INTRODUCTORY
1.1 The Committee for Promotion of Urdu was appointed by the Government of India Resolution No. F. 15-25/72-L. 1 dated May 5, 1972, notified in Part I, Section I of the Gazette of India dated May 20, 1972. The text of the Resolution is reproduced below
"The Government Resolution of 18th January, 1968, on the Languages Policy as adopted by both the Houses of Parliament emphasised that in the interest of the educational and cultural advancement of the country, it was necessary to take concerted measures for the full development of the 14 major languages of India besides Hindi. The Resolution further enjoined upon the Government to prepare and implement a programme, in collaboration with the State Governments, for the coordinated development of all these languages so that they grow rapidly in richness and become effective means of communicating modern knowledge. With assistance from Central Government, the various State Governments have taken up programmes for the development of the regional languages. Urdu, however, is not the concern of any one State Government or of any community. The responsibility for its development has also to be shared by the Central Government.
"It is, therefore, necessary that in addition to the steps already taken, further steps are taken urgently_ for the promotion and development of Urdu.
"Government of India have accordingly decided to set up a Committee for Promotion of Urdu with the following terms of reference :
"To advise the Government on the measures to be adopted for the promotion of Urdu languages and the steps required to be taken to provide adequate facilities for Urdu-speaking people in educational, cultural and administrative matters.
" The following are appointed to the Committee
1. Shri I. K. Gujaral, Minister of State, Ministry of Works & Housing, New Delhi Chairman
2. Begum Hamida Habibullah, Minister of State, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow-Vice-Chairman
3. Shri Mishri Sada, Minister of State for Education, Government of Bihar, Patna Member
4. Prof. M. Mujeeb, Vice-Chancellor, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi
5. Prof. Abdul Aleem, Vice-Chancellor, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh
6 . Dr. Sarup Singh Vice-Chancellor, University of Delhi, Delhi
7. Prof. S. Ehtesham Husain, Head of the Department of Urdu, Allahabad University, Allahabad
8. Prof. Gian Chand Jain, Head of the Department of Urdu, University of Jammu, Jammu
9. Shri Krishan Chander, St. Francis Avenue, Santa Cruz (West), Bombay-54
10. Shri Malik Ram, C-396, Defence Colony, New Delhi
11. Shri Sajjad Zaheer, Y-24, Hauz Khas, New Delhi
12. Shri Abid Ali Khan, Editor 'Siasat', Hyderabad .
13. Joint Secretary (1), Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, New Delhi
14. Joint Secretary (CL), Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi
15. Joint Secretary (Languages) Ministry of Education and Social Welfare, New Delhi. Member-Secretary.
16. Shri S. Ali Jawad Zaidi, Deputy Principal, Information Officer (Home), Press information Bureau, New Delhi. Member-Joint secretary,
"The non-official members of the Committee will hold appointment at the pleasure of Government and casual vacancies caused due to death/resignation etc, will be filled by Government, if considered necessary.
"An official member will cease to hold office if transferred from his present position.
"The Committee should submit its report to Government within a period of six months from the date it is set up."
1.2 Joint Secretary (I), Ministry of Information and Broadcasting; Joint Secretary (OL), Ministry of Home Affairs; and Joint Secretary (L), Ministry of Education and Social Welfare were ex- officio members and those who joined the Committee first in that capacity were Shri M.S.A. Rajan, Shri P. P. Nayyar and Shri Kanti Chaudhuri, respectively.
1.3 Prior to its issue, the Resolution was placed before Parliament by the Union Minister of State for Education and Social Welfare, Prof. S. Nurul Hasan, on May 2, 1972. Elucidating' the background to the formation of the Committee he stated :
"Urdu is an important national language of India. It does not belong to any particular State and is widely spoken in the country by people belonging to all faiths, castes and creeds. It thus belongs to the whole nation and has an inter-State character. The Government of India, therefore, have always been alive to the need of providing adequate facilities for the promotion of Urdu. The Government
2
set up in 1969 a Central Board named "Taraqqi-e-Urdu Board" with the Union Minister of Education as its Chairman, for advising Government on the production in Urdu of academic literature, science literature, children's literature, etc. An allocation of rupees one crore has been made for the production of Urdu books under the guidance of the Board during the Fourth Five- Year Plan. In addition, the Government of India are rendering financial assistance to voluntary organizations engaged in the promotion of Urdu and are also awarding annual prizes in respect of best books produced.
" The Government of India, however, feel that it is necessary to take more intensive measures for the promotion of Urdu. The Government have, therefore, decided to set up a Committee for the promotion of Urdu which will be expected to submit its report within six months of the date of its appointment."
1.4 The task before the Committee was further elaborated by Prof. S. Nurul Hasan, Union Minister of State for Education and Social Welfare, Shri I. K. Gujaral, Chairman of the Committee and then Union Minister of State for Works and Housing, in their inaugural and presidential addresses respectively at the first meeting of the Committee. The texts of these addresses can be seen in Appendices XXV and XXVI.
