no i havent.
connection between persian and urdo is more of cultural and literiture issue, religion might also play some role, but other aspects are stronger.
Myths about Urdu
- Thread starter EjazR
- Start date
no i havent.
connection between persian and urdo is more of cultural and literiture issue, religion might also play some role, but other aspects are stronger.
LaBong
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2010
- Messages
- 8,506
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Do read, your missing valuable part of Urdu literature.
That's my point as well. Connection between Urdu and Persian is more cultural and literature issue, let's not make it a religious issue. Strive for purer Urdu shouldn't make Urdu a Persian language.
Not at all, they are 2 different languages and they got their status. Persian literature is very rich and famous and it has got some influences in Urdu,but that doesnt mean Urdu is any lesser than Farsi.
niaz
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 5,164
- Reaction score
- 211
- Country
- Location
I have. His 'Shatranj key Khilari' was made into a movie by Satyatji Ray. I have also read the famous 'Fassana e Azad' by Pundit Ratan Nath Sarshar (1845- 1903). Krishan Chander and Firaq Gorakhpuri are also my favourites.
niaz
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 5,164
- Reaction score
- 211
- Country
- Location
Sorry to disagree with you. As a Pakistani and proud of my knowledge of Urdu as well as Persian, I dont need Mr. Grahame Bailey to tell me about history of my national language. This also a scholarly forum and I urge honorable members to research a little deeper.
Urdu was a language grown thru mixture of the language of the Turkish/Persian speaking Muslim Soldiers and the common man. It is incorrect to consider Urdu as a language of the Muslims alone. There have been many non Muslim poets and prose writers. Even now only about 15-million people claim Urdu as their mother tongue in Pakistan against about 50-milion in India.
Urdu/Hindustani was no doubt understood in most parts of British India, but it was common mans language mostly in the large urban centers such as Delhi, Lahore, Lukhnow, Agra and Hyderabad, The 4 majority Muslim provinces (NWFP, Sind, and Punjab & Bengal) spoke different languages. Especially in many parts of Bengal, Urdu was hardly understood.
Urdu was not born in Lahore and also not in Lukhnow. Amir Khusro (1259 1325) who called the language Hindvi lived in Delhi. Probable birth place of Reikhtey, precursor of modern Urdu, was the Bahmini Deccan.
Sufi Khawaja Gesudaraz was possibly the first one to write Dakhni Urdu prose circa 1420. First acknowledged Urdu poet is suppose to be Wali Dakhni ( born in 1667 in Aurangabad) who arrived in Delhi in 1700 and started the tradition of Urdu ghazal. By 1884 Urdu had been declared official language of the Nizams Court replacing Persian.
Most early poets congregated at the Mughal Durbar in Delhi. With establishment of Awadhi Kingdom in 1819, the new Shahs invited a large number of the renowned artists to their court at Lukhnow deliberately to undermine Mughal durbar at Delhi. Delhi Urdu written in the Turkish Nistaaliq script was however considered high Urdu and was the language of Zoaq, Momen and Ghalib.
After the partition UP and Bihar govt popularized the Devanagri scrip for Urdu and Urdu written in the traditional Persian script became associated with the Muslims.
There is however little doubt that with the migration of large number of Urdu speaking intelligentsia to Pakistan and declaration of Urdu as our national language; majority of the post 1947 Urdu poetry and prose has originated in Pakistan. Our most celebrated Urdu modern poets/writers such as Manto, Faiz Ahmad Faiz, Hafeez Jallandhry, N M Rashid and Ahmad Faraaz were not born Urdu speakers.
Sorry to disagree with you. As a Pakistani and proud of my knowledge of Urdu as well as Persian, I don’t need Mr. Grahame Bailey to tell me about history of my national language. This also a scholarly forum and I urge honorable members to research a little deeper.
Urdu was a language grown thru mixture of the language of the Turkish/Persian speaking Muslim Soldiers and the common man. It is incorrect to consider Urdu as a language of the Muslims alone. There have been many non Muslim poets and prose writers. Even now only about 15-million people claim Urdu as their mother tongue in Pakistan against about 50-milion in India.
Indians confuse the histories of Hindi and Urdu. Let’s call the language that developed during Muslim rule over the Indian subcontinent “X”, not Hindi or Urdu.
