What's new

#MyNameInUrdu movement gaining momentum; love conquers hate

This should put to rest the Urdu - Hindi debate

The death of Urdu in India is greatly exaggerated – the language is actually thriving


An Indian currency note is a wonder of linguistic diversity. Take a Rs 100 note, for example. The amount “rupees one hundred” is written in a staggering 17 scripts. Most of the scripts represent different sounds: in Bengali, it reads “eksho taka” and in Marathi “shambhar rupye”. Yet, oddly enough, two of those 17 scripts read out the same way : “ek sau rupye”. The two are, of course, Hindi and Urdu.

On May 19, a few Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh workers forced an artist to deface his own graffiti in praise of the capital. What ticked those people off was that the sher, or couplet, was in Urdu which was not to be “tolerated”. For good measure, the artist was even asked to go back to Lahore.


The fact that the name “Urdu” – meaning royal camp or city – refers to Delhi, where the language originated, was only the tip of the irony iceberg. The incident was also followed with the almost by now de rigueur lamentations about the death of Urdu by well-meaning if misinformed people.

Here’s a thought experiment, though. If the very same couplet - Dilli tera ujarna, aur phir ujar ke basna. Woh dil hai toone paya, sani nahi hai jiska – had been written down in the Devanagri or Roman script would the RSS gundas have gotten so worked up? And if millions of people, many of them Bengalis, Kannadigas or Marathis, go around India saying “ek sau rupye” – which we know to be Urdu from our currency notes – how is the language then dying?

Language, register and script

Indians (and Pakistanis) grow up being told by their governments that Hindi and Urdu are two separate languages. So strong is this force of authority that Urdu speakers never wonder to find out how they can effortlessly watch Hindi movies and Hindi speakers aren’t amazed that they can comprehend Urdu songs on Coke Studio.

Linguists, however, are slightly less ideological and more practical about these matters. Academically, Urdu and Hindi are classified as literary registers of the same language, the Khari Boli spoken historically in and around Delhi city. A register is a style of language used according to situation, class and, in the case of Hindi-Urdu, social identity. Every language has registers. Think of the style Buzzfeed uses and that used by one of the world’s leading postcolonial academics Homi Bhabha to understand two common registers in English. Even while Bhabha’s inkhorn writing might be near-incomprehensible to a Buzzfeed reader, no one would venture to say that Bhabha is not using English.

This is because even if the two styles might differ in vocabulary, they have identical grammar. Both Bhabha and Buzzfeed can, if they want, always switch to a common mutually intelligible register of English should they happen to, say, meet on the street. This is exactly analogous to Hindi and Urdu. Christopher King in his book One Language Two Scripts writes:

Language scholars usually designate its (Khari Boli) two major division as Hindi and Urdu, though some argue that these should be considered two different languages on political and cultural – not linguistic – grounds. Aside from unimportant grammatical variations, vocabulary and script constitute the principal difference between the two. The most formal level of Hindi, sometimes referred to as “High Hindi”, uses a vocabulary saturated with Sanskrit, while the corresponding level of Urdu, High Urdu, draws heavily of Persian and Arabic. On this level, the two come close to mutual unintelligibility. Other less formal levels of Hindi and Urdu approach complete intelligibility.

When people lament the demise of Urdu, what they really mean is that the heavily Persianised register, what King calls “High Urdu” is dead. The everyday demotic Urdu that people speak – which is identical in turn to spoken Hindi – is more than flourishing.

High Urdu and mass culture

However, even dirges about the rapid decline of High Urdu are unneeded. High Urdu has come to occupy an exalted place given its elite status but it was never a mass register, being spoken only by extremely small numbers of sharif Muslims, Khatris, Kashmiri Pandits (settled mostly in Uttar Pradesh or Delhi) and Kayasths. As elite a person as Ghalib’s wife – an illiterate woman – would not have understood the High Urdu of her husband’s poems and the two conversed very much like anyone in Old Delhi or Saharanpur today. And, of course, High Urdu was inaccessible to all other lower caste Muslims and Hindus of 19th century Delhi who, like citizens today, spoke everyday Khari Boli or their village languages.

