middle East, parts of Europe, parts of Africa, South and Southeast Asia (and even explored some of the northern territories of Australia), they did not claim these lands as theirs nor kill off the Indigenous peoples in these lands. The European exploitation of Muslim nautical sciences was not unlike the European learning about “gun powder” from the Chinese and then using this knowledge to make weapons of conquest. In addition, the European colonisers did something else that the previous colonisers did not do: they changed the socio-semiotic beliefs and practices of the colonised peoples.

  COLONISATION 3.0 

117

Socio-semiotics, in brief, is everything that is not material. Thus, all beliefs, attitudes, religions, languages, histories, cultures, economics are examples of socio-semiotic systems. Socio-semiotic systems, or the non-­ material world, operate through symbols. And, symbols are inherently dynamic, variable, and unstable. Our only “real” access to the material world is through up to five material senses. Everything else, all manners in which we understand and share these understandings of the world are non-material. This is why things that are material are understood and interpreted differently by each individual and group. This is why nothing in human existence is static or constant: not even the human study of science or mathematics. While highly technicalised and internally consistent, the systems of science or mathematics, are not singular: there are multiple ways of doing what might be considered science or math. Evidence of this, although fast disappearing, can still be found in the various Indigenous communities that have different ways of counting and marking/using colour terms. What is, however, similar across all these socio-semiotic systems is that they operate symbolically. Humans, essentially, engage with the world symbolically. We associate different symbols with different meanings and have different ways of patterning these symbols and meanings. This creates a world that is always dynamic, shifting, and changing. A system that is dynamic thrives when it is free to shift and evolve; and, in contrast, breaks down and collapses when it is constrained. This, something that no other “empire” had ever done before, is what the European colonisation did: they changed the socio-semiotics of their subjects around the world and therefore changed how people interpret the present, hope for the future, and take actions based on those beliefs. We will look at some of the processes they used to do this in the next section. The European colonisers had already learnt how to use symbols to divide people in their own countries, e.g., through literacy, land ownership, economic policies. With a desire to dominate the world and become the supreme leaders (supported by philosophies such as the White Man’s Burden or the Manifest Destiny), they started a socio-semiotic war against their perceived ‘enemies’ and, through that, unleashed the inhumane treatment and policies that were to mark Colonisation 1.0. Colonisation 1.0 ended when the colonisers were satisfied that the local populations were sufficiently divided to continue in-fighting. In addition, they were confident that they had made the peoples of their colonies

118 

A. MAHBOOB

dependent on their knowledge, science, language, currency, goods, and sometimes religion – guaranteeing a continued subjugation of the colonised lands and peoples.

Colonisation 2.0 Colonisation 2.0 started with the formation of the countries. The British invented a new category in their language, a category which they defined as a “sovereign” region with defined and defendable boundaries and governed by a single government (enabled by a military and a pro-state police). Colonisation 2.0 is characterised by ex-colonial trained people as rulers; an increased dependency on colonial languages; an increased dependency on colonial forms of knowledge; an increased dependency on colonial goods, economy, and currencies; and, an increased belief in colonial (and colonial identified/named) religions. ‘Colonial religions’ refer to the category ‘religion’ that was invented by the Europeans during Colonisation 1.0 by a trick of language, not unlike the one they used in making the category country. In fact, religion pre-­ dates country as a colonial category. The category religion was developed (like language and culture) as the European colonisers navigated the seas to explore and capture more lands and resources. When European colonisers came across regions that did not have a strong centralised system that could resist their force, they butchered the local populations and forced or cajoled the remaining populations to convert to their religion and language. This is why the majority of the populations in the Philippines and South and Central Americas are Catholics (or other denominations of Christianity) and speak English or Spanish or Portuguese today. Religion in these places continues to hold the local populations in a hierarchal relationship with the Vatican or other Holy Churches. In contrast, when Europeans came across regions where other civilisations existed, with alternative ways of knowing and doing. The Europeans quickly used religion and language to engineer social divisions amongst the populations and thus get a stronghold on the local lands and resources, including all human and non-human life forms. This strategy served Colonisation 1.0 so well that it was strengthened during Colonisation 2.0 and will continue to play a significant and growing role in Colonisation 3.0.

  COLONISATION 3.0 

119

The European strategy during Colonisation 1.0 was to use religion to identify and highlight genealogical and/or structural/functional differences between people, the two principal ways in which Europeans build their taxonomies and categories. Once established, these new identities create divisions, which are shaped by and enable prejudice and conflict. Muslims, who the Europeans had already fought with multiple times over access to trading routes and resources, were one of their main enemies. The Europeans were also familiar with the Muslim traditions and had, for centuries, used the scientific development in the Muslim world to fuel their own enlightenment. To secure this enlightenment, and with the newly gained supremacy over the sea routes, the European colonisers worked to break-up Muslim networks everywhere as well as capture and subjugate new territories. The Europeans broke established Indigenous and local networks to create new ones that would serve their needs and interests. Religion worked as an ideal tool to do this. And, once they set up initial divisions, they used other symbols, e.g. language, diet, clothing, traditions etc. as additional symbols of religion. We see evidence of this in how the English divided a single and mutually intelligible boli into two languages: Hindi and Urdu, by using script as a divider. Once done, the Hindu and Muslims, with their Hindi and Urdu continue to stay divided and fight each other today. In fact, the divisions have gone further and there are new sects within religions and newly named dialects and languages that divide the people further. This is one way in which socio-semiotic changes can disharmonise a region: the effects of which continue unless changed through deliberate action. These actions, as we will discuss later, will need to be those of honesty and integrity. This is because symbolic systems are in harmony when no one ‘X’ is trying to dominate everyone else. Such a state is known as a state of imaandari: a state of honesty and integrity. A break of imaandari is called bei-imaani and it implies dishonesty and a lack of integrity [note that in political Islam, imaandari is reduced to iman, which focusses on absolute belief in Allah, Prophet Muhammad, and the printed Quran, while the importance of imaandari is eroded]. What European colonisation did – and which has led to the fragmented, violent, and overexploited world of today – is that they influenced a change in the socio-semiotics of their subjects: from one of imandaari to one of bei-imaani. This disequilibrium in the human symbolic systems, which

120 

A. MAHBOOB

results in, for example, the blatant differences in the economic means of people, was a novel socio-semiotic virus that gained strength in Europe and then spread to the rest of the human populations, where it has mutated in different ways. The Europeans carried out socio-semiotic warfare in all their colonies, which has guaranteed the continued decline of and divisions in the colonies. This is why, the Euro-US colonisers are now confident to transition into Colonisation 3.0. Among the socio-semiotic violence that the Europeans committed, one of the most damaging one has been the creation of a new country, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and placing one family (the Saud family) in charge of the whole Kingdom. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was created with absolute disregard to previous practices in the region and mirrored on narratives of kingdoms that are absolute and with no tolerance for difference of opinion or dissent (the Saudi flag includes a sword). The British and the Europeans created a violent, an unjust, and a bei-iman Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to make sure that Muslims would not pose a challenge to them: once the system of imaandari was broken and replaced by bei-­ imaani, the colonisers became confident that the colonised people will continue to fight amongst each other, oppress one another, and spread the fractals of dishonesty. Before the Kingdom Saudi Arabia was created, Istanbul served as the cultural capital (not a centralised power) for the Muslims (who were settled in trading centres and nearby areas, not everywhere, across vast regions and territories)  – and, thus, was not really an empire in the European way of building empires. Istanbul did not control the day to day regulation of the areas where Muslims lived. This is why the Mughals and others were largely independent of Istanbul; and, this is why the Indigenous populations of various lands where Muslims traded were not killed off or forced to convert to Islam or to learn Arabic. The common link between the Muslims, wherever they were, was imandaari. It was imandaari that brought strength to the Muslims, who were mostly traders; and, the European colonisers destroyed this by rewriting the history of Islam, influencing their educational texts and curricula, and changing the Muslim calendar, with support of the Saud family  – who they supported and financed to form the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Iran and Afghanistan refused to follow the colonial policies and even kept the Jalali/Shamsi calendar as their official calendar. Jalali/Shamsi calendar is a solar calendar which was created by some of the leading Muslim scientists and mathematicians of the day, including Omar Khayyam, and