Look at it from the script. Urdu is defined by its Nastaliq script, Hindi is defined by its original Sanskritized Devanagari script. The Nastaliq script for “X” is older than the Sanskritized/Hindi Devanagari script for “X” (not talking about the Sanskrit language). The reason why the Hindi-Urdu controversy took place in 1867 was because literary work in Nastaliq was being converted into Sankskritized Devanagari. Even till 1947, Nastaliq was more popular than Devanagari. Also, “X” had more Persian-Arabic derived & few Sanskrit derived words in it than present day Shudh Hindi does, & it was pretty much like present day Urdu (read Ghalib's poetry for example, a Hindi speaker can't understand it). That means that Urdu is older than Hindi by default. Urdu has always been Persianized, Hindi has never been Sanskritized until very recently.
While Sanskrit language written in the Sankrit Devanagari script for Holy Scriptures is older than both Urdu & Hindi, Urdu is older than Hindi. You are subscribing to your 'scholarly view' about the typical hogwash of Hindi-Urdu-Hindustani, I have given you enough proof from a historical point of view as to which Hindi and Urdu are different, and how Urdu is older. People underestimate the importance of the Nastaliq script: Nastaliq took all the alphabets that Persian didn't have in Arabic, and Arabic didn't have in Persian. Urdu in Nastaliq had a special meaning Muslims, because the Arabic script is the language of the Quran. Sankritized Devanagari has a special meaning to Hindus in terms of their religious scripture. However, Urdu in Nastaliq is older than Sankritized Devanagari for Hindi. The term 'Urdu' was coined much later, but that doesn't mean Urdu didn't exist till then. Urdu had a perfect blend of Arabic, Persian and Sanskrit words in it.
Urdu was a language grown thru mixture of the language of the Turkish/Persian speaking Muslim Soldiers and the common man. It is incorrect to consider Urdu as a language of the Muslims alone. There have been many non Muslim poets and prose writers. Even now only about 15-million people claim Urdu as their mother tongue in Pakistan against about 50-milion in India.
Indians confuse the histories of Hindi and Urdu. Let’s call the language that developed during Muslim rule over the Indian subcontinent “X”, not Hindi or Urdu.
Look at it from the script. Urdu is defined by its Nastaliq script, Hindi is defined by its original Sanskritized Devanagari script. The Nastaliq script for “X” is older than the Sanskritized/Hindi Devanagari script for “X” (not talking about the Sanskrit language). The reason why the Hindi-Urdu controversy took place in 1867 was because literary work in Nastaliq was being converted into Sankskritized Devanagari. Even till 1947, Nastaliq was more popular than Devanagari. Also, “X” had more Persian-Arabic derived & few Sanskrit derived words in it than present day Shudh Hindi does, & it was pretty much like present day Urdu (read Ghalib's poetry for example, a Hindi speaker can't understand it). That means that Urdu is older than Hindi by default. Urdu has always been Persianized, Hindi has never been Sanskritized until very recently.
While Sanskrit language written in the Sankrit Devanagari script for Holy Scriptures is older than both Urdu & Hindi, Urdu is older than Hindi. You are subscribing to your 'scholarly view' about the typical hogwash of Hindi-Urdu-Hindustani, I have given you enough proof from a historical point of view as to which Hindi and Urdu are different, and how Urdu is older. People underestimate the importance of the Nastaliq script: Nastaliq took all the alphabets that Persian didn't have in Arabic, and Arabic didn't have in Persian. Urdu in Nastaliq had a special meaning Muslims, because the Arabic script is the language of the Quran. Sankritized Devanagari has a special meaning to Hindus in terms of their religious scripture. However, Urdu in Nastaliq is older than Sankritized Devanagari for Hindi. The term 'Urdu' was coined much later, but that doesn't mean Urdu didn't exist till then. Urdu had a perfect blend of Arabic, Persian and Sanskrit words in it.