In fact, far from declining, thanks to Bollywood, High Urdu has never enjoyed greater reach. High Urdu has a historical association in the subcontinental mind as a register of song and poetry. This has naturally been employed by Bollywood to sell its musical romances and a large proportion of movie songs are composed in High Urdu. To take Ghalib’s example one more time, lyricist Gulzar’s use of a Ghalib sher in the movie Dil Se means that hundreds of millions of more people were actually exposed to Ghalib’s poetry in 1998 as compared to, say, in 1856. And this isn’t only a feature of Gulzar's highbrow tastes. The more plebeian “Yaar na mile” from the Salman Khan-starrer Kick was written by Yo Yo Honey Singh – in High Urdu. Nearly every third word in the song is from Persian including highfalutin instances such as “ehtaram” or “muhtasib”. In fact, it even uses Persian grammar in its use of the izafat (the “e” in dard-e-dil).

High Hindi as a sarkari language

In comparison, High Urdu’s main “rival” High Hindi has almost no mass use outside of the Union government and the Hindi state governments. In fact, even as politicians waste government money on High Hindi – rather than provide services in the far more comprehensible Khari Boli – political parties themselves make sure to use everyday language whey they really want to communicate. For example, the Bharatiya Janata Party uses demotic Khari Boli in its slogans – such as “Acche Din”. In fact, its latest catchphrase “Do Saal Bemisaal” could even be classified as High Urdu given that both “saal” and “bemisaal” are Persian words.

Of course, Urdu chauvinists should note that this has nothing to do with the inherent strengths of the register and is just to do with the fact the High Hindi is much newer compared to High Urdu (objectively comparing languages and registers is like trying to impartially decide the best colour in the world). The use of large amounts in Sanskrit in Khari Boli is only around a hundred years – and its mass use came only when it was adopted by the Indian government after 1947. This lack of history means any Hindi earlier than, say, 150 years in school syllabuses needs to use different languages such as Kabir’s Braj, which are then classified as “dialects” of Hindi – ironic given that Braj as a literary language is hundreds of years older than Hindi. This lack of age meant that Jawaharlal Nehru – otherwise a native speaker of Hindi – admitted that he could simply could not understand the High Hindi translation of the Constitution when it was first framed. In fact, when the first mass broadcasts of High Hindi were made after 1947 by the government-controlled All India Radio, comic actor Johny Walker quipped, “They should not announce ‘Ab Hindi main samachar suniye’ [listen to the news in Hindi] but ‘ab samachar main Hindi suniye’ [listen to Hindi in the news].”

Script is not language

Even if Urdu hasn’t died what has is the Persio-Arabic script historically associated with it. After 1947, India adopted High Hindi written in the Devanagri script and states like Uttar Pradesh even went so far as to ban Urdu-medium schools. In the lay mind, script is often confused with language. “Language” is a verbal system of communication. A “script” is simply the collection of symbols used to represent that language in a visual form. Even if one published, say, Ghalib’s poems in the Roman script [as this fine website does] it does not mean that the language now changes to English or German – it’s still Urdu.

Much of the classification of Hindi and Urdu into different languages has to do with the fact that, in the popular space, script and language are often interchanged. This confusion is quite new since the use of the Devanagri script to write Khari Boli is quite recent and till around a century back it was commonly understood that “Hindi” and “Urdu” are simply synonyms for the same language. Even organisations such as the Nagari Pracharini Sabha (society for the promotion of the Nagari Script) formed in 1893 in Banaras, only petitioned for the British Raj to introduce the Devanagri script along with the already existing Persio-Arabic – the question of characterising this as a separate language came much later.

Of course, people do get emotional about scripts and it is unsurprising that its users lament its decline – especially given that post-1947, the Persio-Arabic script has been targeted as a symbol of “Muslimness” in north India. But to extend this and grieve for the decline of the Urdu language itself is simply inaccurate.

https://scroll.in/article/809102/th...exaggerated-the-language-is-actually-thriving
 
.
On topic: my name in Urdu is a gimmick.
Why ?

Because you just write your name in a different script instead of English alphabet.
Script and language are two different things.

My name in Devanagari पंडित
My name in Nastliq پنڈت
My name in Latin/Roman alphabet Pandit

Bhayya logic 101
 
. . .
Bhayya logic 101
:enjoy:

This should put to rest the Urdu - Hindi debate

The death of Urdu in India is greatly exaggerated – the language is actually thriving


An Indian currency note is a wonder of linguistic diversity. Take a Rs 100 note, for example. The amount “rupees one hundred” is written in a staggering 17 scripts. Most of the scripts represent different sounds: in Bengali, it reads “eksho taka” and in Marathi “shambhar rupye”. Yet, oddly enough, two of those 17 scripts read out the same way : “ek sau rupye”. The two are, of course, Hindi and Urdu.