  COLONISATION 3.0 

121

was adopted by the Muslim world around 1079. The Jalali/Shamsi calendar replaced a luni-solar calendar that was used by the Muslims since the time of the birth of Prophet Muhammad (and was the calendar used by the Jewish traders who habited the lands before Muslims). However, the Saudi lunar calendar, that is enforced as the Islamic calendar today, predates the birth of Prophet Muhammad by a few hundred years and had been abandoned by the people of the region by the time Prophet Muhammad was born. The conflict between Iran and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia dates to the time of the break-up of the Ottoman network and the refusal of Persians to bow down to the new Arab Kingdom and their interpretations of Islam. Notice, Iran and Afghanistan remain two enemies for the West. This also suggests that aspects of Colonisation 1 continue into Colonisation 2.0: battles for global domination continue in parts of the world that refuse to conceit defeat (e.g. Afghanistan, Iran, N. Korea, etc.) or manage to decolonise themselves (e.g. China). Colonisation 2.0 was also characterised by a sharp rise in human population and remittance-based economies, i.e., economies that are dependent on people going abroad and sending back money. Such an economy makes colonised countries further dependent on the colonising countries (and their allies), where these people typically want to go. This dependency also further skews the local educational systems to create graduates who have a higher chance to go abroad and further contribute to brain drain in the country (in addition to the loss of investment on education etc.), instead of developing an educational system that focusses on improving local conditions. In addition to the colonisers benefiting from large populations in their countries, which lowers the cost of the raw material (and human labour) that they import; the exploitation that they carry out and encourage in the countries (through political, military, and economic measures) are also the cause of the over-population in these countries. If one looks into the estimates of human populations around the world over time, one will note that Indigenous populations, which were always sustainable, typically fell in numbers at first contact with Europeans. However, what might surprise one is that this number stabilised and started to rise very quickly. This becomes most evident at the time when Colonisation 1.0 was at its heyday, for example, early part of the twentieth century in South Asia. This suggests that there is a relationship between an increase in birth rates and oppression.

122 

A. MAHBOOB

The relationship between an increase in human population and oppression can be understood if we look at methods of farming: both animal and plant farming. One of the ways to improve yield (rate of growth/reproduction) in farming is to oppress the creature being farmed: for example, many poultry farmers restrict the movement of chickens, adulterate their diet, and keep them in light for longer hours; similarly, apple or mango farmers prune the trees at regular intervals. This oppression of the animals/trees increases their yield. The principle here is: oppression of a biological being increases its rate of reproduction/yield. Humans, as biological creatures, are impacted by oppression in similar ways. This can be noted if one studies the rate of human population growth across regions/times when people experience more (or less) oppression. The rise in birth rates in oppressed communities is a consequence of biological triggers. This implies that to stabilise human population growth rates, we need to lower the oppression on the masses. Doing this requires a change in the dominant and exploitative socio-political beliefs and practices. We can see evidence of the impact of oppression on population growth by observing what happened to countries as they transitioned from pre-­ colonisation to Colonisation 1.0 and from Colonisation 1.0 to Colonisation 2.0. Countries that are modelled on colonial powers and maintain colonial-­ era military and police structures often use these institutions against their own populations. At the same time, the government of these countries have expanded their control over the territories allocated to them, crushing any movements for Indigenous and other rights through police and military action. There is often also an increase in ethnic, regional, and religious divisions between the populations in these countries that lead to conflict and violence. All this results in a rise in the oppression experienced by the masses and, consequently, an increase in the birth rates. In contrast, we can also note that countries that have been able to manage their population growth are those who have either: a) decolonised themselves (e.g., China); and/or, b) prospered economically (e.g., Singapore, S. Korea, Japan). At the peak of Colonisation 2.0, the Euro-US colonial governments have started changing the system once again. With restrictions imposed during COVID19, an increase in digital surveillance and media, and emerging global conflicts, we are starting to see the emergence of Colonisation 3.0.

  COLONISATION 3.0 

123

Colonisation 3.0 If Colonisation 2.0 was marked with large migration from Colonial 1.0 and other poor regions of the world to economic powers, then Colonisation 3.0 will be marked by rising borders between countries. We can already see evidence of this in the changes to migration, social, and economic policies of the colonising powers and in the rising conflicts around the globe. Given the corruption and the incompetence of many of  the governments of colonised countries, these governments will largely be unable to tackle the problems that will emerge during Colonisation 3.0. Private and corporate educational institutions will change their curricula to meet the needs of the new situation: train graduates to work for multinational corporations either within the country or abroad. As a result, Colonisation 3.0 will further increase the dependency of the colonised countries on their colonisers. And education will further disable the populations to take care of themselves or meet their needs. Without some ways of stabilising the colonial countries and guiding them through a process of decolonisation, hundreds of millions of people will be worse off under Colonisation 3.0 than they were in Colonisation 2.0. However, at times of change, there are also new possibilities. Reforms that may have had no hope of succeeding under ‘normal’ circumstances may become reality. So, while the colonial powers work to transition to Colonisation 3.0, people across the colonised world can also launch processes of decolonisation. Decolonisation today does not imply getting rid of visible foreign rulers – this was done decades ago in many cases. Instead, decolonisation will require getting rid of the invisible and viral socio-semiotics that are designed to keep the colonised people and countries in check. It will require a study and reformation of all social, educational, economic, legal, military, political, religious, cultural, and linguistic policies of a colonised country and then realign them to support the well-being and prosperity of all residents – humans and non-humans – and neighbours. And, perhaps, this process can begin with education and academia. There are two main reasons for this: –– All members of legislature, judiciary, military, media… go through education. So, if our education is strong and independent, our graduates will be strong and independent; and, in time, our institutions will become stronger and independent;

124 

A. MAHBOOB

–– Educators are responsible for caring for the socio-semiotic well-­ being of students. If they are unaware of the damage that the current practices are causing, then they will contribute to the perpetuation of fractals that will continue to undermine our well-being. Fractals are patterns that repeat themselves at different scales in natural systems. Fractals can be observed in both material and non-material systems. At present, in the colonised world, the fractals are patterns of corruption, dishonesty, and exploitation – these patterns repeat themselves at various scales across most aspects of our society including education, governance, healthcare, housing, industry, law, media, military, politics, religion, and transport. Decolonisation requires one to identify these fractals and alter them, which can allow for new patterns to emerge. The goal of decolonisation is to replace the fractals of dishonesty and exploitation with those of harmony and well-being. Decolonisation is a complex process – and, in many ways, it is an individual and personal one; at the same time, decolonisation can also be turned into an educational outcome and goal. There are multiple ways of achieving these goals. If colonized countries can awaken to what is happening at present and act, there is a strong possibility that they can become independent. If we look back at China, we will realise that Mao led the Chinese independence movement at the time when the world was transitioning from Colonisation 1.0 to 2.0. Instead of following the rest of the countries into Colonisation 2.0, Mao led China through a process of decolonisation. This decolonisation was carried out at a high cost through Cultural Revolution. The Cultural Revolution was an attempt to cleanse China from the influences of colonial socio-semiotics, which had become a source of societal disbalance. After emerging from the Cultural Revolution, famine, and ongoing colonial sanctions, China rebuilt herself economically to regain her independence from colonisation. This is one reason why the colonial powers continue to attack China as well as instigate and support rebellions and resistance against her. While there is little doubt that the Cultural Revolution could have been managed differently; it does provide lessons about what to do and what NOT to do in our struggles for decolonisation. What the China example tells us is that there is a higher probability of a successful transition out of colonisation into independence during times of transitions.

  COLONISATION 3.0 

125

This is because the whole system is in flux and nothing is stable. This instability allows possibilities that are not available under “normal” conditions. Once the new systems emerge and stabilize, making any major changes becomes more difficult. If the governments and peoples of the colonised countries fail to act, they will get locked into the chaos that Colonisation 3.0 will bring to the peoples of these countries. Ways out of colonisation are many and can be led by people who have integrity and an understanding of how symbolic (or socio-semiotic) systems work  – and who can apply these understandings to improve the material and non-material conditions that they find themselves and others in. There is no one way in which people will make the reforms and transitions necessary; nor, is there a way to know what the outcomes of such reforms will be. These will depend on context. However, one thing is for sure, if these movements are led with imandaari (and not ego, or greed, or personal gains), then people and non-humans in the region will be much better off than under regimes of exploitation and colonisation.

