Myths about Urdu

[EjazR]

Sorry Bilal,

But can you explain why Amir Khusrau called his lanauge Hindavi? Why not Urdu? Afterall he was of Persian origing, even though he had settled in UP.

And persian invaders is quite different from muslims invaders. I have given you the example of the first muslims who came to the subcontinent in the south and speak Malayalam even though they had Arabic script to represent Malayalam. You have to be specific by mentioning persians or persian speakers. Besides, not just invaders but migrants,traders and so on made the bulk of the people who interacted with the locals.

What I am trying to say is that Hindi/Urdu have the same origin. If someone says that the language was initially "sanskritised Hindi" and persian loan words resulted in Urdu, that is wrong. Similarly if someone says that it was initally "Persianised Urdu" and whenthe persian loan words were removed and sanskrit words added it became Hindi, that is wrong as well.

The sharp division was not made until the late 18th century. Script was used only by those who were literate and the percentage of the population that was literate was under 5%. So the "script" hardly mattered except to the politcal elite.

 

[Rig Vedic]

I think you are confusing a lot of things I have mentioned before. I am not saying Urdu is a Pakistani language, so that whole argument of yours is moot.

I am saying that it is the language of the Muslims because Persian (Muslim) invaders came into Delhi via Lahore. Urdu developed when the Persian soldiers interacted with the locals of the region. We know a lot of languages are older than Urdu: for example: Punjabi, Saraiki, Sanskrit etc are undoubtedly all older than Urdu. However, what you have failed to provide (except the regular hogwash) is any solid evidence as to what historical context a separate language called Hindi (which sounded very similar to Urdu) developed during the same period. I have given you a logical explanation on how Urdu was born and developed during that time, which makes sense in a historical context. You have provided me no such thing. Of course, Persian remained the language of the courts for sometime, but Urdu was developing alongside it with full force, and eventually it displaced Persian as the language of the courts.

You can call Urdu 'Hindi' or 'Hindvi', but the language spoken at that time has strong resemblances with the Urdu of today, not really with the Hindi today. I never said Urdu is a Pakistani language: Pakistan after 1947 adopted it as its national language for the first time. However, this is a discussion about Urdu and Hindi, not Pakistan and India, so please don't mix up different issues. Urdu may have been born in either Lahore or Delhi, I don't care, but what we do know is that majority of its development took place in (Lucknow) UP and Hyderabad, so of course, India has played a most telling part in the development of Urdu, there is no denying those facts.

If you read poetry from Khusro to Mir Taqi Mir, Ghalib to Bahadur Shah Zafar, Shibli Nomani to Muhammad Iqbal and Josh Mallihabadi. You will find strong influences of Persian and Arabic words in them. I will say it again: Urdu has always been Persianized, Hindi has never been Sanksritized. These were all Urdu poets that India claims were Hindi poets unfortunately. The fact is, Hindi has no INDEPENDENT history itself in terms of literary work, once you establish that the Urdu of today has all the historical links to the language spoken at that time.

I would suppose that the Central Asian invaders initially referred to all Prakrit variants (which include Punjabi, Khadi Boli etc) as Hindi or Hindavi. The insertion of Arabic and Persian words must have happened in Punjab as well as in the UP area.

Modern Hindi is basically the same as Khadi Boli, but the label "Hindi" was undoubtedly given only after the invasions.

 

[53fd]

But can you explain why Amir Khusrau called his lanauge Hindavi? Why not Urdu? Afterall he was of Persian origing, even though he had settled in UP.

I've been repeating this again and again, but I'll try it one last time. The term 'Urdu' was coined to create a sharp divide between the Indian Muslims and Hindus. Just as the Sanskritized Devanagari script was incorporated for the literary works in Nastaliq. I'm just saying, an Urdu speaker with little knowledge of basic Arabic/Persian terms of regular Urdu understands the poetry of Khusro and the other poets far better than a regular Hindi speaker today. To make a fair assessment of the language used at that time, forget the term used for the name of that language. Read the literary works of those times themselves, and you will see they were an amalgamation of Persian/Arabic terms with basic Sanskrit derived terms, far closer to the Urdu today as compared to the Hindi of today.

You are saying that Hindi/Urdu have the same origin, but I have given you the historical context of the birth and development of Urdu. There is no such historical context for the birth of a separate language called Hindi (which was similar to Urdu, but a different language nevertheless), especially the Hindi we know today.