On May 19, a few Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh workers forced an artist to deface his own graffiti in praise of the capital. What ticked those people off was that the sher, or couplet, was in Urdu which was not to be “tolerated”. For good measure, the artist was even asked to go back to Lahore.


The fact that the name “Urdu” – meaning royal camp or city – refers to Delhi, where the language originated, was only the tip of the irony iceberg. The incident was also followed with the almost by now de rigueur lamentations about the death of Urdu by well-meaning if misinformed people.

Here’s a thought experiment, though. If the very same couplet - Dilli tera ujarna, aur phir ujar ke basna. Woh dil hai toone paya, sani nahi hai jiska – had been written down in the Devanagri or Roman script would the RSS gundas have gotten so worked up? And if millions of people, many of them Bengalis, Kannadigas or Marathis, go around India saying “ek sau rupye” – which we know to be Urdu from our currency notes – how is the language then dying?

Language, register and script

Indians (and Pakistanis) grow up being told by their governments that Hindi and Urdu are two separate languages. So strong is this force of authority that Urdu speakers never wonder to find out how they can effortlessly watch Hindi movies and Hindi speakers aren’t amazed that they can comprehend Urdu songs on Coke Studio.

Linguists, however, are slightly less ideological and more practical about these matters. Academically, Urdu and Hindi are classified as literary registers of the same language, the Khari Boli spoken historically in and around Delhi city. A register is a style of language used according to situation, class and, in the case of Hindi-Urdu, social identity. Every language has registers. Think of the style Buzzfeed uses and that used by one of the world’s leading postcolonial academics Homi Bhabha to understand two common registers in English. Even while Bhabha’s inkhorn writing might be near-incomprehensible to a Buzzfeed reader, no one would venture to say that Bhabha is not using English.

This is because even if the two styles might differ in vocabulary, they have identical grammar. Both Bhabha and Buzzfeed can, if they want, always switch to a common mutually intelligible register of English should they happen to, say, meet on the street. This is exactly analogous to Hindi and Urdu. Christopher King in his book One Language Two Scripts writes:

Language scholars usually designate its (Khari Boli) two major division as Hindi and Urdu, though some argue that these should be considered two different languages on political and cultural – not linguistic – grounds. Aside from unimportant grammatical variations, vocabulary and script constitute the principal difference between the two. The most formal level of Hindi, sometimes referred to as “High Hindi”, uses a vocabulary saturated with Sanskrit, while the corresponding level of Urdu, High Urdu, draws heavily of Persian and Arabic. On this level, the two come close to mutual unintelligibility. Other less formal levels of Hindi and Urdu approach complete intelligibility.

When people lament the demise of Urdu, what they really mean is that the heavily Persianised register, what King calls “High Urdu” is dead. The everyday demotic Urdu that people speak – which is identical in turn to spoken Hindi – is more than flourishing.

High Urdu and mass culture

However, even dirges about the rapid decline of High Urdu are unneeded. High Urdu has come to occupy an exalted place given its elite status but it was never a mass register, being spoken only by extremely small numbers of sharif Muslims, Khatris, Kashmiri Pandits (settled mostly in Uttar Pradesh or Delhi) and Kayasths. As elite a person as Ghalib’s wife – an illiterate woman – would not have understood the High Urdu of her husband’s poems and the two conversed very much like anyone in Old Delhi or Saharanpur today. And, of course, High Urdu was inaccessible to all other lower caste Muslims and Hindus of 19th century Delhi who, like citizens today, spoke everyday Khari Boli or their village languages.

In fact, far from declining, thanks to Bollywood, High Urdu has never enjoyed greater reach. High Urdu has a historical association in the subcontinental mind as a register of song and poetry. This has naturally been employed by Bollywood to sell its musical romances and a large proportion of movie songs are composed in High Urdu. To take Ghalib’s example one more time, lyricist Gulzar’s use of a Ghalib sher in the movie Dil Se means that hundreds of millions of more people were actually exposed to Ghalib’s poetry in 1998 as compared to, say, in 1856. And this isn’t only a feature of Gulzar's highbrow tastes. The more plebeian “Yaar na mile” from the Salman Khan-starrer Kick was written by Yo Yo Honey Singh – in High Urdu. Nearly every third word in the song is from Persian including highfalutin instances such as “ehtaram” or “muhtasib”. In fact, it even uses Persian grammar in its use of the izafat (the “e” in dard-e-dil).

