Cartographies of Speech: Regional Discourse and the Politics of Place
Pakistan’s regional tensions are not just geographic—they are discursively constructed through a political vocabulary that consistently portrays some spaces as centre and others as periphery, some as rational and others as volatile. Regional identity is shaped not only by historical neglect but also by semantic framing.
Consider how mainstream political speech refers to “interior Sindh,” “remote Balochistan,” or “tribal areas.” These are not neutral descriptors—they are spatial metaphors that locate power, knowledge, and civility in Islamabad, Lahore, and Karachi, while relegating the rest of the country to zones of exception.
The centre-periphery divide is also reinforced through syntactic constructions. Government statements often describe policy as something “given to” the provinces. The provinces are rarely shown as actors; they are recipients of development, not architects of it.
Moreover, regional voices are linguistically marginalized. Seraiki, Balochi, Brahui, and Sindhi are nearly absent from national political discourse. The use of Urdu and English as gatekeepers of authority ensures that regional identities remain politically silent even when demographically prominent.
The only time regions appear at the centre of discourse is during crises. Floods, insurgencies, and protests generate phrases like “unrest in Balochistan” or “an incident in interior Sindh,” creating visibility only through tragedy. Thus, regional identities are reduced to risk profiles.
True federalism demands more than resource-sharing—it requires discursive parity. Until the languages and syntactic agency of the periphery enter mainstream political grammar, Pakistan will remain a nation defined as much by what it says as by what it refuses to articulate.