Toba

Come here Guddu, I want to share something. “Yes Papa”, Guddu said as he walked over. I want to share a magic trick: A trick that helps us in our darkest times. “Wow”, Guddu was excited. Yes, it is something I learnt from my elders, As they did from theirs. “What is it Papa?”, Guddu was curious. ‘Toba’ is the magical word. “What does it mean?” It means nothing; it is an action. You do it when you realise your mistakes And want to fix them. “How does one do this, Papa?” Guddu asked, Quieter than his usual self. One holds and pulls one’s ears lightly Not to hurt oneself, but to feel And promise not to do them again.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Mahboob, Writings on Subaltern Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43710-6_27

127

128 

A. MAHBOOB

“Like this?” Guddu asked as he pulled his ears. Yes, and then one says toba And one repeats this action three times. Guddu performed toba thrice and then asked “And then everything is fixed?” Not at all Guddu, nothing is fixed by toba You still need to take actions to fix things. And, most importantly, you must never Never ever make the same mistake again. If you do, your toba is cancelled. “Oh Papa, I know I should not have lied earlier I ate the sweets on top of the cupboard. I just did toba and I will never do it again” I was wondering where the sweets went! I am so glad you told me And promised not to lie again. We all make mistakes, Guddu, If we learn from them and never repeat them, We can move on and become stronger. And, always remember, Sugar is a poison and an addiction: We pay for it and it slowly kills us!

Regaining Balance: Rethinking Knowledge Making

If our knowledge is increasing every day (as measured by the number of research publications), why is it that we see such high levels of social and environmental injustice around the world? A one-line answer to this question: It is the kind of knowledge one creates that matters, not how much knowledge one makes. Or, as we will demonstrate in this essay, our current ways of understanding knowledge and knowledge making need to be reformed. To get us going, let’s do a little activity (you can do it in real, or you can imagine it: the choice is yours to make): Take a bucket and put about 100 random objects in it. It doesn’t matter what the objects are as long as they are all different. Now, spread them out on the floor and sort them. It doesn’t matter how you sort them, just do it. Good ☺ Now, jumble everything up and then sort the stuff again. Now, jumble up everything once more and ask someone else (who has not seen you do this) to sort the stuff out. Tell them what we told you: they can do it any way they like, there is no right or wrong way.

The chances are: 1. Each time you sorted the items, you did it differently; and, 2. The other person sorted the things differently from you. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Mahboob, Writings on Subaltern Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43710-6_28

129

130 

A. MAHBOOB

Congratulations! You have just become knowledge makers ☺ What you just did is to categorise things. Making categories and classifying things is doing fundamental science, stripped of all its methodologies and applications. Or, in other words, sorting is the first step of knowledge making. Notice now that every time we sort a bucket of finite stuff, we do it differently. When different people do it, they do it differently. We sort based on our own choices, interests, experiences, thoughts, knowledge, abilities, beliefs, moods… Now, imagine, an infinite number of things. Would there not be an infinite number of ways that we can sort them? These will be based on what we want to do with the sorting, where, when, how, and with whom we are sorting. Changing any of these (or other) variables can change our sorting. And, changing the way we sort can change the outcomes and applications of what we do with the sorting. This is one reason why people have different languages in different parts of the world: amongst other things, language names and sorts out stuff which enables people to engage with each other and the world. Through this sorting, they create knowledge that connects them to the physical world. Thus, in its core, language and science are the same things. If we remove a person who speaks X language and place them, say, 5000 km away from where their language evolved, they may not be able to use their language to understand many/most things that they see around them: language, and the science that it carries, is geographically bound. This explains why English and other languages used across large geographical regions appear to be more developed in their ability to describe and theorise: they are based on a broader range of experiences and information. At the same time, damaging or replacing Indigenous languages/ sciences with English or another non-Indigenous language/science can lead to environmental catastrophe: the locals lose their socio-semiotic inheritance, i.e., the science and language that their ancestors developed over millennia, and are no longer aware of how their ancestors saw or engaged with their surroundings. Damaging eco-linguistic environments bring the same types of destruction to humans as destroying eco-biological environments brings to other creatures: oppression and a loss of connection with habitat. Since each language sorts the world in a slightly different ways, colonial languages and colonial established forms of knowledge and knowledge

  REGAINING BALANCE: RETHINKING KNOWLEDGE MAKING 

131

building represent only a fraction of ways in which knowledge can be built. Mostly, this knowledge structure denigrates Indigenous sciences. And, as we will demonstrate in this essay, colonial-established form of knowledge building is not necessarily a good way of doing knowledge building. Why? Because colonial-era disciplines (almost all of them) build categories in only two primary ways: 1. Through structural/functional analysis (grammatical patterns and structures, mammals and amphibians, etc); and 2. Through genealogy (genus, species, family, etc.). Colonial sciences use structural/functional analysis to make arguments for the genealogical relationships presented. This is why species can get reclassified based on DNA evidence; or, a language can be put into another family based on new structural analyses. While using structures/functions are one way of sorting, there can be other ways of classifying things too. For example, one can sort based on inter-relationships, inter-dependencies, or co-existence  – approaches espoused by many Indigenous communities world-wide. In creating such knowledge, structural/functional differences would not always be relevant or important. And, thus, both the knowledge we create and the benefits we get from them will be different. Using structures/functions to support arguments of genealogy, on the other hand, contribute to creating a classification system that divides entities based on a few human-identified features; ignoring their co-existence and their inter-relationships. A structural/functional classificatory system, by its very nature, is divisive. When considered in relation to different sciences, a genealogical and structural/functional approach produces studies that divide things up, e.g. in biology and linguistics, people look at genealogical relationships between species or languages. And, because division is an infinite act (one can keep on dividing and dividing), colonial sciences keep getting more and more delicate in their study; or, in other words, they split hairs. This is one reason why western academia often recategorizes things and/or creates new categories. As their perspectives on things shift, based on a number of reasons (including socio-political ones), so do their categories and classifications.

132 

A. MAHBOOB

Now, consider another way of sorting out the world: categorise things as ‘infinite’ and ‘finite’. Infinite things are things that have no bounds: e.g., knowledge, money, power, influence, faith, belief…; and, finite things are things that are limited: e.g. trees, water, species, matter, life… Once we do this, we can begin to realise that if we set anything in the ‘infinite’ category as our goal, we are setting ourselves up for failure. Why? Because something that is infinite can never be achieved: it is endless. By splitting hair, colonial sciences and education have set their goal to be the ‘infinite’. And, by doing so, they have set an unachievable goal. A goal that is, by definition, meant to fail. Colonial sciences use finite resources to try to conquer the infinite: e.g., scientists burn incredibly large amounts of matter, which is not replaceable, in order to reach out into the infinite space. One doesn’t need to be a rocket scientist (pun intended) to realise that one will run out of finite resources but never achieve the infinite. Would it not make sense to use the infinite as a resource in order to learn about and contribute to the finite? That is, do something which is theoretically possible. Using ‘finite’ and ‘infinite’ is also just another way of carving up the world. There are many other ways of categorising the world around us. Some are good for one purpose, others are good for a different purpose; some categories explain only a few things, others can explain many more things; and, some ways of creating categories can harmonise the world, and others can disharmonise it. Setting items in the infinite category, such as seeking knowledge, as our goals can lead to disharmonisation because we are setting unachievable goals. In addition, the principles of sorting on which colonial knowledge making are based are inherently divisive and destructive – and not designed for human or environmental welfare (they are designed to benefit a few select). This is one reason why we keep producing knowledge, but the world keeps getting observably worse. To reverse the mess that colonial sciences and education have created, we need to reset our goals to ‘finite’ things and use the ‘infinite’ as resources. Once we do this, we will start to see a reharmonization of the finite; and, luckily, we will have the infinite to help us out with what we need. To end this chapter, we will leave you with this poem.