High Hindi as a sarkari language

In comparison, High Urdu’s main “rival” High Hindi has almost no mass use outside of the Union government and the Hindi state governments. In fact, even as politicians waste government money on High Hindi – rather than provide services in the far more comprehensible Khari Boli – political parties themselves make sure to use everyday language whey they really want to communicate. For example, the Bharatiya Janata Party uses demotic Khari Boli in its slogans – such as “Acche Din”. In fact, its latest catchphrase “Do Saal Bemisaal” could even be classified as High Urdu given that both “saal” and “bemisaal” are Persian words.

Of course, Urdu chauvinists should note that this has nothing to do with the inherent strengths of the register and is just to do with the fact the High Hindi is much newer compared to High Urdu (objectively comparing languages and registers is like trying to impartially decide the best colour in the world). The use of large amounts in Sanskrit in Khari Boli is only around a hundred years – and its mass use came only when it was adopted by the Indian government after 1947. This lack of history means any Hindi earlier than, say, 150 years in school syllabuses needs to use different languages such as Kabir’s Braj, which are then classified as “dialects” of Hindi – ironic given that Braj as a literary language is hundreds of years older than Hindi. This lack of age meant that Jawaharlal Nehru – otherwise a native speaker of Hindi – admitted that he could simply could not understand the High Hindi translation of the Constitution when it was first framed. In fact, when the first mass broadcasts of High Hindi were made after 1947 by the government-controlled All India Radio, comic actor Johny Walker quipped, “They should not announce ‘Ab Hindi main samachar suniye’ [listen to the news in Hindi] but ‘ab samachar main Hindi suniye’ [listen to Hindi in the news].”

Script is not language

Even if Urdu hasn’t died what has is the Persio-Arabic script historically associated with it. After 1947, India adopted High Hindi written in the Devanagri script and states like Uttar Pradesh even went so far as to ban Urdu-medium schools. In the lay mind, script is often confused with language. “Language” is a verbal system of communication. A “script” is simply the collection of symbols used to represent that language in a visual form. Even if one published, say, Ghalib’s poems in the Roman script [as this fine website does] it does not mean that the language now changes to English or German – it’s still Urdu.

Much of the classification of Hindi and Urdu into different languages has to do with the fact that, in the popular space, script and language are often interchanged. This confusion is quite new since the use of the Devanagri script to write Khari Boli is quite recent and till around a century back it was commonly understood that “Hindi” and “Urdu” are simply synonyms for the same language. Even organisations such as the Nagari Pracharini Sabha (society for the promotion of the Nagari Script) formed in 1893 in Banaras, only petitioned for the British Raj to introduce the Devanagri script along with the already existing Persio-Arabic – the question of characterising this as a separate language came much later.

Of course, people do get emotional about scripts and it is unsurprising that its users lament its decline – especially given that post-1947, the Persio-Arabic script has been targeted as a symbol of “Muslimness” in north India. But to extend this and grieve for the decline of the Urdu language itself is simply inaccurate.

https://scroll.in/article/809102/th...exaggerated-the-language-is-actually-thriving

I will like to wager here:

There are more speakers of Hindustani in India than pure Urdu and Hindi speakers.
 
.
A campaign to write one’s profile name in Urdu is gaining momentum these days which is the best example of unity against hate. Recently, Prabha Raj a Twitterati belonging South India had written her profile name in Urdu. According to Prabha, she doesn’t know Urdu but she liked the Urdu script so she decided to keep her profile name in Urdu. However, she was trolled by saffron elements for her ‘assumed identity’ as a Muslim.


In her article in the Wire, Prabha writes, “last week, I found the Urdu script beautiful and decided to use it for my Twitter handle name. I don’t know Urdu at all though. Being a politically active person on Twitter, I’ve seen my fair share of trolls, but this week it turned vicious.”

She added, “I was quite appalled at the sexually graphic pictures and the expletives directed towards me – derisively labelling me a Muslim due to my new Twitter name. I realised the hate was not directed towards my tweets, but rather towards my assumed identity as Muslim. After having enough of it, I tweeted out saying that if you have a Muslim handle, you’re likely to attract abusive trolls but that I won’t let hate get the upper hand. I will keep my Twitter name in the Urdu script.”

However, within hours, people started showing solidarity with Prabha against the hate and started changing their Twitter names to the Urdu script as well. Some started using the hashtag #MyNameInUrdu. People also narrated how they face discrimination every day due to their religious identity and how they have accepted is as the new norm.

https://www.siasat.com/news/mynameinurdu-movement-gaining-momentum-love-conquers-hate-1454512/
It is Arabic script , Urdu has no script.
 
