Read on Twitter
The recent debate on the social media regarding changing Pashto script (from Pashtu to Urdu) is marked by misunderstanding and fallacious arguments from those who argue for the change. Those who support the change of script erroneously assume that it will make reading (in) Pashtu
easier and more accessible to the English Medium 'educated' Pashtuns living in Pakistan. In other words, the 'educated' Pashtuns' lack of reading (in) Pashtu is attributed to their not understanding the current script, and so switching to Urdu script will do the trick:
they will start reading Pashtu. I doubt if this assumption/claim has any weight. I would like to see if there is any empirical evidence in support of this. Has any research been done to show that Pashtuns living in Pakistan don't read (in) Pashtu on account of the 'hard'
'unfamiliar' script? Does changing to Urdu will do the magic? How?
People read and write a language for a variety of reasons: economic, political, literary, aesthetic, etc. An overwhelming majority of speakers (native and non-native) will read and write a language when they see
People read and write a language for a variety of reasons: economic, political, literary, aesthetic, etc. An overwhelming majority of speakers (native and non-native) will read and write a language when they see
economic and social benefits coming with it. A very negligible number will learn to read Pashtu to read Ghani Khan; Persian to read Shirazi; French to read Flaubert; and Russian to read Tolstoy. So there is little hope, if any, to win Pashtuns over to read Pashtu in Urdu for the
love of literature and songs only.
Another false assumption is that Urdu script is easier to read than Pashtu script. How? An additional sounds or two or diacritical marks do not make Pashto any difficult to read than Urdu. Do they?
Another false assumption is that Urdu script is easier to read than Pashtu script. How? An additional sounds or two or diacritical marks do not make Pashto any difficult to read than Urdu. Do they?
I understand that the current debate is marked more by centripetal/centralizing (and thus political) factors than literary or linguistic ones (I may be wrong though).
Sorry for the typos 
