Pakistan’s language policy (LP) has historically reinforced hierarchies privileging Urdu and English over indigenous languages, contributing to persistent patterns of linguistic and educational exclusion. Drawing on the findings of a politico-historical review of 91 scholarly and grey literature sources, this policy brief examines how shifts in political structures have shaped LP development and language activism (LA) in education. It situates these dynamics within wider struggles for equity, recognising LP as both a policy product and a site of contestation where actors negotiate linguistic power and educational access. Findings reveal that LP evolution in Pakistan has been non-linear, shaped by cycles of contestation and negotiation between state control and activism. Three key phases are identified: (1) Centralised and Exclusionary LP (1947–1971)—marked by nation-building and Urdu dominance; (2) Gradual Recognition of Linguistic Rights (1972–2009): featuring partial accommodation of regional languages; and (3) Decentralised and Participatory LP (2010–present), seemingly enabled by the 18th Amendment’s devolution of education. Despite increased space for activism, challenges persist in teacher capacity, curriculum design, and coordination between federal and provincial policy actors. The brief recommends developing and implementing a multilingual policy framework with a laddering approach and retaining Urdu and English as accessible mediums of instruction to support social mobility while ensuring inclusion of regional languages. Additional recommendations include: engaging teachers in policy and materials development, instituting transparent review processes, integrating translanguaging pedagogies in teacher education, and fostering public–private partnerships to strengthen implementation of multilingual education. Pakistan’s experience highlights that sustainable language-in-education (LIE) reform requires long-term institutional dialogue between state, academia, and activism. Decentralisation has opened opportunities for inclusion, but equitable implementation demands a coherent effort from all involved to improve quality teacher training mechanisms, promote mutual learning, and ensure shared accountability between national and provincial institutions.
Khalid et al. (2026) studied this question.