. . .
Zaban e Ordu is a language invented by Muslim soldiers to communicate with each other. Ordu is the Turkish word for military camp.

Ordu began as a dialect of Dari (Eastern Farsi,) borrowing Arabic, Turkish, Punjabi, etc. words from Muslim soldiers.

This is why pure Ordu is very similar to Dari when spoken and used in poetry.

If you listen to a speech by Shah Mahmoof Qureshi, you will find him speaking flawless Urdu which most Indian Non-Muslims will not be able to understand.

 
.
Hindi is a butchered and bastardized version of Urdu.

They are not the same languages.
The predecessors to Hindi have been around for centuries before the arrival of Bin Qasim. Both Hindi and Urdu are descended from Hindustani, which in term derived from the Central Prakrits of Sanskrit. The Urdu language was developed when Turkik rulers needed a way to communicate with the natives of Nortern India as they expanded East, so they created a language by mixing Persian, Turkish, and Arabic words with native languages to the region such as Bhojpuri and Maithali. That was how Hindustani was created. Modern day Urdu and Hindi were created in the 19th century when they were standardized. Many Sanskrit words were replaced with Persian and Arabic words in Urdu, and Sanskrit words were added to Hindi. Of course, there is still a lot of foreign influence in modern Hindi, and most words I Urdu are still derived from Sanskrit. That is why most forms of spoken Hindi and Urdu are mutually intelligible.. It is only the most formal literary forms of both languages that are distinct, kind of like Shakespearean English to modern American English.
Either way, modern Urdu is an Indian language that developed in Lucknow, so I think it's unny how Pakistanis try to claim it for themselves.

If you want toknow how Hindi sounded before the Turksh, Arabic, and central Asian influence, look at other central Indo-Aryan languages such as Bhojpuri and Mathali.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Zone_(Hindi)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindustani_language
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhojpuri_language
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maithili_language

Wow a white guy
That guy actually knows a lot about languages. Although he did make some mistakes in that video, he was spot on for the most part.
 
.
Urdu’s origin: it’s not a ‘camp language’

According to the popular myth, Urdu is a ‘camp language’ or ‘lashkari zaban’ because it originated in the army camps of the Mughals. The reasoning — if it can be called as such at all — behind the so-called theory is that Urdu is a mixture of words taken from different languages such as Arabic, Persian, Turkish and Hindi. The soldiers who spoke these languages were recruited to the Mughal army and to communicate among themselves they used this new language, and thus Urdu was born. People holding this view cite the fact that ‘Urdu’ is a Turkish word and it literally means ‘lashkar’ or ‘army’ or ‘army camp’. Interestingly, there is hardly any language in the world that has not absorbed words from other languages.

How the question is: why is this theory of so-called camp language incorrect ?

Hafiz Mahmood Sherani and Shams-ur-Rahman Farooqi have described in detail that the word Urdu was in use much earlier than the Mughal period and it had carried different nuances through centuries. The word ‘Urdu’ was used for this language much later, in fact in the last quarter of the 18th century, and in the beginning the word ‘Urdu’ had quite different meanings. Also, the Urdu language has had many names before the present nomenclature came in vogue. Those who are convinced that Urdu was born in Shah Jahan’s era ignore the fact that the Mughal era began in 1526 after Babar’s success at Panipat while poets like Ameer Khusrau (died 1325) had been composing poetry in Urdu much earlier than that. Even in Babar’s writings one can find quite a few Urdu words. In other words, the Urdu language did exist before Shah Jahan and it was there even before the name Urdu was given to it.

Those who believe in the ‘lashkari zaban’ myth perhaps think that it is possible to form a new language by combining two or more languages. This is not the case. Max Muller, the renowned linguist, has given us two guiding principles in this regard: one, the classification of a language and its relationship with the other language is based on morphological and syntactical structures of that language and vocabulary has very little importance in this regard; two, it is totally wrong and misleading to believe that by combining two or more languages a new, third language can be formed. A language may get enriched and strengthened by obtaining nourishment from the dialects and languages spoken in its surrounding geographical territories, but it is impossible for a language to form a new language by inter-mingling with another one.