Last edited:
Urdu was not born in Lahore and also not in Lukhnow. Amir Khusro (1259 – 1325) who called the language ‘Hindvi’ lived in Delhi. Probable birth place of Reikhtey, precursor of modern Urdu, was the Bahmini Deccan
In historic perspective, the above theories regarding origin of Urdu language stand invalid. Moreover, Urdu had originated before the sway of Muslim rulers in Delhi. To the Delhi school of thought, Urdu originated in the camps and courts of Muslims in Delhi. However, we know that Persian-speaking Muslim troops were stationed in Lahore two hundred years before the accession of even the first Sultan, Kutb-ud-Din Aibak, to the throne of Delhi. Therefore, we surely can say that the origin of Urdu lies not in Delhi but in Lahore. It was at the later stage that the Muslims shifted from Lahore to Delhi where they improved upon their language very much.
A more logical and reasonable theory is presented by those who say that the origin of Urdu language is in Punjab. In 1928, Allama Akhtar Sheerani, in his book, ‘Punjab se Urdu’ says that Urdu originated in Punjab, and reached Deccan through Delhi. He says that during the Ghaznavi rule in Punjab, the Muslim scholars from different countries went there for preaching of Islam. Therefore, a new language emerged as a result of contact of Punjabi, Persian, Arabic, and Turkish languages. According to him, Urdu is very similar to Punjabi, hence it originated in Punjab. He supports his point with example of some poets of Ghaznavi rule in Punjab and refers to Masud Saad Salman Lahori who wrote poetry in that new language, then called Hindi.
A critic Muhammad Oufi writes about Masud Saad Salman Lahori in his Labab-ul-Abab, “He had three collections, one in Tabazi, one in Persian, and one in Hindvi”. This statement of Oufi confirms the existence of the Hindvi, adopted by the Ghaznavi-time Muslims. Amir Khusro confirms the statement of Oufi by mentioning Hindvi collection of Saud Salman Lahori in the preface to his own collection ‘Ghurrat-ul-Kamal’. With the change of capital of Delhi, the language shifted mainly to Delhi.
Actually, the formation of Urdu began as soon as the Ghaznavi forces settled in Lahore in 1027 A.D. Mehmood of Ghazni annexed Punjab in the same year and sent his Persian-speaking army of occupation to Lahore. These troops met in daily inter-course with the locals and naturally needed a common language. It had either to be Persian or the old Punjabi. As the locals were in huge number, therefore, the old Punjabi dominated the Persian language. For some time, the soldiers continued to speak Persian among themselves and the local language with the locals but subsequently Persian died out. For hundreds of years, after it had ceased to be the language of lay man, the court first in Lahore and later in Delhi had Persian in vogue. The invaders’ Persian contained a good many Arabic and Turkish words and many of them were absorbed by India.
Sultan Mohammad Ghori was a hereditary foe of Mehmood Ghaznavi. After having conquered Ghazni, the troops of Mohammad Ghori consolidated their position in Punjab and defeated the descendents of Mehmood Ghazanavi in 1187. Then Ghori’s troops under Kutb-ud-Din Aibak of Turkistan, swept on to Delhi. However, the hostile army of their Muslim opponents could not be left behind. The successors of Mehmood Ghanznavi joined Aibak’s troops, and the two armies jointly invaded Delhi. Kutb-ud-Din Aibak was servant of Mohammad Ghori and later on the Chief General. He captured Delhi in 1193 and after the death of his master in 1206, he took the title of first Sultan of Delhi. Some 200 years after the Muslims’ arrival in Delhi, there would have emerged a new language which we term as early Urdu. A large number of Sultan’s soldiers must have spoken, then, by preference, this new language and perhaps the remainder would have spoken Persian.
We can elaborate the origin of Urdu more clearly by comparing it to the history of English language. What happened to Urdu in Lahore and later in Delhi, resemble in many ways with the treatment that English received after the Norman Conquest in England. Before the Norman invasion, England was occupied by German tribes, Angles and Saxons. The Normans, with a French dialect, invaded the Anglo-Saxon-speaking country and declared French the court language. Although, they were the new rulers and masters, and influenced the local speech very much, yet within few centuries, their language was completely wiped out. Consequently, today England speaks English, of course, blended with French.
The only difference between the origin of Urdu and the origin of English, however, is that the changes produced in English by the French are greater than those produced in Hiindi and Punjabi by the Muslims. The incorporation and infusion of loan words is the only remarkable influence that Hindi and Punjabi languages received. Apart from this change, no other modification has occurred as regard to pronouns, verbs, numerals and grammatical system. The only change was that of vocabulary. Hence, the origin of Urdu corresponds to the origin of English save for the reason, as pointed out earlier, that the influence of French is the magnification of the influence of the Muslims.