  REGAINING BALANCE: RETHINKING KNOWLEDGE MAKING 

The night the forest woke up Once humans set the infinite as their goal, Things finite turn into a resource: To be carved up and sold In the name of endless growth. Once other beings, other lives Became less, the world alters: If they are of no use to us, Why does their existence matter? The night the forest woke up Was like any other night: Busy streets, honking vehicles, Smoke laden air, rivers of human waste Then the forest woke up, and Vines and shrubs and trunks Crept across the land Searching for humans as they spread Remembering the nightmares Where they saw their own cut, They showed no mercy No, not even to the old, weak, or young And when the morning sun rose Sounds of birds filled the forests: Gone was the virus that had stolen The lands that were always theirs

133

134 

A. MAHBOOB

Artwork by: Rubab Jafri

You Need to Start Learning

“Come heeeere, Sunny Boy”, Auntie Brumby called, “You are a pony now; but you need to start learning That not all you see or hear is true Specially, don’t trust sounds and drawings, Without seeing action, action, and more action.” “Sounds and drawings make a magical charm Promising you everything and more Promising to fulfil your childhood dreams Promises that are forgotten Before they are even made.” “Come clooooser, Sunny Boy, Don’t give your reins to anyone else They will steer you where they want to go Let you do all the hard work And then kick you when done.” How did Auntie Brumby know That I just lost my hay And got nothing in return? Auntie Brumby knows all!

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Mahboob, Writings on Subaltern Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43710-6_29

135

Regaining Balance: Learning to Make Sense

What is the world around us and how do we make sense of it? A one-line answer to this question: We don’t know. That’s right. For all the books that humans have written and read across time, we don’t really know much about the world that we live in. And, given the material and social contexts that so many of us live in, there is little reason for us to trust knowledge marketed to us by our colonial masters. So, instead, we need to begin at the very basics and re-learn to make sense. There are things in the world that we can see, hear, smell, touch and/ or taste  – and, we all differ in whether and how we engage with these senses. We know this because we experience, observe, and interact with the material-biological things in different ways. Notice that we did not differentiating between material and biological things here. We are combining them into a single group. Why? Because we do not have a credible definition of life. Without such a definition, we cannot proceed to separate out or study biology. This observation implies that much (if not all) of the current work in biological sciences needs to be questioned: if biologists cannot define life, what exactly are they studying? Why? And, why should we trust them?

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Mahboob, Writings on Subaltern Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43710-6_30

137

138 

A. MAHBOOB

In addition to the physical-biological world, which we can sense through our sensory systems, we also know that there is a world that is non-material: a world full of ideas, and thoughts, and feelings, and knowledge, and beliefs, and dreams, and questions… Let us call this the socio-­ semiotic world. A world which exists for each of us; but its existence is not material. Its existence is socio-semiotic: it evolves and exists only in some social contexts; and, it can change or alter at any time for any reason. From observation of other living beings, we can note that all living things have the potential of having socio-semiotics. However, given our differences, it is not feasible for us to understand how other living beings experience or make sense of life. “Look Papa”, Guddu said one day by the pond, “From a distance they all look the same, But when you come closer, you can tell the difference: Some have spots over there, And others here”, as he pointed to a spot on his face. “Do they have names for each other?” “Look Papa”, he observed, “Why are some swimming this way And others the other… Look, this one was coming here And now she is going over there. I wonder how I can know if it’s a she or a he?” “Look, Papa”, he pondered, “They don’t make sense: Dodo here, he was with that group here; And Didi over there, with the others… And now the two are together over there. I just can’t think like a duck, Papa.” I can’t either, my son, let me ask if others can: Can you think like a duck?

In fact, in our experience of life, we know that we can’t even really know what another person thinks and feels like. We note that material-biological scientists tend to agree upon the use of atom as the primary material particle. And, based on an agreed set of assumptions, material-biological scientists develop and use different methodologies and approaches in doing something to manipulate atoms in order to achieve their goals.

  REGAINING BALANCE: LEARNING TO MAKE SENSE 

139

In contrast, people who study social sciences do not have a unified approach. Instead, they study each subject area within social sciences differently. This implies that there is little consensus between people about the nature and substance of social sciences; and, this leads to different disciplines and specialists doing their own things. However, this can change if we consider symbols as the central building block of our socio-­ semiotic worlds. Symbols are used across all our sensory and socio-semiotic systems to create and exchange meanings. For example, in economics, money is a symbol; in mathematics, numbers and signs are symbols; in linguistics, sounds and scribblings are symbols; in religious studies, various objects and practices, e.g., food, clothes, smells, calendars take on symbolic meanings. We live in both the material-biological and socio-semiotic worlds simultaneously. And, these two worlds interact in and through each one of us – individually and collectively. Table  1 below sets out some of the key differences between these two worlds. Once we realise the centrality of symbols and patterns of symbols (made by humans) in our understanding and engagement with the world, we can

Table 1  Differences between material-biological and socio-semiotic worlds Material-biological world

Socio-semiotic world

Made of matter: it has physical existence Comprised of particles, called atoms Material particles interact with each other based on physical properties Mathematics can be used to study them Existence may or may not be dependent on humans May exist without socio-semiotics Material force required to make changes Changes are influenced by principles of the material-biological world Studied in a university in disciplines such as: physics, chemistry, biology…

Not made of matter: it does not have physical existence Comprised of non-particles, called symbols Non-material particles are placed into patterns Mathematics does not operate, it is a symbolic system in itself Existence is dependent on human existence Does not exist without being material-biological Material force is not necessary to make changes Changes can occur at any time and for any reason Studied in a university in disciplines such as: sociology, linguistics, economics, religious studies…

140 

A. MAHBOOB

develop this understanding to reharmonise our material-biological and socio-semiotic systems, which were and continue to be suppressed by oppressive and aggressive colonial policies and practices. In order to do this, we need to study the relationship between material-­ biological and socio-semiotics. In human experience, our understandings and perceptions of the material-biological world develops out of our interaction with it. And this interaction occurs through our sensory systems. As humans, we may use up to five sensory systems to make sense of the world. These sensory systems help interpret the different types of material stimulus (light, sound, smell, touch, and taste) in relation to a person’s previous experiences and socio-semiotics. These sensory systems, it needs to be noted, are not totally independent of each other and often work together. Figure 1 below provides an overview of how our material-biological self relates to our socio-semiotic self through our sensory systems. It shows how the five senses differ in terms of two features: distance/proximity to us; and, ingestion (putting things inside our body). And, it includes examples of how we experience and understand these. Note that all relationships between the material-biological world and the socio-semiotic world are symbolic and dynamic. Group A sensory systems operate on things that are not ingested (even if they can penetrate and effect our bodies in other ways); hence, they don’t always need to be very close to us. We can see and hear things that

Sensory systems

Group A (things may be in our presence or recorded) Group B (things must be in our present)

(connect us to the physical-biological world, which is formed of atoms)

Human experiences (socio-semiotic world, which operates through symbols)

Sense Distance Sight +++

Ingestion -

Sound

++

-

Boli, music…

Smell Touch Taste

+ 0/-

+ -/+ +

Food, manure… Braille, human… Food, flavour…

Fig. 1  Classification of human sensory systems

Literacy, movies…

  REGAINING BALANCE: LEARNING TO MAKE SENSE 

141

are around us and also things that have been recorded (e.g. through writing, art, audio/video recordings). In contrast, Group B sensory systems operate on things that can (and, in some cases, must) be ingested; hence, they always have to be in our present. We cannot smell, touch or taste things that are not in our present. Note also that things that we access through Group A senses can injure or hurt us, but they are unlikely to kill us (although in some cases, they can, e.g., lasers). On the other hand, things that we access through Group B, have a higher potential of causing serious harm or of even killing us. Current colonial models of education are primarily dependent on Group A – formal school education happens through literacy, media, and oral language. Relying solely on Group A sensory system is a potential trap in education because things that we read and listen from distant sources are not directly observable and hence not verifiable. For education to work though Group A only, we need to lower our guard and trust information given by others. In other words, by accepting Group A based colonial knowledge, we are placing our trust in people who built their knowledge and power by exploiting us, our ancestors, our lands, our resources, and our environment. In contrast, Indigenous and holistic approaches to education consider all five sensory experiences in thinking about education and training. Infants and children – in all parts of the world – start learning through Group B first. They learn through taste, touch, and smell before their eyesight and hearing is developed sufficiently to use language (including sign language) or other resources. This is one reason why babies put pretty much anything they can get hold of in their mouths ☺ The world around us is a mix of things – most of which we do not know or understand. We make sense of the world that we come into contact with by using our sensory systems and developing and sharing interpretations of the stimulus we receive. Over time, as our ideas, thoughts, knowledge, beliefs, and goals change, our perception and engagement with the world changes too. And, this engagement can impact and change the material-­biological world – through our actions or inactions. At present, especially in the exploited communities, our sense making abilities have been crippled by colonial policies and practices. Reversing this is not an easy task. However, it is a feasible one because things that are socio-semiotic are, by definition, dynamic and always fluid – thus, they can change to harmonise our societies and eco-systems.