A language takes centuries, even more, to evolve. It is a slow, long, constant, complex and natural process. A language ‘invented’ to serve a specific purpose, such as enabling the troops to communicate with one another, is labelled as ‘artificial’ by linguists. Though there have been hundreds of such attempts, some aimed at facilitating international communication between nations and peoples speaking different languages, none has been successful. Esperanto, a language formed with the basic roots of some European languages, died despite its early success. In other words, experiments to devise a language have failed and no artificial language could survive. Urdu, like other languages of the world, has been classified by linguists on the basis of its morphological and syntactical features. Urdu nouns and adjective can have a variety of origins, such as Arabic, Persian, Turkish, Pushtu and even Portuguese, but ninety-nine per cent of Urdu verbs have their roots in Sanskrit/Prakrit. So it is an Indo-Aryan language which is a branch of Indo-Iranian family, which in turn is a branch of Indo-European family of languages. According to Dr Gian Chand Jain, Indo-Aryan languages had three phases of evolution beginning around 1,500 BC and passing through the stages of Vedic Sanskrit, classical Sanskrit and Pali. They developed into Prakrit and Apbhransh, which served as the basis for the formation of later local dialects.

Around 1,000 AD, the modern Indo-Aryan era began and with the arrival of Muslims Arabic, Persian and, to a lesser extent, Turkish vocabulary began assimilating into local dialects. One of those dialects later evolved further and became an early version of Urdu/Hindi. Now the only question remaining unanswered is which dialect or dialects developed further to become a language that was basically one and was later divided into two languages, Hindi and Urdu, on the basis of two different scripts.

Though there are a number of theories about the origin of Urdu (that is, aside from camp language theory) that say, for example, Urdu has its origin in Punjabi, or it was born in Deccan or in Sindh, few have stood up to research based on historical linguistics and comparative linguistic. Of the theories considered to be holding water, the most plausible seems to be the one that says Urdu developed from some dialects spoken in and around Delhi in the 11th and 12th centuries AD. These dialects include Brij Bhasha, Mewati, Khari Boli and Haryani, which, in turn had developed from Apbhransh. The name Apbhransh refers to a number of languages/dialects which were born from Prakrit languages. The question that still requires a precise answer is: from which Apbhransh did Urdu originate? Some linguists believe it was most probably an offshoot of Shourseni Prakrit, spoken in and around Mathura. Dr Gian Chand Jain says it was Khari Boli.

In brief, Urdu is much older than just a few hundred years and its roots go right back to Sanskrit. At least, it has been established beyond doubt that Urdu is not a camp language.

https://www.dawn.com/news/681263
 
.
Urdu’s origin: it’s not a ‘camp language’

According to the popular myth, Urdu is a ‘camp language’ or ‘lashkari zaban’ because it originated in the army camps of the Mughals. The reasoning — if it can be called as such at all — behind the so-called theory is that Urdu is a mixture of words taken from different languages such as Arabic, Persian, Turkish and Hindi. The soldiers who spoke these languages were recruited to the Mughal army and to communicate among themselves they used this new language, and thus Urdu was born. People holding this view cite the fact that ‘Urdu’ is a Turkish word and it literally means ‘lashkar’ or ‘army’ or ‘army camp’. Interestingly, there is hardly any language in the world that has not absorbed words from other languages.

How the question is: why is this theory of so-called camp language incorrect ?

Hafiz Mahmood Sherani and Shams-ur-Rahman Farooqi have described in detail that the word Urdu was in use much earlier than the Mughal period and it had carried different nuances through centuries. The word ‘Urdu’ was used for this language much later, in fact in the last quarter of the 18th century, and in the beginning the word ‘Urdu’ had quite different meanings. Also, the Urdu language has had many names before the present nomenclature came in vogue. Those who are convinced that Urdu was born in Shah Jahan’s era ignore the fact that the Mughal era began in 1526 after Babar’s success at Panipat while poets like Ameer Khusrau (died 1325) had been composing poetry in Urdu much earlier than that. Even in Babar’s writings one can find quite a few Urdu words. In other words, the Urdu language did exist before Shah Jahan and it was there even before the name Urdu was given to it.

Those who believe in the ‘lashkari zaban’ myth perhaps think that it is possible to form a new language by combining two or more languages. This is not the case. Max Muller, the renowned linguist, has given us two guiding principles in this regard: one, the classification of a language and its relationship with the other language is based on morphological and syntactical structures of that language and vocabulary has very little importance in this regard; two, it is totally wrong and misleading to believe that by combining two or more languages a new, third language can be formed. A language may get enriched and strengthened by obtaining nourishment from the dialects and languages spoken in its surrounding geographical territories, but it is impossible for a language to form a new language by inter-mingling with another one.