The important fact is that Urdu began not in Delhi, but in Lahore and that it’s basis is old Punjabi, as it emerged from Prakrit stage, and not Khari Boli or Burj Bhasha as often stated. Of course, it was the later stage that the early Urdu was, to some extent altered by Khari a spoken around Delhi. Khari was not very different from the old Punjabi as much as the two languages differ from each other today. A new form of the same Khari is now employed in all Hindi called Khari Boli. However, there is no reason that Burj was ever the language of Delhi. Therefore, contrary to the claim of certain critics, we cannot say that Burj exercised any influence on Urdu.
Keeping this in mind, in a nutshell, we can say that the formation of Urdu began in 1027 in Lahore. The Lahore Urdu consisted of old Punjabi, mainly affected by Persian. Then came the second stage beginning in 1193 in Delhi. Here Lahore Urdu was over laid by old Khari, not very different from the old Punjabi, and was further influenced by Persian, ultimately becoming Delhi Urdu.
Origin of Urdu Language | The Pakistani Spectator
Niaz:
"Much has been written on the origin of Urdu. The word ‘urdu’ itself is Turkish and means ‘army’ or ‘camp’; our English ‘horde’ is said to be connected with it. The Muslim army stationed in Delhi from 1193 onwards was known as the Urdu or Urdu-i-Mu’alla the Exalted Army.
It is usually believed that while this army spoke Persian, the inhabitants of the city spoke the Braj dialect of Hindi. There is no reason however to think that Braj was ever the language of Delhi. The people of the capital spoke an early variety of that form of Hindi now known as Khari Boli, which is employed today in all Hindi prose and in most Hindi poetry. The idea that the army spoke Persian also requires reconsideration.
Mahmud of Ghazni annexed the Punjab in 1027 and settled his army of occupation in Lahore. The famous scholar, Alberuni of Khiva (973 1048) lived there for some time while he studied Sanskrit and prosecuted his researches into Hinduism. Mahmud’s descendants held the Punjab till 1187, when they were defeated by their hereditary foes under Muhammad Ghori who had already sacked Ghazni. The first sultan of Delhi was Qutb-ud-Din Aibak, a native of Turkistan, but a servant of Muhammad Ghori and afterwards his chief general.
He captured Delhi in 1193 and on the death of his master in 1206 took the title of Sultan. From that time foreign troops were quartered in the city, Urdu is always said to have arisen in Delhi, but we must remember that Persian-speaking soldiers entered the Punjab and began to live there, nearly 200 years before the first sultan sat on the throne of Delhi.
What is supposed to have happened in Delhi must, in fact, have taken place in Lahore centuries earlier. These troops lived in the Punjab; they doubtless inter-married with the people and within a few years of their arrival must have spoken the language of the country, modified of course by their own Persian mother tongue.
We can picture what happened. The soldiers and people met in daily intercourse and needed a common language. It had to be either Persian or Old Punjabi, and the people being in an enormous majority, their language established itself at the expense of the other.
For some time the soldiers continued to talk Persian among themselves and the local vernacular with the inhabitants of the country; but ultimately Persian died out, though it continued to be the language of the court, first in Lahore, and later in Delhi, for hundreds of years after it had ceased to be ordinarily spoken in the army.
In the Persian which the invaders used there were many Arabic and a few Turkish words; a large number of these were introduced into India.
What happened in Lahore and Delhi resembled in many points what was happening in England after the Norman conquest.
The Normans, speaking a dialect of French, came into an Anglo- Saxon-speaking country and made French the court language. Though they greatly influenced the speech of the conquered country, yet within three centuries they had lost their own language, and England today speaks English, blended, it is true, with French.
The changes produced in English by the coming of the Normans have probably been exaggerated, but in any case they were greater than those produced in Punjabi and Hindi by the Muslim army.
Apart from the incorporation of many loan words the influence was remarkably small. These languages remained practically unchanged in their pronouns, verbs, numerals and grammatical system. The chief change was in vocabulary. In all this English corresponds very closely to Urdu.