1.5 The untimely death of the well-known scholar. Prof. Ehtesham Hussain, on December 1, 1972, deprived the Committee of one of its most important 'members. The vacancy caused by his death was filled by Prof. Khaliq Ahmed Nizami, then Head of the Department of History and later Vice-Chancellor of the Aligarh Muslim University.
1.6 In the death of Shri Sajjad Zaheer on September 13, 1973, the Committee lost yet another active and eminent member. As the deliberations of the Committee were nearing completion by that time, it was not considered necessary to fill the vacancy.
1.7 On account of the change in the portfolio of Shri Mishri Sada, Minister of State for Education, Government of Bihar, from Education to Labour, Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, the new Minister of State for Education in Bihar was co-opted as an additional member, on February 21, 1973. It was felt, however. that the Committee should not lose the benefit of Shri Sada's continuous association with it. This decision raised the strength of the Committee to 17.
1.8 In place of Prof. M. Mujeeb, Vice-Chancellor, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, who was unable to attend further meetings of the Committee on account of ill health, Dr. Salamat Ullah, Principal, Teachers Training college, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, was appointed a member of the Committee on July 6, 1973,
1.9 Shri Kanti Chaudhuri, who had been associated with the Committee as its Member-Secretary from the very beginning was succeeded in November 1973 by Shri Shahid Alikhan as Joint Secretary (Languages) in the Ministry of Education and accordingly took over as Member-Secretary of the Committee. Shri Kanti Chaudhuri was, however, asked to continue as an additional member in view of his earlier association with the Committee,
1.10 Shri M.A.S. Rajan, Joint Secretary (Information) left the Ministry of Information and Broad casting and was succeeded by Shri H. C. Khanna, who took his place on the Committee.
1.11 Shri P. P. Nayyar who took over as Joint Secretary (Political) in the Ministry of Home Affairs when the deliberations of the Committee were in their final stage, was asked to continue as member of the C Committee in place of Joint Secretary (Official Languages) for the rest of the period.
1.12 The Committee decided at its inaugural meeting to constitute four Sub-Committees to survey the educational, administrative, literary and journalistic areas of our study in an attempt to locate factors impeding the progress of Urdu and discover directions towards which official and non-official efforts must be channelized to achieve the objective of making Urdu an effective medium of communicating modem knowledge, in unison with its sister languages. The Sub- Committees were expected to prepare working papers on broad outlines for further deliberations by the Committee. The constitution of the Sub-Committees is given below :
(a) LITERATURE SUB-COMMITTEE
1. Shri Malik Ram Convenor
2. Shri S. Ehtesham Husain
3. Prof. Gian Chand Jain
4. Shri Ali Sardar Jafri
5. Shri Krishan Chander
6. Shri Kartar Singh Duggal
7. Shri S. Ali Jawad Zaidi
8. Prof. Masud Husain Khan
9. Prof. Mohd. Akbaruddin Siddiqui
(b) JOURNALISM SUB-COMMITTEE
1. Shri Abid Ali Khan Convenor
2. Shri Sajjad Zaheer
3. Shri Ranbir, Editor 'Milap' New Delhi
3
4. Shri Kuldip Nayar Resident Editor Statesman New Delhi.
5. Shri Ishrat Ali Siddiqui Editor 'Quami Awaz' Lucknow
6. Shri Yunus Dehlavi Editor 'Shama' Delhi.
7. Shri Khalid Ansari Managing Editor 'Inquilab' Bombay.
(c) ADMINISTRATION SUB-COMMITTEE
1. Begum Hamida Habibullah Chairman
2. Shri P. P. Nayyar Convenor
3. Shri Yunus Saleem
4. Shri Ghulam Mohiuddin Education Secretary.
Government of Jammu and Kashmir Srinagar
5. Shri M.A.S. Rajan
6. Home Secretary Government of Bihar Patna
7. Joint Secretary Policy Planning Department
of Personnel Government of India New Delhi.
(d) EDUCATION SUB-COMMITTEE
1. Dr. Sarup Singh Convenor
2. Prof. M. Mujeeb
3. Prof. Abdul Aleem
4. Prof. S. Ehtesham. Husain
5. Dr. Khaliq Anjum. Joint Convenor
1.13 The Sub-Committees examined a limited number of experts in various disciplines before formulate general approaches. Two of the Sub-Committees, namely, these on Journalism and Literature, prepared working papers on their respective subjects, while the Education Sub- Committee prepared a detailed paper on the educational problems of Delhi. The Administration Sub-Committee did rot prepare a working paper but discussed the issues with various representatives and experts at different centres of the language and formulated some broad outlines. The meetings of the Sub-Committees were held as a rule in New Delhi. Only the. Administration Sub-Committee held meetings at Lucknow and Patna to study the local problems in particular. Following are the details of their schedules :
Sr. NO. Name of the Sub-Committee Dates Place
1 Literature Sub-Committee June 12 and 13, 1972 New Delhi
2 Journalism Sub-Committee June 15 and 16, 1972 New Delhi
3 Education Sub-committee June 19, 1972 New Delhi
4 Administration Sub-Committee June 23 and 24, 1972 Lucknow
January 11, 1973 Patna.