Malayalam is an older language than Urdu, just as many local languages were. I do not know the language Malayalam, I have never read any literary works in Malayalam, I do not know the history behind those Muslims who went to the South. So I cannot comment on Malayalam or South India. My mother's side is from Ranchi, my father was born and his family side is from Patna, I have extended family in Lucknow as well; and I still have family in those 3 cities, I've met my relatives there, I'm more well read about and connected to UP and Bihar, so I can give a better judgment about those regions as compared to South India that I have no connection to.

 

[Rig Vedic]

Bilal,

Hindi is just as old as Punjabi ... but in the pre-Islamic invasions era it used to be called Khadi Boli (खडी बोल&#2368.

Punjabi, Sindhi, Khadi Boli, Nepali, even Assamese are all variants of Prakrit, and are direct descendants of Sanskrit.

Consider some of the common words -

Neend (sleep) comes from Sanskrit Nidra
Machhli (fish) comes form Sanskrit Matsya
Aankh (eye) comes from Sanskrit Aksha
Khet (field) comes from Sanskrit Kshetra
Kaan (ear) comes from Sanskrit Karna

You will appreciate that these common words were not introduced by artificial Sanskritization. Rather, they have been in Khadi Boli from the beginning.

 

[53fd]

Hindi is just as old as Punjabi ... but in the pre-Islamic invasions era it used to be called Khadi Boli (खडी बोल&#2368. I would suppose that the Central Asian invaders initially referred to all Prakrit variants (which include Punjabi, Khadi Boli etc) as Hindi or Hindavi. The insertion of Arabic and Persian words must have happened in Punjab as well as in the UP area.

Khariboli has four standardized registers: Standard Hindi, Urdu, Dakhini and Rekhta. So Urdu is 'as much Khariboli' as Hindi is. The notion that Hindi is Khariboli, and the Persianization of Khariboli/Hindi made Urdu is unfounded, preposterous and inflammatory. I can attest that the words you have used above are all used in common Urdu as well.

The earliest examples of Khariboli can be seen in some of Kabir and Amir Khusro's lines. In 1800, the British East India Company established a college of higher education at Calcutta named the Fort William College. John Borthwick Gilchrist, a president of that college, encouraged his professors to write in their native tongue; some of the works thus produced were in the Khariboli dialect. These books included Premsagar (Prem Sagur) by Lallu Lal[3], Naasiketopaakhyan by Sadal Mishra; Sukhsagar by Sadasukhlal of Delhi and Rani Ketaki ki kahani by Munshi Inshallah Khan. More developed forms of Khariboli can also be seen in some mediocre literature produced in early 18th century. Examples are Chand Chhand Varnan Ki Mahima by Gangabhatt, Yogavashishtha by Ramprasad Niranjani, Gora-Badal ki katha by Jatmal, Mandovar ka varnan by Anonymous, a translation of Ravishenacharya's Jain Padmapuran by Daulatram (dated 1824).
Earlier, the Khari-boli was regarded as a mixed brogue unworthy of being used in literature. However, under government patronage, it flourished, even as older and previously more literary tongues such as Brij Bhasha, Maithili and Avadhi declined to virtual non-existence as literary vehicles. Notable writers such as Munshi Premchand had started using Khariboli as the preferred language by the early 20th century.

I regret using this link as a source of 'information', but please make an exception:

Khariboli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is no evidence to suggest that Khariboli existed before the Muslim invasion of the Indian subcontinent. I'm even talking about 'a stage' before Khusro started his writings in our discussions, forget even starting from Khusro. We are talking about a few hundred years before Khusro started his writings.

 

[53fd]

Rig Vedic:

Khariboli is similar to colloquial 'Hindustani' today. Meaning besides having Sanskrit derived words, it has a huge collection of Arabic/Persian derived words as well. Now logically speaking, can you explain to me how Khariboli existed before the Muslim Persian invasion of the Indian subcontinent? How would Khariboli get Arabic/Persian derived vocabulary when there was no Persian invasion, and no interaction of the Persians with the locals? The language that existed before the invasion of the Indian subcontinent was Sanskrit, not Khariboli.

 

[Rig Vedic]

Khariboli has four standardized registers: Standard Hindi, Urdu, Dakhini and Rekhta. So Urdu is 'as much Khariboli' as Hindi is. The notion that Hindi is Khariboli, and the Persianization of Khariboli/Hindi made Urdu is unfounded, preposterous and inflammatory. I can attest that the words you have used above are all used in common Urdu as well.
...