142 

A. MAHBOOB

In concluding, we will share a poem called, Symbols: A translingual poem. Note that the Urdu, Hindi, and Roman scripts represent the same sounds. The different and conflicting scripts used by Urdu/Hindi speakers is an outcome of British socio-semiotic violence. The British encouraged the use of two writing systems for a language that had the same sounds (and are mutually intelligible even today). And, by doing this, they created two languages out of one and cultivated the Hindu–Muslim divide that has turned a once-upon-a-prosperous-land into a nightmare.

An audio-video version of the poem is available here: https://youtu.be/ JiRyTYm2h8k

Learning Is Easy

Auntie Brumby showed me Why I should not trust words She showed me her mouth And the marks on her back She told me words can control us And turn little brumbies into workhorses Learning is easy, she showed me Just observe and sequence Don’t trust what you cannot sense Auntie Brumby always does as she says

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Mahboob, Writings on Subaltern Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43710-6_31

143

Regaining Balance: Relearning “Religion”

Why is it that while religions teach peace, people kill and exploit each other in the name of religion? A one-line answer to this question: The term religion leads to a confusion between two things: (1) practices (action/verb), and (2) a category (entity/noun). The notion of religion as a category evolved during European colonisation as the colonisers, who travelled by sea, captured more lands and peoples, who had different practices. The term religion itself was adapted from one or more of the following Latin verbs: relegere, religare, or reeligere. Each of these three words referred to practices: they were all verbs and actions. Theses verbs were turned into nouns (nominalised) by European scholars and empire builders. Turning actions into nouns is a common practice in English-based academia and is used to name and create categories. This process is an example of what language specialists call nominalisation. Naming is a fundamental process of creating knowledge. By naming and defining something in a particular way, people’s perceptions and engagement with things can be shaped and/or changed. By introducing concepts and categories into a region where those categories were not used, the socio-semiotic eco-systems of the region are impacted. If this is done by using divisive categories, then one potential outcome of such interference is a division of communities and peoples. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Mahboob, Writings on Subaltern Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43710-6_32

145

146 

A. MAHBOOB

Scholars of religion do not have a clear definition of what ‘religion’ really is (observe how this is similar to a biologist’s inability to define life, or a traditional linguist’s inability to define language). They, like many experts in other colonial-era disciplines, use structures and functions to contrast and describe religions (and life and language…). And, as in other colonial-era disciplines, these differences are used to develop genealogies, which form the basis of divisions (and exploitation). The conversion of actions and practices into nouns enables a study of contrasts and similarities between religions. And, like other sciences, leads to splitting hair. These contrasts and similarities, once identified, are named and written down and then used to create further categories and classifications, i.e., more divisions. Observe that most of our non-colonial boli did not have the concept of or a term for religion (as a noun). Today, many languages have translated or borrowed the word/category religion into their own boli. And, these translations and borrowings have led to confusions and problems in Indigenous knowledge and practices (which are now called religion). Note that before the printing press and programs of mass literacy were created and adopted, people passed their practices to others verbally and through modelling. To help with this, these verbal teachings were often realised in poetic or story forms. Teaching and learning through oracy is very different from learning from written texts. In oral cultures, teachers’ actions and what they teach have to be in alignment. If actions and teaching do not match, others in the community will observe a contradiction and not trust the source. For religion to transmit and spread orally, the message and the actions of the messenger must match. Religion in oral traditions is practice. Relegere were practices: Acts of sharing, Of caring, of being human. Along came the preachers, Turning actions into things: Naming divisions of oppression. Today, religions lie in books: Something to sell Something to fight about.

  REGAINING BALANCE: RELEARNING “RELIGION” 

147

Actions lost; symbols take control: Tokens of belief to be held No matter how they are gotten. Long gone are the practices, That harmonized and healed: Today, owning symbols is religion.

By shifting oracy to literacy, one can no longer observe the people who produce the published material. One can also not observe if people who produce these texts practice what they preach and market; nor, if their teaching brings about the benefits being claimed. By compromising our ability to observe and verify a text or the producers of a text, we have to believe in and develop faith in the material provided as well as the people producing the material. By turning religion-as-practice (verb/action) to religion-as-belief (noun/category), the behaviour of the local population changes. Teaching no longer need to be accompanied by observable practice; printed texts and their interpretations replace observable practice. Observe how many people today believe their religious leaders without checking in to see whether these religious leaders practice what they preach. Check also if the claims they make are actually met i.e., the local populations are well and are living in harmony and prosperity. If your observations do not match the claims being made, then we need to investigate the causes for this and address the problems. Oral languages vary and change across space and time and people. With religion being part of the oral traditions, the verbalisation of religions also varied across regions. These variations in human practices are part of the natural harmony and can be observed across nature: trees, plants, animals vary across regions and co-evolve with time. Even the songs of the same birds vary across regions. Variations are natural, normal, and necessary. With the rise of colonisation and the weaponization of: (a) The printing press, (b) Schooling, which include religious seminaries, and (c) Religious studies,

148 

A. MAHBOOB

our dynamic and oral practices were turned into: (a) Named entities, (b) Written and static texts, and (c) Sets of structural/functional descriptions and genealogical relationships. And, as in linguistics and biology and other colonial-era disciplines, little concern was given to the interrelationships or co-occurrences of people who lived in harmony while having diverse beliefs and practices. The nominalisation of religion as a noun and as a category was and is an act of socio-semiotic violence that divides populations and leads to conflict. As the economic systems of our lands were altered by the colonial masters, poverty and hunger started to set in. As the oppression of and aggression against the local populations grew, these new religion-based identities served to cluster people into groups. These groupings allowed new conflicts to arise – conflicts that may not have existed before but continue to grow today. To further enhance this violence and conflict, colonial agents destroyed (or attempted to destroy) local texts and written material. For example, they forced people across the Philippines to abandon their own syllabic scripts in favour of a Latin-based phonetic script (developed by linguists and anthropologists). In doing so, the Spanish broke the ability of the Indigenous people to learn from and maintain their own knowledge and practices. In time, people lost their own practices and adopted the ones sponsored by the Spaniards first and the Americans later. This is why a large proportion of the population in the Philippines is now Catholic or another Christian denomination (one can observe a similar occurrence across Australia and the Americas). At the same time, colonial agents also wrote and sponsored the writing and publication of histories and books that showed Indigenous populations as always violent and in conflict. Promoting fake histories of violence serve at least two purposes: (1) it validates the colonial violence against others; and, (2) it opens up the possibility of the locals to engage in violence, which allows those in power to carry out further violence in response. Observe how Indigenous communities were and, in some cases, are stereotyped as savage, wild, uncivilised, criminal, poor, lazy, and

  REGAINING BALANCE: RELEARNING “RELIGION” 

149

uneducated. These stereotypes create an othering of Indigenous people and discount their knowledge and understanding of the world. It ignores a need to study how Indigenous communities coexisted in harmony with nature and other humans. Note that this observation does not mean that Indigenous people did not have conflict. They did; however, conflict was localised, not massive, and not necessarily accompanied with or resolved through violence or oppression. In time, the dynamic oral texts of our ancestors and the accompanying harmonising practices were lost. With a change in practice, the outcomes of the practice changed: harmony turned into conflict. What remains with many people today are static religious texts which are mass produced and turned into prescriptive rules (observe how this is similar to linguistics, which names languages and produces grammar books that are used to prescribe). Furthermore, differences or variations in the interpretations of the prescribed texts lead to further conflict. For example, difference in interpretations of the scriptures and other religious texts lead to formation of religious denominations. The conflict sowed through the establishment of the category religion continues today and has on-gong socio-semiotic and material-biological consequences. A reversal of this conflict and a regaining of balance and harmony is possible. All socio-semiotic systems are dynamic and can change. To make the change, we need to relearn that religion is first and only a verb: an action, a practice of integrity and honesty. It is not a noun or an entity. If our exploiters turned practice into a category in order to divide and subjugate us, then, we can reduce and end this exploitation by turning the category back into practice. We can un-nominalise religion and relearn relegere: practice. Our rebuilding of practices of honesty, integrity, sharing, and self-­ respect will provide models that others can observe and learn from, especially children. Children learn by observing more than by words and books; therefore, by modelling and practicing relegere, we can influence their development and protect them from the traps of colonial exploitation and divisions. We will conclude with a poem of hope; a metaphor of how we can learn to grow again.