Muhammad Ghori seized the Punjab in 1187 and his troops under Qutb-ud-Din Aibak, after consolidating their position, swept on to Delhi, but they cannot have left a hostile Muslim army in the rear.
We may be certain that the descendants and successors of the original invaders joined them, and that the two armies marched together to Delhi, which was taken, as we have seen, six years later. When, 12 years later still, the new emperor was installed in Delhi, a large proportion of his soldiers must have spoken by preference a language very like what we think of as early Urdu (the remainder speaking Persian). The basis of that language was Punjabi as it emerged from the Prakrit stage, and it cannot have differed from the Khari of that time nearly as much as the two languages differ today.
The important fact is that Urdu really began not in Delhi but in Lahore, and that its underlying language was not Khari (much less Braj, as often stated), but old Punjabi. Later on this first form of Urdu was somewhat altered by Khari as spoken round Delhi, but we do not know that Braj exercised any influence at all.
The formation of Urdu began as soon as the Ghaznavi forces settled in Lahore, that is in 1027. At what time they gave up Persian and took to speaking Punjabi Urdu alone, we cannot tell, probably it was a matter of a very few years. 166 years later the joint Ghori and Ghaznavi troops entered Delhi. In a short time Urdu was probably their usual language of conversation.
We must therefore distinguish two stages: (1) beginning in 1027, Lahore-Urdu, consisting of old Punjabi overlaid by Persian; (2) beginning in 1193, Lahore-Urdu, overlaid by old Khari, not very different then from old Punjabi, and further influenced by Persian, the whole becoming Delhi-Urdu."
DAWN.COM | Books & Authors | How Urdu Began
Now, you are free to believe whatever you want. Personally, I don't care whether Urdu was born in Delhi or Lahore. But other people should have the patience to look at the evidence from other historians and linguists objectively rather than arrogantly and outrightly dismissing them, like you did with Mr T. Grahame Bailey. Btw, this book was written in 1932, when independence had not taken place, that too by a white British historian. I see no political motive for writing this book.
"Much has been written on the origin of Urdu. The word ‘urdu’ itself is Turkish and means ‘army’ or ‘camp’; our English ‘horde’ is said to be connected with it. The Muslim army stationed in Delhi from 1193 onwards was known as the Urdu or Urdu-i-Mu’alla the Exalted Army.
It is usually believed that while this army spoke Persian, the inhabitants of the city spoke the Braj dialect of Hindi. There is no reason however to think that Braj was ever the language of Delhi. The people of the capital spoke an early variety of that form of Hindi now known as Khari Boli, which is employed today in all Hindi prose and in most Hindi poetry. The idea that the army spoke Persian also requires reconsideration.
Mahmud of Ghazni annexed the Punjab in 1027 and settled his army of occupation in Lahore. The famous scholar, Alberuni of Khiva (973 1048) lived there for some time while he studied Sanskrit and prosecuted his researches into Hinduism. Mahmud’s descendants held the Punjab till 1187, when they were defeated by their hereditary foes under Muhammad Ghori who had already sacked Ghazni. The first sultan of Delhi was Qutb-ud-Din Aibak, a native of Turkistan, but a servant of Muhammad Ghori and afterwards his chief general.
He captured Delhi in 1193 and on the death of his master in 1206 took the title of Sultan. From that time foreign troops were quartered in the city, Urdu is always said to have arisen in Delhi, but we must remember that Persian-speaking soldiers entered the Punjab and began to live there, nearly 200 years before the first sultan sat on the throne of Delhi.
What is supposed to have happened in Delhi must, in fact, have taken place in Lahore centuries earlier. These troops lived in the Punjab; they doubtless inter-married with the people and within a few years of their arrival must have spoken the language of the country, modified of course by their own Persian mother tongue.
We can picture what happened. The soldiers and people met in daily intercourse and needed a common language. It had to be either Persian or Old Punjabi, and the people being in an enormous majority, their language established itself at the expense of the other.
For some time the soldiers continued to talk Persian among themselves and the local vernacular with the inhabitants of the country; but ultimately Persian died out, though it continued to be the language of the court, first in Lahore, and later in Delhi, for hundreds of years after it had ceased to be ordinarily spoken in the army.
In the Persian which the invaders used there were many Arabic and a few Turkish words; a large number of these were introduced into India.