There is no evidence to suggest that Khariboli existed before the Muslim invasion of the Indian subcontinent. I'm even talking about 'a stage' before Khusro started his writings in our discussions, forget even starting from Khusro. We are talking about a few hundred years before Khusro started his writings.

I don't see why you should find it inflammatory?! Obviously, the people of western UP had their language before the Islamic invasions, just as the people of Punjab, Bengal, Assam and Maharashtra did. That languange is what is being referred to as Khadi Boli. It is one of the variants of Prakrit.

It's no surprise that the Sanskrit origin words I cited are in Urdu as well. Urdu did not replace all the words in Khadi Boli with Persian / Arabic ones. In particular, almost 100% of the verbs in Urdu are of Sanskrit origin, and verbs are said to be the foundation of a language.

For information about the evolution Hindi / Khadi Boli, since the pre-Islamic era, see http://charm.cs.uiuc.edu/~bhatele/hindi/devel.htm . (Obviously there will be changes over time, just as Shakespearan English is different from modern English.)

 

[53fd]

Rig Vedic:

You're not addressing my point that it is not possible for Khariboli to have existed before the Muslim invasion of the Indian subcontinent. The earliest examples of Khariboli encountered are during Khusro's time in the 13th century, I'm talking about more than 200 years ago when the Muslims first came to the Indian subcontinent. Please address the points in my last 2 posts.

 

[LEGENDARY WARRIOR]

Those members who are trying to claim that Urdu belongs to India must remember that it was the Hindus of united India who started the Urdu-Hindi controversy in 1867.

It is more associated with Arabic than any other language.

 

[Rig Vedic]

Rig Vedic:

Khariboli is similar to colloquial 'Hindustani' today. Meaning besides having Sanskrit derived words, it has a huge collection of Arabic/Persian derived words as well. Now logically speaking, can you explain to me how Khariboli existed before the Muslim Persian invasion of the Indian subcontinent? How would Khariboli get Arabic/Persian derived vocabulary when there was no Persian invasion, and no interaction of the Persians with the locals? The language that existed before the invasion of the Indian subcontinent was Sanskrit, not Khariboli.

In the pre-Islamic era, Sanskrit was the language of science, philosophy and literature. But for everyday use, there were variants of Prakrit like Bengali, Marathi, Punjabi etc. These languages obviously did not have any Persian/Arabic words prior to the Islamic invasions. Khadi Boli was one of these variants of Prakrit, along with others like Maithili and Braj Bhasha. Some people prefer to call it "Old Hindi" or "Apabhramsha".

 

[amigo]

Those members who are trying to claim that Urdu belongs to India must remember that it was the Hindus of united India who started the Urdu-Hindi controversy in 1867.

It is more associated with Arabic than any other language.

oh really, so how many in pakistan can understand arabic??????

 

[LEGENDARY WARRIOR]

Sorry Bilal,

But can you explain why Amir Khusrau called his lanauge Hindavi? Why not Urdu? Afterall he was of Persian origing, even though he had settled in UP.

I think he explains that very well. As you have already mentioned that Urdu was known by different names, so people at that time could use any name for it. Amir Khusru probably used this because he might have thought that it suites with the culture and country name, and promotes unity. .

 

[53fd]

For information about the evolution Hindi / Khadi Boli, since the pre-Islamic era, see http://charm.cs.uiuc.edu/~bhatele/hindi/devel.htm . (Obviously there will be changes over time, just as Shakespearan English is different from modern English.)

This is not Khariboli, this is Sanskrit. This is definitely not Khariboli, Khariboli is today's colloquial Hindustani, and this is not colloquial Hindustani.

 

[LEGENDARY WARRIOR]

oh really, so how many in pakistan can understand arabic??????

if you are talking about learning full Arabic then I would say that there are many few people who know all of it, but I have been to an institution where they teach arabic and the teacher explained me that about 90% of Urdu is from arabic. . .

 

[Rig Vedic]

This is not Khariboli, this is Sanskrit. This is definitely not Khariboli, Khariboli is today's colloquial Hindustani, and this is not colloquial Hindustani.

I am using the term Khadi Boli to refer to the variant of Prakrit prevalent in the western UP area before the Islamic invasions. A few minutes with google shows that different scholars prefer to refer to it by different names, including "Apabhramsha" and "Old Hindi".