150 

A. MAHBOOB

The Diamond Jug

Artwork by Kiran Mahboob: https://www.instagram.com/kirandraws/ © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Mahboob, Writings on Subaltern Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43710-6_33

151

152 

A. MAHBOOB

Part 1 Imagine that there is a jug made of diamonds And full of life-giving fluids sitting on a table. Now, imagine that someone comes along And says: This jug and everything in it is mine. The owners of the jug reject this claim. A long battle ensues. Finally, the thieves leave. But, instead of the precious jug They leave behind a number of glasses Of different shapes, colours, and sizes. Each filled with toxic looking And foul-smelling contents. What can the owners of the jug do now? The past is lost: only threats abound.

We first developed the metaphor of the diamond jug for a talk on Language as Inheritance at Bukidnon State University in Mindanao in March 2021. In this talk, we talked about a precious jug that has been replaced by glasses full of poison. We used the metaphor to explicitly talk about European colonisation and its ongoing impacts by focussing on descriptive and naming practices in language studies. When the Europeans invaded and conquered lands around the world, these lands were often inhabited by people with their way of being, doing, and knowing, which were reflected in their diverse boli (sounds and signs). They had complex social and inter-group relationships, which had sustained them and their environments for unknown generations. People were not divided into countries nor were nuclear families a norm for and the fundamental unit of social organisation. When the Europeans left direct control of their conquered lands, they left behind divided and, often, conflicting groups, sects, communities, and countries. It also needs to be noticed, the European conquerors have still not vacated all their captured territories and peoples. The United States of America (which should, in fact, be called the United Settlements of America), Canada, Australia, New Zealand are amongst the better-known examples of continuing European settlements, but many more exist across South America and other parts of the world.

  THE DIAMOND JUG 

153

In pre-European colonisations, heterogeneous, dynamic, and environmentally harmonised communities of humans co-evolved with their environments and geography. This differentiation of their understandings of the world is embedded in their boli. It is noteworthy that many Indigenous languages did not have terms or concepts for things used as bases of division such as land ownership, religion, race, culture, numbers, literacy. These and other coloniality-enabling concepts were first introduced (through translation, borrowing, or wordsmithing) and normalised in the colonies; today, they are maintained through a web of systems and institutions, including education, economics, international law, police, military, and government. These ongoing colonial forces encourage further and continuing divisions amongst groups of peoples pretty much across the whole world. These divisions, in many contexts, lead to conflicts, which, at times, can turn violent and devastating for humans, non-human life, and the environment. After the talk at Bukidnon State University, we developed the metaphor into Part 1 of The Diamond Jug, shared above. After writing Part 1, we realised that in addition to pointing out problems and issues, we need to share potential ways out of the mess that many of us find ourselves in. We, then, wrote parts 2–4 of the poem. Part 2 of the poem describes the current situation where the world is divided and devastated by conflicts, exploitation, and oppression – of both living and non-living things. Parts 3 and 4 then focus on solutions and possible ways forward. Part 2 The magic jug gone, the rainbows vanish Darkness descends, Mother Earth weeps The owners fight; kill each other And as they battle, the liquids spill over. Poisonous rivers, choking air, scarred land Stifle life without discrimination And as the shadows become darker The violence and greed grow bitter As the conflicts spread, The glasses bubble more death

154 

A. MAHBOOB

And all harmonies that maintain life Mirror patters of oppression Is the harmony gone forever? Can something be done to recover? Part 3 Drained by fighting, weakened by diseases At their last breaths, the owners make peace With battles ending, their anger decreases Humanity finds some roots in places. The greedy thieves are stripped of feed The glasses stop their slimy spill The owners wake up to their present state Help each other, forget the rest The glasses fade and then reappear The contents inside begin to clear The owners observe this real change Their actions become honest again And as the owners regain their balance Divisions vanish, the Jug re-emerges. Part 4 The Diamond Jug glitters like before All around it, harmonies flow Mother Earth shakes off her anger Heals herself and helps her children Thieves no longer pose a threat Their contagious greed is now contained The owners finally learn their lesson Their integrity they will never abandon Life fills the skies once more Fair fractals glow across the globe Integrity, love, respect, and inclusion Become actions, not just conversation And the owners sing to remember: Divisions make diamonds disappear Divisions make diamonds disappear.

  THE DIAMOND JUG 

155

Divide-and-rule was one of the primary strategies used by colonials to first capture various lands and peoples around the world; and now, to maintain and perpetuate their control. Many of the divisions that we experience and see around us today are created and promoted through academia and education; enforced by law and force. In academic contexts, one can note that almost all the traditional disciplines and departments were established by and during the colonial period. The foundation work in these disciplines, including in biology, anthropology, religious studies, linguistics, psychology, anthropology, history, political science… was carried out by colonial agents and/ or those sponsored by the colonials. Almost none of these foundational theories have been questioned or replaced since then. To develop a non-anthropocentric knowledge system, we need to rethink all colonial established institutions, including military, policing, education, social, political, and all other literacy/numeracy-­ based systems. Once a process of decolonisation and reharmonization starts getting hold, the fractals (pattern that repeats itself at different scales: think of a tree and how it branches out and we can even see the same patterns in the leaves and roots) that shape social systems will start to change as well. And this process will lead to further change in the symbols and socio-semiotic systems that influence human thought and behaviour. Done with honesty, integrity, and self-respect, this process of change can bring about widespread socio-economic and political reforms without the necessity of violence or conflict (which, in fact, perpetuate the fractals of oppression, even if those who oppress or are oppressed may change positions). And, in time, it will neutralise the divisions the enable conflicts and exploitations. Our goal in doing subaltern practice is to reshape the goal and direction of education to enable people to become independent and act with responsibility and integrity. In addition to understanding this ourselves, we need texts that can encourage our younger generations to explore these complex questions as well. We, therefore, wrote an Epilogue to The Diamond Jug, which, in a way, summarises some of the points we want to highlight through Parts 1–4 of the poem in language and style that can be shared and discussed with children as well as others.

156 

A. MAHBOOB

Epilogue “Papa?” Guddu walked up and asked one day. Yes Guddu, I replied. “Papa, I read your poem, The Diamond Jug, I don’t get it”, Guddu added. Oh yes, I understand, That poem has too many metaphors Metaphors are when you say one thing But mean another; they can be a horror! Metaphors may mean many things. Come here, I called him closer, Let me share one meaning of the poem And then you can find others. “Yes!” said Guddu, coming closer Encouraging me to keep on going. So, our ancestors didn’t live in countries Nor did they work for others for money They did not own land nor lives They lived free: a life in harmony. People were honest and respectful And every life was precious Nothing was wasted; everything shared The Diamond Jug made everything delicious. “So what happened, Papa?” Guddu wanted to know more. Think of Diamond Jug as magic, And our ancestors made it happen. It was easy when people used logic And believed in actions, not chatting. The lands where our ancestors lived Were invaded and looted: The invaders replaced the magic With grief, greed, and guns. “How Papa?” Guddu gasped! Lies, theft, weapons, poverty, hunger Violence, anger, revenge, money, power

  THE DIAMOND JUG 

Divided the people Turning friends into enemies. This is the world we live in today Where schools turn us into slaves: People learn to trust paper and screens More than their own senses and deeds. “Papa, is the Diamond Jug lost forever?” Guddu wondered lost in thought. Of course not. You see, The Diamond Jug is always here. If we can’t feel it, it is us who are lost Once we recover, the jug will return. Once we people learn our lesson Take action and end oppression Things will heal and recover, because Divisions make diamonds disappear. “Divisions make diamonds disappear Divisions make diamonds disappear” Sang Guddu as he hopped away, Turned a corner and disappeared.