What happened in Lahore and Delhi resembled in many points what was happening in England after the Norman conquest.
The Normans, speaking a dialect of French, came into an Anglo- Saxon-speaking country and made French the court language. Though they greatly influenced the speech of the conquered country, yet within three centuries they had lost their own language, and England today speaks English, blended, it is true, with French.
The changes produced in English by the coming of the Normans have probably been exaggerated, but in any case they were greater than those produced in Punjabi and Hindi by the Muslim army.
Apart from the incorporation of many loan words the influence was remarkably small. These languages remained practically unchanged in their pronouns, verbs, numerals and grammatical system. The chief change was in vocabulary. In all this English corresponds very closely to Urdu.
Muhammad Ghori seized the Punjab in 1187 and his troops under Qutb-ud-Din Aibak, after consolidating their position, swept on to Delhi, but they cannot have left a hostile Muslim army in the rear.
We may be certain that the descendants and successors of the original invaders joined them, and that the two armies marched together to Delhi, which was taken, as we have seen, six years later. When, 12 years later still, the new emperor was installed in Delhi, a large proportion of his soldiers must have spoken by preference a language very like what we think of as early Urdu (the remainder speaking Persian). The basis of that language was Punjabi as it emerged from the Prakrit stage, and it cannot have differed from the Khari of that time nearly as much as the two languages differ today.
The important fact is that Urdu really began not in Delhi but in Lahore, and that its underlying language was not Khari (much less Braj, as often stated), but old Punjabi. Later on this first form of Urdu was somewhat altered by Khari as spoken round Delhi, but we do not know that Braj exercised any influence at all.
The formation of Urdu began as soon as the Ghaznavi forces settled in Lahore, that is in 1027. At what time they gave up Persian and took to speaking Punjabi Urdu alone, we cannot tell, probably it was a matter of a very few years. 166 years later the joint Ghori and Ghaznavi troops entered Delhi. In a short time Urdu was probably their usual language of conversation.
We must therefore distinguish two stages: (1) beginning in 1027, Lahore-Urdu, consisting of old Punjabi overlaid by Persian; (2) beginning in 1193, Lahore-Urdu, overlaid by old Khari, not very different then from old Punjabi, and further influenced by Persian, the whole becoming Delhi-Urdu."
DAWN.COM | Books & Authors | How Urdu Began
Now, you are free to believe whatever you want. Personally, I don't care whether Urdu was born in Delhi or Lahore. But other people should have the patience to look at the evidence from other historians and linguists objectively rather than arrogantly and outrightly dismissing them, like you did with Mr T. Grahame Bailey. Btw, this book was written in 1932, when independence had not taken place, that too by a white British historian. I see no political motive for writing this book.
Our most celebrated Urdu modern poets/writers such as Manto, Faiz Ahmad Faiz, Hafeez Jallandhry, N M Rashid and Ahmad Faraaz were not born Urdu speakers
Why does it matter if they were not born Urdu speakers? Does it make their contribution to Urdu any less? No one is denying the role Lucknow and UP in general has played in the development of Urdu. But you shouldn't be insecure about the ethnicities of Urdu writers in Pakistan either.
Muhammad Iqbal, Faiz Ahmed Faiz, Majeed Amjad, Ahmad Nadeem Qasimi, Faraz, Nasim, Tilok Chand Mehroom, Noon Meem Rashid, Meeraji, Gul Khan Nasir, Zamir Jafri, Jagannath Azad, Aurangzeb Khan, Jalandhari were all Urdu poets born in the region now recognized as Pakistan. So the regions of Pakistan today have done their fair share of work for the development of Urdu, and denying their role shows some level of insecurity on your part.
I have always said that Lucknow has done a lot for the development of Urdu, but some work in Urdu poetry was also done in Pakistan as well. So, Urdu is not solely an Indian language, because Lahore played a huge part in its development as well. Even if I agree that Urdu was born in Delhi, it doesn't make Urdu an Indian language; just like Sikhism (the father of Sikhism) was born in Pakistan, but Sikhism isn't just a Pakistani religion. Your post reeks with insecurity unfortunately.
Why does it matter if they were not born Urdu speakers? Does it make their contribution to Urdu any less? No one is denying the role Lucknow and UP in general has played in the development of Urdu. But you shouldn't be insecure about the ethnicities of Urdu writers in Pakistan either.