The total number of witnesses examined by the Sub-Committees was 61 (Appendix XXVII).
1.14 The main Committee held twenty-six meetings as detailed below :
S. NO. Place Date
1 New Delhi May 22,1972
2 Bombay July 5 and 6, 1972
3 Hyderabad July 28 and 29, 1972
4 Lucknow August 12 and 13, 1972
5. New Delhi August 27, 28 and 29, 1972
6 Srinagar September 26, 27, 28 and 29, 1972
7 Patna January 12 and 13, 1973
8 Chandigarh January 23 and 24, 1973
9 Calcutta March 4 and 5, 1973
10 Bhopal April 5 and 6. 1973
11 New Delhi April 20 and 21, 1973
12 Bangalore and Mysore May 6 and 7, 1973
13 Jaipur May 17, 1973
14 New Delhi August 7, 8 and 9, 1973
15 New Delhi August 18, 1973
16 New Delhi September 4, 5 and 6, 1973
17 New Delhi September 26 and 27, 1973
18 New Delhi November 5, 6 and 7, 1973
19 New Delhi November 15 and 16, 1973
20 New Delhi December 26 and 27, 1973
21 New Delhi January 24 and 25, 1974
22 New Delhi May 20 and 21, 1974
23 New Delhi June 22 and 23, 1974
24 Srinagar July 4, 5,6,7, and 8, 1974
25 New Delhi August 26, 27, 28 and 29, 1974
26 New Delhi March 18, 19, 1975
4
1.15 There were pressing requests from Urdu writers in Tamil Nadu to hold a meeting of the Committee in that State. While a meeting of the Committee could not be held as requested, a Sub-Committee consisting of Shri Abid Ali Khan, Shri S. Ali Jawad Zaidi and Dr. Khaliq Anjum visited Madras on August 29.1973. The Sub-Committee examined ten witnesses including the State Director of Public Instruction.
1.16 Another Sub-Committee was later formed to examine the feasibility of setting up Research Institutes, one in the North and another in the South. Shri Malik Ram, Prof. Khaliq Ahmed Nizami, Dr. GianChand Jain, Shri Abid Ali Khan, Shri S. Ali Jawad Zaidi and Dr. Khaliq Anjum constituted the SubCommittee. The Sub-Committee bifurcated into two groups. It was decided that Shri Malik Ram, Dr. Gain Chand Jain and Prof. Khaliq Ahmed Nizami should go to Rampur and Shri Abid Ali Khan, Shri Ali Jawad Zaidi and Dr. Khaliq Anjum to Hyderabad. The Sub-Committee succeeded in producing an agreed scheme for research, which has been incorporated in the main body of the Report.
1.17 In addition to the 289 witnesses (Appendix XXVIII) examined by the Committee, the Sub-Committees also heard, as already mentioned, the views of 61 witnesses. A number of deputations presented their views to the Committee orally while some deputationists handed over memoranda to the Committee, The details of these memoranda, 125 in number, will be found in Appendix XXIX.
1.18 The witnesses came from different walks of life and represented many vocations and interests. Among them were Chief Ministers, Speakers of Legislative Assemblies, Education Ministers, Vice-Chancellors of Universities, Members of Parliament, Members of State Legislatures, Secretaries to Governments, Editors, Directors of Education and Information, Professors, Principals, Writers, Leaders of public opinion, Statesmen and Representatives of various literary and educational organisations.
1.19 The Committee also invited suggestions from the general Public for the promotion of Urdu. in response to the Committees advertisements in this regard, which appeared in important newspapers and periodicals, 198 letters containing suggestions were received from various individuals and organisations. The State wise breakup of the correspondence is given in Appendix XXX
1.20 For a detailed study of the various problems in the educational and Journalistic fields, the committee requested the Chief Secretaries/Education Secretaries/Directors of Education and Public Instruction; Directors of information/Publicity/Public Relations, Vice-Chancellors of Universities and Principals of degree colleges for information on the points indicated in a proforma. While the response from the Vice-Chancellors and Principals, as also from Directors of Information and Publicity, was most encouraging, a few of the State Departments of Education did not supply full information despite repeated telegraphic and telephonic reminders. Moreover, some of the States did not conform to the proforma in supplying the information asked for. As a result the Committee felt handicapped in drawing certain conclusions. This has also been responsible, in part, for the delay in the submission of this report.
1.21 The Committee had been instructed to submit its report, within six months from the date of its Constitution. However, the appointment of the Committee evoked great enthusiasm in different parts of the country and the Committee was flooded with requests from various quarters to visit areas and centres not included in the original schedule and to hear local views and make on-the-spot assessment of the situation. The Committee was naturally keen to elicit the views of the largest number of persons and institutions interested in the problem and the, Government of India agreed to extend the term of the Committee finally up to June 30, 1975, to enable it to make a thorough and comprehensive study. The increased number of visits, the ensuing discussions, the Sub-Committee meetings and the final collection, sifting, correlation consolidation and analysis of data necessitated the extensions which were indeed essential for the detailed study we had embarked upon.