157

Ten Myths that Keep Us Colonised

Until a couple of hundred years ago, most human population lived nomadic lives. This changed for most of us when our lands were stolen and/or our elders compromised by deceit, subjugation, and physical as well as socio-­ semiotic violence by a handful of European powers. With the introduction of land ownership, humans could no longer freely move around their Indigenous lands. Instead, they were forced to move to settlements (of various sizes). Today, while humans are sold dreams of “development”, Mother Earth and all her children – including most humans – are suffering. This pain was first created by stealing our lands; then, for many, intensified by passing total control of everyone and everything to dependent and corrupt governments. Ironically, many celebrate these governments as their Independence. Today, colonial control is largely maintained through a set of beliefs established and perpetuated through “education”, endorsed and marketed as a universal human right. Formal education through schooling (including madrassahs and most convents/Grammar Schools) is either a nineteenth or twentieth century practice in most parts of the world and was introduced during colonisation. Before that, nomadic and Indigenous “education” had different practices and philosophies. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Mahboob, Writings on Subaltern Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43710-6_34

159

160 

A. MAHBOOB

While it is impossible (because of their systemic eradication) to know what all the various ways of “education” were in the nomadic worlds, we can identify some principles. Most importantly, children learnt from people who performed things that were of value and use to the community. What children learnt and the “knowledge” they developed was geographically relevant. In order for humans to thrive in a natural environment, they developed understandings of things and patterns in their regions. This knowledge, often encoded in boli, dance, song, and art, guided humans in their life and interaction with their environments. Most – BUT NOT ALL – of this knowledge is now lost. And, it is possible to identify myths established through colonial and corporate practices, which contribute to the ongoing exploitation of peoples and the natural world. This chapter shares ten of those myths.

Knowledge is Gradable Universities and individual academics tout their rankings pretty much all over the world today. These recognitions are based on how certain knowledge is graded as being better than the rest. However, knowledge is infinite. This implies that it cannot be graded or ranked. Our lived experience of knowledge being ranked is a colonial tool to create legitimacy for only knowledges that are sanctioned by them and serve their interests. Observe how most of modern education is devoid of local and does not train the people in skills needed in their communities. Instead, it empowers State approved institutions, beliefs, and corporate practices. The myth of knowledge being gradable is a socio-semiotic trick through which the colonials create and maintain their own superiority and loot our biological right to land, food, and integrity.

Humans Evolved from Nomads to Farmers to Settlers Nomads were (and, in some places, remain) hunter-gatherers and roamed the lands to find a variety of food, which is available in different regions in different seasons. There was little reason for them to stay in one place and

  TEN MYTHS THAT KEEP US COLONISED 

161

farm for only certain types of food. The variety of food sources they consumed along with regular physical activity helped people maintain their health and well-being. Languages of Indigenous peoples show how their songs and idioms, often based on readings of other living things, guided their movement from one part of the country to another in different seasons. This could be for various reasons, e.g., to get types of food or to find safety from the weather. For example, the peoples of the Gold River (Cape York, Pajinka, Aboriginia) say “when the wattle is red, the turtle is fat”. These idioms guide locals to move to different regions to get their preferred food as well as avoid the worse of weather. In reading signs from the environment and relating them to different experiences, Indigenous people created locally relevant sciences. Such sciences were not recognised by colonial scientists, who insisted on their own superior knowledge. In moving through the lands in cycles (of varying durations and locations), nomads farmed the whole forest and not just a patch of land. They did not destroy life in order to create food just for themselves. Farming as practiced today, at the minimal, requires land clearing. Land clearing implies that the existing life on land is removed and/or killed. This is against nomadic principles. On the other hand, settlements require year-round food in a single location. This creates a need for farming. And, as settlements grow, they require more food, which requires more land clearing and killing of life. A lack of archaeological evidence of regular settlements across vast parts of the world suggests that people lived nomadic lives in those regions. These nomadic communities were disrupted when a few European colonial powers invaded the lands and took ownership of pretty much everything that existed on, under, or above these lands. The invaders failed or refused to recognise local Indigenous food sources and practices. Instead, as in the case of Australia, they replaced Indigenous life by clearing the lands to grow their own foods (both animals and plants) and then trade in them. The myth that farming is a natural evolution from being nomadic enables colonial and corporate practices. Not only does it naturalise land clearing and aggressive farming, it also shifts the responsibility for the destruction of Mother Earth to human evolution  – instead of colonial greed.

162 

A. MAHBOOB

Money Is Finite While money may be finite in our lives; money, as a concept based on numbers, is infinite because there is no end to counting. And, in today’s world of credit cards and online transactions, money is no more than a number: a socio-semiotic concept with no materiality – not even printed paper and coins. Like with knowledge, the colonial and corporate powers manage this infinite and turn it into a finite in our lives. And, this finite is required to fulfil our daily needs and wants. For example, the State takes away our biological right to exist on land and to nourishment. The State does this by establishing economic and political systems that require us to pay rent and buy food. To earn this money, we need to work. In addition, corporations market all sorts of products – with little regard to human and environmental costs – to create wants and desires in us. To fulfil these desires, one needs to give up their time (present) to earn money. Nomadic communities did not need money. To exist in harmony with each other and in wilderness, nomads need integrity. Integrity requires sharing (not trading or barter) with and enabling others. And this integrity allowed humans to thrive in diverse and sometimes harsh conditions. Money today is managed by the elite and used as a tool of oppression and exploitation. Imagine this, the State sanctions and prints money; and, at the same time, it charges us tax on the money that we have worked for!

Language Is Spoken and Written Linguists consider it an honour to create and/or help establish new writing systems for languages that were not written. The very need to establish these writing systems tell us that literacy was/is not a universal human ability, and that language is only spoken (i.e., boli). Writing is a visual representation of meaning. This can be done in different ways. For example, we can have scripts based on sounds. Within this, we can have scripts that have symbols for each unique sound (called phonetic script); and, we can have scripts that capture a group of sounds (e.g. syllabic scripts). In addition, we can have writing systems that are not dependent on sounds, but meanings (e.g. Chinese). Of these, linguists tend to prefer phonetic based scripts, which are arguably the weakest approach to writing. Accents vary across groups of people and these

  TEN MYTHS THAT KEEP US COLONISED 

163

variations cannot be taken into account in a standardised spelling system; this leads to further marginalisation of people from non-elite backgrounds. Indigenous people, in rare circumstances that they needed and chose to develop a script, used a variety of approaches – and, often, not phonetic ones. Notice, for example, how Sequoyah chose to develop a syllabic script. Literacy (like numeracy) is a tool for traders and a luxury of settlements. Nomadic people don’t have the need or the luxury of being displaced from their present through a visual sub-system. Nomadic life and education were oral in tradition and were based on practice and performance. Making education, governance, religion, law, and economy dependent on literacy (which is modelled on elite colonial practices) serves the interests of the elite and disadvantages the rest; and it is a threat to the diversity of human practices. The myth that language is both written and oral permits those in power to create and use literacy as a weapon against the masses.

Religion Is Belief As European colonial powers expanded their geographical boundaries, they came across diverse belief systems. In order to study these, they created a category called religion and used it to divide people into groups. Evidence of this can be found in a lack of Indigenous words for ‘religion’; instead of having an equivalent of ‘religion’, most languages either borrow or loosely translate the word (which can impact their socio-semiotics in multiple ways). With each grouping and name came a division that was not necessarily recognised before; and with each divisions came real or threat of conflict. In order to create the category “religion”, the colonials used literacy and the printing press as weapons (e.g. observe how Marin Luther, the reformist, used the printing press to spread his ideas and influence). Religion today is learnt from books and preachers, instead of elders whose practices and performance provided models for others to observe and follow. Oral traditions, by definition, are performed and dynamic. Printed text is static. Furthermore, people’s interpretations of the same written text vary across time, space, and purpose. Shifting people’s focus from practice to printed text created/creates the possibility for people to disagree on interpretations. These disagreements on interpretations lead to further divisions within a religion.