Muhammad Iqbal, Faiz Ahmed Faiz, Majeed Amjad, Ahmad Nadeem Qasimi, Faraz, Nasim, Tilok Chand Mehroom, Noon Meem Rashid, Meeraji, Gul Khan Nasir, Zamir Jafri, Jagannath Azad, Aurangzeb Khan, Jalandhari were all Urdu poets born in the region now recognized as Pakistan. So the regions of Pakistan today have done their fair share of work for the development of Urdu, and denying their role shows some level of insecurity on your part.
I have always said that Lucknow has done a lot for the development of Urdu, but some work in Urdu poetry was also done in Pakistan as well. So, Urdu is not solely an Indian language, because Lahore played a huge part in its development as well. Even if I agree that Urdu was born in Delhi, it doesn't make Urdu an Indian language; just like Sikhism (the father of Sikhism) was born in Pakistan, but Sikhism isn't just a Pakistani religion. Your post reeks with insecurity unfortunately.
Last edited:
Desert Fox
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2010
- Messages
- 10,584
- Reaction score
- 30
- Country
- Location
the fact that you indians take Pakistani URDU songs and label them as "hindi" just show's how much indians dislike hindi!
Also, it looks like bollywood or should i say immoralwood has done a very good job by ruining the nice poetry by adding it in their immoral films! What a way to go
!And you mentioned somewhere that we should stop associating Urdu with religion but yet hindu political parties in india are against Urdu because it was the language the Mughals (who were Muslims) used in their courts and due to its Islamic origin!
Its a known fact that the english along with the bengalis and other groups of india tried their best to destroy Urdu literature and remove it from the indian society!
If anyone's painting Urdu with religion than its you indians!
keeping language aside, can't indians come up with their own songs rather than stealing poetry from a country that indians hate soo much?
Nalwa
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2010
- Messages
- 826
- Reaction score
- 0
the fact that you indians take Pakistani URDU songs and label them as "hindi" just show's how much indians dislike hindi!
Also, it looks like bollywood or should i say immoralwood has done a very good job by ruining the nice poetry by adding it in their immoral films! What a way to go
And you mentioned somewhere that we should stop associating Urdu with religion but yet hindu political parties in india are against Urdu because it was the language the Mughals (who were Muslims) used in their courts and due to its Islamic origin!
Its a known fact that the english along with the bengalis and other groups of india tried their best to destroy Urdu literature and remove it from the indian society!
If anyone's painting Urdu with religion than its you indians!
keeping language aside, can't indians come up with their own songs rather than stealing poetry from a country that indians hate soo much?
Rants and more rants....
Desert Fox
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2010
- Messages
- 10,584
- Reaction score
- 30
- Country
- Location
amigo
BANNED
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2010
- Messages
- 326
- Reaction score
- 0
the fact that you indians take Pakistani URDU songs and label them as "hindi" just show's how much indians dislike hindi!
Also, it looks like bollywood or should i say immoralwood has done a very good job by ruining the nice poetry by adding it in their immoral films! What a way to go
And you mentioned somewhere that we should stop associating Urdu with religion but yet hindu political parties in india are against Urdu because it was the language the Mughals (who were Muslims) used in their courts and due to its Islamic origin!
Its a known fact that the english along with the bengalis and other groups of india tried their best to destroy Urdu literature and remove it from the indian society!
If anyone's painting Urdu with religion than its you indians!
keeping language aside, can't indians come up with their own songs rather than stealing poetry from a country that indians hate soo much?
yes hindi is national lang. of india but generally ppl speak mix of hindi & urdu which is also known hindostani lang. & this is used in bollywood as well.
hindi can be indian lang. but urdu is common lang. of ind & pak.
& as far as copying is concerned, every country do that, i can post many videos here which were copied by pakistanis if i want to.
Frankenstein
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2010
- Messages
- 2,985
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
AFTER KASHMIR URDU IS BECOMING A HOT SUBJECT HERE 
Beacon
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2010
- Messages
- 69
- Reaction score
- 0
Amigo, Hindi is the official language of india and not the national language... and i agree that copying is a common trait among all film makers, be it pakistani or indian filmmakers...
Similar threads
- Article