A language takes centuries, even more, to evolve. It is a slow, long, constant, complex and natural process. A language ‘invented’ to serve a specific purpose, such as enabling the troops to communicate with one another, is labelled as ‘artificial’ by linguists. Though there have been hundreds of such attempts, some aimed at facilitating international communication between nations and peoples speaking different languages, none has been successful. Esperanto, a language formed with the basic roots of some European languages, died despite its early success. In other words, experiments to devise a language have failed and no artificial language could survive. Urdu, like other languages of the world, has been classified by linguists on the basis of its morphological and syntactical features. Urdu nouns and adjective can have a variety of origins, such as Arabic, Persian, Turkish, Pushtu and even Portuguese, but ninety-nine per cent of Urdu verbs have their roots in Sanskrit/Prakrit. So it is an Indo-Aryan language which is a branch of Indo-Iranian family, which in turn is a branch of Indo-European family of languages. According to Dr Gian Chand Jain, Indo-Aryan languages had three phases of evolution beginning around 1,500 BC and passing through the stages of Vedic Sanskrit, classical Sanskrit and Pali. They developed into Prakrit and Apbhransh, which served as the basis for the formation of later local dialects.

Around 1,000 AD, the modern Indo-Aryan era began and with the arrival of Muslims Arabic, Persian and, to a lesser extent, Turkish vocabulary began assimilating into local dialects. One of those dialects later evolved further and became an early version of Urdu/Hindi. Now the only question remaining unanswered is which dialect or dialects developed further to become a language that was basically one and was later divided into two languages, Hindi and Urdu, on the basis of two different scripts.

Though there are a number of theories about the origin of Urdu (that is, aside from camp language theory) that say, for example, Urdu has its origin in Punjabi, or it was born in Deccan or in Sindh, few have stood up to research based on historical linguistics and comparative linguistic. Of the theories considered to be holding water, the most plausible seems to be the one that says Urdu developed from some dialects spoken in and around Delhi in the 11th and 12th centuries AD. These dialects include Brij Bhasha, Mewati, Khari Boli and Haryani, which, in turn had developed from Apbhransh. The name Apbhransh refers to a number of languages/dialects which were born from Prakrit languages. The question that still requires a precise answer is: from which Apbhransh did Urdu originate? Some linguists believe it was most probably an offshoot of Shourseni Prakrit, spoken in and around Mathura. Dr Gian Chand Jain says it was Khari Boli.

In brief, Urdu is much older than just a few hundred years and its roots go right back to Sanskrit. At least, it has been established beyond doubt that Urdu is not a camp language.

https://www.dawn.com/news/681263

Historical revisionism at work.
 
.
Urdu’s origin: it’s not a ‘camp language’

According to the popular myth, Urdu is a ‘camp language’ or ‘lashkari zaban’ because it originated in the army camps of the Mughals. The reasoning — if it can be called as such at all — behind the so-called theory is that Urdu is a mixture of words taken from different languages such as Arabic, Persian, Turkish and Hindi. The soldiers who spoke these languages were recruited to the Mughal army and to communicate among themselves they used this new language, and thus Urdu was born. People holding this view cite the fact that ‘Urdu’ is a Turkish word and it literally means ‘lashkar’ or ‘army’ or ‘army camp’. Interestingly, there is hardly any language in the world that has not absorbed words from other languages.

How the question is: why is this theory of so-called camp language incorrect ?

Hafiz Mahmood Sherani and Shams-ur-Rahman Farooqi have described in detail that the word Urdu was in use much earlier than the Mughal period and it had carried different nuances through centuries. The word ‘Urdu’ was used for this language much later, in fact in the last quarter of the 18th century, and in the beginning the word ‘Urdu’ had quite different meanings. Also, the Urdu language has had many names before the present nomenclature came in vogue. Those who are convinced that Urdu was born in Shah Jahan’s era ignore the fact that the Mughal era began in 1526 after Babar’s success at Panipat while poets like Ameer Khusrau (died 1325) had been composing poetry in Urdu much earlier than that. Even in Babar’s writings one can find quite a few Urdu words. In other words, the Urdu language did exist before Shah Jahan and it was there even before the name Urdu was given to it.

Those who believe in the ‘lashkari zaban’ myth perhaps think that it is possible to form a new language by combining two or more languages. This is not the case. Max Muller, the renowned linguist, has given us two guiding principles in this regard: one, the classification of a language and its relationship with the other language is based on morphological and syntactical structures of that language and vocabulary has very little importance in this regard; two, it is totally wrong and misleading to believe that by combining two or more languages a new, third language can be formed. A language may get enriched and strengthened by obtaining nourishment from the dialects and languages spoken in its surrounding geographical territories, but it is impossible for a language to form a new language by inter-mingling with another one.