164 

A. MAHBOOB

By believing in print-based religions, people started worrying about the sanctity of printed words and their interpretations instead of observing and carrying out practices that maintain harmony, the goal of all religions. In nomadic communities, the key practice that maintains harmony is integrity. When this is maintained, differences in beliefs don’t matter. However, once the practice of integrity is replaced with belief in a printed text, a religion becomes a problem instead of a solution. The myth of religion and the social disruptions caused by it allow the colonial and corporate elite to continue their divide-and-rule practices.

Time Is Measurable From childhood we are sold the myth of past–present–future. In addition to the clocks and calendars, our grammar books teach us how to construct these tenses. However, contrary to what we are taught, observe that in English, there are only two tenses marked by a sound change: present (walk) and past (walked). To refer to future, we need to add more words to a sentence (will walk; may walk). In boli (the oral language we grew up with), there is only one tense: present (chal) – we always live in the present. In order to refer to either past (chal rahi thi / raha tha) or future (chaloon gi/ga), we need to change and add more words, often including adverbials of time. Ignoring these observations, colonial and corporate education naturalises a sense of past and future  – not just in/through English, but through studying and teaching any/all languages as well as other subjects. Once this is done, the colonial exploiters use ‘past’ to teach histories of violence. These histories of violence both justify colonial aggression as well as enable violence within communities. And, they use the ‘future’ to market products and lifestyles where people dream about a future while giving up their present. For many nomadic communities, time was understood in relation to seasons and availability of different food (as in the example of the wattles blooming in Gold Rivers). There was no need to measure time in clocks and days and weeks and months. Solar calendars are a need and an invention of traders. This is because some traders travel long distances and need to be able to predict weather patterns to ensure safety. A solar calendar, which is aligned with seasons, gives one a better sense of when to travel through which part of the world.

  TEN MYTHS THAT KEEP US COLONISED 

165

A fact little known is that the most reliable of solar calendars was developed by a group of Musalman scholars and is known as the Jalali or Shamsi calendar: the Gregorian calendar needs a leap year every four years; the Jalali/Shamsi calendar does not need a leap year for over 125 years. The Jalali/Shamsi calendar was adopted as the calendar by the network of Musalman traders around the globe over a thousand years ago. This calendar is what enabled Musalman traders to trade across vast parts of the world, including modern day Australia. The Jalali/Shamsi calendar was replaced with the current lunar Muslim calendar, which has no alignment with seasons and can be of no use for traders, when a handful of European powers broke up the Ottoman Networks and created new countries after World War 1. This included the creation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government, tricked by their European manipulators, replaced the Jalali calendar with a lunar calendar. The Jalali/Shamsi calendar, known by different names, continues to be the official calendar of Afghanistan and Iran. A manipulation of the concept of time can trick people and can disable them to relate to their environment. Corporate greed uses the concept to enslave people. What we need to realise and remember  – something embedded in our boli – is that time is only and always present.

Science Is Objective Through school and media we are taught to trust in science and its objectivity. At the same time, observation tells us that people in different parts of the world developed different sciences, which served their needs and purposes. Furthermore, science is a form of knowledge, knowledge is infinite, and there can be no hierarchy within an infinite system, including a hierarchy of objectivity. Modern science – on the back of global conquest and exploitation – tends to explain things that are beyond a particular context. In doing so, it challenges and replaces local sciences and practices. This is done with disregard to how local sciences enable people in their contexts and maintain environmental harmony. By creating the myth that science is objective, colonials ridicule Indigenous practices and alter the knowledge and beliefs of the masses. And, by projecting colonial and exploitative sciences as being objective

166 

A. MAHBOOB

and progress oriented, they influence and change local socio-semiotic practices that results in a destabilisation of the colonies, its peoples, and its environment.

Mind & Body Can Be Separated Colonial education and knowledge making tools make a primary distinction between mind and matter (body). The separation between mind and matter has been naturalised to a degree where sayings like “mind over matter” have become everyday idioms. The colonials draw this distinction from a French philosopher, René Descartes’ work. The Cartesian duality of mind and matter (body) is based on philosophical and theoretical arguments and is not supported by observational evidence. On the contrary, observation tells us that one’s mind and body are integrated; the mind is part of the body; and the mind is made of matter/body. The Cartesian duality is a trick that allowed colonials to design social, political, and education policies and practices that split a person’s mind from their body and allows for the manipulation of their minds. The colonials continue to promote this duality and study the world through it. To do this, they rank knowledge amongst other things. A naturalisation of the mind-body duality leads people into accepting beliefs and practices that are not the best for them. This leads to individual and social illnesses and problems. Nomadic people did not have such a division, nor did they need one. They always existed in the present and their mind and body were aligned. This is one reason why most Indigenous communities did not recognise or have names for psychological problems – they didn’t exist (and neither did psychology/psychologists). The myth that our minds and bodies are separate weakens us, makes us lose our connection with our surroundings, and allows for our minds to be influenced by greedy colonials.

Development Is Progress Development is typically measured through numbers. Numbers are infinite. And, so, there is no theoretical endpoint for what we call development.

  TEN MYTHS THAT KEEP US COLONISED 

167

The myth of development enables colonial and corporate powers to project their own beliefs and practices as “developed” and those of others as “underdeveloped” or “developing”. And, they keep shifting the targets of “development” to keep themselves in position of power. Most definitions of development are based on arbitrary social measures created and enabled through colonial research. And, often, a group of people are deemed more developed based on how different they are from other biological creatures. Development myth is supported through pretty much all the other myths included in this chapter. For example, ‘time’ is used to suggests that humans have evolved and developed and that we should continue this “development” into the future. This is done with disregard to environmental and human costs. In order to achieve “development”, the colonials index their own knowledge and science as superior and a model for others. And, in trying to achieve these coloniality-enabling targets, the colonised peoples open themselves and their lands up to exploitation. To meet the insatiable demand for development, corporations and colonial governments mine the lands for resources that they can use in industry and make money out of. This, again, is done with disregard to environmental and human costs. Humans are sold dreams of a future through media, literacy, and marketing. They are then made to work in particular ways to achieve that version of the future. But, as observation and experience teach us, those dreams are often never realised, and the majority of the human population continues to suffer and be exploited.

Human Rights Are Universal The concept of ‘human rights’ is an anthropo-centric one. All creatures on earth have rights – and these are the same. The three biological rights are: 1. Right to exist, 2. Right to nourishment, and 3. Right to receive integrity.

168 

A. MAHBOOB

Observe that the greedy colonials usurp all these three rights. Humans have to pay to live and eat, while other creatures continue to be captured, killed, or have their lands taken. And, we receive little integrity in life. Once these three rights are taken away, life becomes oppressive and results in conflict, violence, crime, and other problems. Instead of addressing the root problems, the colonials espouse and promote an anthropocentric concept of human rights. Observation will tell us that not only are our human rights not fulfilled, but there is little visible action or policy in place that will bring these rights to us. This is because human rights cannot be achieved until all three biological rights are achieved for every creature and part of Mother Earth. One day, as we were watching humans Auntie Brumby said to me “Don’t ever accept a division!” What do you mean, I asked Auntie “Look at those humans, they divide themselves Look at how they treat each other and us” You mean, don’t divide into species or tribes or fences? “Not only; don’t divide your mind and body Your mind is a part of your body, Not outside it.” What do you mean, Auntie? “If you divide your mind and body, Others can learn to trick your mind And then you will become sick and weak Like humans; and, kill your own Mother Earth.”

Learn from the Trees

Grandma Spider told me to learn from the trees They let everything sit, walk, and crawl over them They give food and shelter to all who come to them They drop off sick branches and grow more And, every so often, they shed everything off To grow and be even more beautiful.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Mahboob, Writings on Subaltern Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43710-6_35

169