A language takes centuries, even more, to evolve. It is a slow, long, constant, complex and natural process. A language ‘invented’ to serve a specific purpose, such as enabling the troops to communicate with one another, is labelled as ‘artificial’ by linguists. Though there have been hundreds of such attempts, some aimed at facilitating international communication between nations and peoples speaking different languages, none has been successful. Esperanto, a language formed with the basic roots of some European languages, died despite its early success. In other words, experiments to devise a language have failed and no artificial language could survive. Urdu, like other languages of the world, has been classified by linguists on the basis of its morphological and syntactical features. Urdu nouns and adjective can have a variety of origins, such as Arabic, Persian, Turkish, Pushtu and even Portuguese, but ninety-nine per cent of Urdu verbs have their roots in Sanskrit/Prakrit. So it is an Indo-Aryan language which is a branch of Indo-Iranian family, which in turn is a branch of Indo-European family of languages. According to Dr Gian Chand Jain, Indo-Aryan languages had three phases of evolution beginning around 1,500 BC and passing through the stages of Vedic Sanskrit, classical Sanskrit and Pali. They developed into Prakrit and Apbhransh, which served as the basis for the formation of later local dialects.

Around 1,000 AD, the modern Indo-Aryan era began and with the arrival of Muslims Arabic, Persian and, to a lesser extent, Turkish vocabulary began assimilating into local dialects. One of those dialects later evolved further and became an early version of Urdu/Hindi. Now the only question remaining unanswered is which dialect or dialects developed further to become a language that was basically one and was later divided into two languages, Hindi and Urdu, on the basis of two different scripts.

Though there are a number of theories about the origin of Urdu (that is, aside from camp language theory) that say, for example, Urdu has its origin in Punjabi, or it was born in Deccan or in Sindh, few have stood up to research based on historical linguistics and comparative linguistic. Of the theories considered to be holding water, the most plausible seems to be the one that says Urdu developed from some dialects spoken in and around Delhi in the 11th and 12th centuries AD. These dialects include Brij Bhasha, Mewati, Khari Boli and Haryani, which, in turn had developed from Apbhransh. The name Apbhransh refers to a number of languages/dialects which were born from Prakrit languages. The question that still requires a precise answer is: from which Apbhransh did Urdu originate? Some linguists believe it was most probably an offshoot of Shourseni Prakrit, spoken in and around Mathura. Dr Gian Chand Jain says it was Khari Boli.

In brief, Urdu is much older than just a few hundred years and its roots go right back to Sanskrit. At least, it has been established beyond doubt that Urdu is not a camp language.

https://www.dawn.com/news/681263
If it were not for the Central Asian invaders, there would be no Hindi, Urdu, or Hindustani, only north Indian languages such as Bhojpuri, Maithali, and Pahari.
 
.
If I make an exception and wholeheartedly admit that Urdu is an Indian Language, would all Gangadeshis then show some patriotism and start learning Urdu no matter how complex some of the words may seem.

Icing on the cake would be to accept this as a challenge and promise not to come back on PDF until the challenge is fulfilled.
 
.
Dakhini is spoken in the Deccan region of India. Just as Urdu developed in North India, Dakhini developed in Deccan plateau parallel to Urdu with Khari Boli. The term Dakhini is perhaps an umbrella for a group of dialects spoken by certain communities of Muslims in the Deccan region.

Dakhini was the lingua franca of the Muslims of Deccan, chiefly living in Hyderabad state (including the regions ceded to the British by Nizams), and the Mysore state, covering most of Deccan plateau and adjacent plains except for Moplah Muslims of Kerala and the Maricar, Rawthar and Lebbai Muslims in Tamil Nadu in the south, to the Beary Bhashe language and Konkani speaking Muslims along the western coast of Karnataka, Goa and Maharashtra. Though, a minor Segment of Kerala Muslims do speak the Dakhini dialect and identify themselves as Dakhini Muslims who follow Hanafi Fiqh (Hanafi School of Islamic Jurisprudence).

Dakhni for all practical purposes today is an oral language which is flexible enough to be visually represented by different scripts like Devanagari or Urdu or even Persian. Dakhini was widely spoken across the Deccan peninsula with subtle changes in the dialect as you go down south away from Hyderabad ending as a heavily Tamilized version around the middle of Tamil Nadu.

https://www.revolvy.com/page/Dakhini
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom