Sanskritization, de-Sanskritization and Colonial Rule

samar/rahul:

I am not sure what you guys mean when you say that Hindi and Urdu have different grammars. If both of them are successors to the same language, hindvi or whatever, than when did the grammar of the two diverge?

I can readily see if grammar includes phonetics. Yes, Urdu has sounds like Ph (phool) and Gh (ghazal) which cannot be reproduced in devnagri without some trickery, but if you mean more than that, I would appreciate some concrete examples.

Re: # 59, rahul_capri,

``To say that these two languages have same grammar is simplistic and wrong, I would even say criminal if you talk about poetry.``

This crime has been committed by many Urdu/Hindi scholars and linguists of the past and have been suitably punished (and are being punished even today) by forces of `officialdom, chauvinists and extremists`. (re: Aab-e-Hayat by Mohammad Husain Azad, the first critic of Urdu language)

While there is no problem in `agreeing to disagree` I wish to do the opposite i.e. quote a portion of poem by one of the greatest poet of Modern Hindi literature.

Bhool-ghalti/aaj baithi hai jirahbakhtar pahankar/takhta par dil ke/chamakte hain khade hathiyar uske door tat/aankhen chilkati hain nukeele tez patthar see/khadi hain sar jhukaye/sab kataren/bezuban bebas salam main...

As for what you said about Nida, `I agree to agree` with you. In fact I don`t know much Urdu so quoted names of some popular Urdu poets. But you can`t deny, Shahryar is one of the `real`poets of Urdu language.

#56, dost-mittar,

The article is a real eyeopener for primary school students who want to know the facts about of Urdu/Hindi divide.

Samar

dost-mittar-
``And that is precisely why officialdom, chauvinists and extremists on both sides want to deny the similarity of the commonly understood street language in north India and Pakistan and that this language — call it what you will — is closer to spoken Urdu in Pakistan than they wish to acknowledge.``
Even I am not denying this.Since my first post on this board ,I am specifically talking about urdu poetry .The whole point of my #52 was that due to Urdu not being taught in schools, Urdu literature is heading towards a slow but sure death.This is again , not a matter of script. Please read the article I posted in #54 .Urdu poetry has distinct characterstics to say Hindi poetry.It uses arabic words (which one can learn without education) , and arabic grammatical constructs (which one can not learn without formal education). To say that these two languages have same grammar is simplistic and wrong, I would even say criminal if you talk about poetry.
about the ``anomaly`` in samar1982`s #55, first of all I doubt people would understand Ghalib more than Tulsi, at least in UP. Tulsi is in course at different levels.Secondly,I am NOT talking about comprehension.I am talking about poets who can write like that.The modern Urdu poets from India like Nida Fazli(who writes pseudo profound bakwaas poetry like ``ab mai ration ki qataron me nazar aata hoon``) sound like lyricists of Hindi movies of today.

samar, rahul:

Here is a Pakistani`s take on the Urdu-Hindi topic, from today`s dawn.



The language of entertainment

By Dr Tariq Rahman


IN March 2007 I went to present a paper at a conference on Urdu at the University of Mumbai. I took this opportunity to interview script and dialogue writers, editors and directors about the language of Hindi films. Some Urdu literary figures like Quratul Ain Hyder have commented that Urdu has been hijacked and its name changed to Hindi in Bollywood.

Historians of the cinema have pointed out that beginning with the early success of ‘Alam Ara’, Urdu started dominating the cinema. A number of other films with Muslim dramatis personae and based on legends in the Islamic culture came to be made. The films were called Hindustani films, although, according to many people, this was actually Urdu.The British called it Hindustani and wrote it in both the Urdu and the Devanagari scripts. However, they used the Urdu script mostly. Though the censor board certified some films as being in Urdu, most considered to be in that language were given Hindi certificates. Even later, it was only rarely that a film got the Urdu certificate — Sohrab Moodi’s ‘Khoon Ka Khoon’ and ‘Pukar as well as Mahbub Khan’s ‘Al-Hilal’ and ‘Ailan’ did get it — but the language of the films which got Hindi certificates was also the same or, at least very similar.

Sometimes Urdu writers would maintain their script, and in their works the poems would appear in the form of the ghazal or rubai but these were are called Hindi ‘geet’ in the film. Famous singers such as Mukesh, Kishore, Rafi, Lata, Asha Bhosle, and Geeta Dutt did, and still do, reproduce flawless Urdu-Arabic sounds. The exceptions are singers and poets from Punjab who substitute ‘k’ for ‘q’ as, indeed, is the common practice in Pakistan.

My view is that the substitution of indigenous sounds for foreign (Arabic and Persian) ones is natural and one need not make so much fuss about it. However, the purists are always averse to such things and kick up a storm the moment one says anything as heterodox as that. The reason is that this particular pronunciation of Urdu, as well as its Persianised character, is an identity symbol of the ‘ashraf’ of north India which was mostly Muslim.

After the removal of Persian from its position of power by the British, this kind of Urdu became a social-class marker as well as a religious-identity marker of the ‘ashraf’ of this part of the world. That is why any infringement of the rules of pronunciation of Urdu is greeted with derision by the self-styled guardians of the language.

The idea that Bollywood films are all in Urdu and it is only for political reasons that they are said to be in Hindi is not entirely true as Javed Siddiqui, one of the great names of Bollywood, pointed out to me in a telephone interview. Hindi films are not all in the same language. They use different styles of speaking.

Some of them use Sanskritised Hindi in their titles, dialogues and even lyrics. Many use language appropriate for the occasion and the person. Thus, different characters draw upon different symbolic vocabularies — Muslims on Perso-Arabic ones in historical films and Hindus on Sanskritic ones — for distinctive authenticity.

Moreover, the argot of the Mumbai underworld — Bambaiya Hindi — is also used in some films as are dialects such as Bhojpuri. In short, only the language corresponding to Urdu, to the exclusion of other styles and varieties of the larger composite language Hindi-Urdu, are not used in Hindi films.

However, while the languages of Bollywood’s ‘Hindi’ movies is not always the language called ‘Urdu’ in Pakistan’s films, it is also true that it is not the Sanskritised Hindi of India’s officialdom. Thus, this language is closer to what used to be called Hindustani. In its commonly used form, it is almost identical to what Pakistanis call Urdu.

There are a few words which differ in Pakistani and Indian films. For instance, ‘vishwas/yaqeen’ are used in Bollywood whereas in Lollywood this is simply ‘yaqeen’. In the same way Bollywood uses ‘pariwar’ which in Lollywood is ‘khandaan’. These words are well-known, however, to film audiences on both sides of the border.

In general, notwithstanding some difficult Perso-Arabic words in Lollywood Urdu or Sanskritic ones in Bollywood Hindi, the language in general use is similar enough to be widely understood by audiences on both sides of the border. Thus those who celebrate the entertainment industry in South Asia including films, dramas, songs and jokes etc as the common linguistic legacy of the ancestor of Urdu and Hindi — call it by any name such as Hindustani, Hindi or Hindvi — have a point.

The name Urdu came to be used only in 1760 for this language but the names Rekhtah, Hindi, Hindvi, Dehlvi, Deccani and Gujri have been used ever since the 13th century if not earlier. Europeans had coined the names Indostan, Moors and the well-known Hindistani for it. But it is only the entertainment industry which uses this language, although, like everybody else, it calls it either Hindi or Urdu. It should be called Urdu-Hindi but that would not be politically correct.

The question as to why Bollywood chose a language, or a variety of a language, so close to what is called Urdu has been discussed by scholars. One of them, Mukul Kesavan of the Jamia Millia, argues that the roots of the Hindi cinema are in the Islamic culture of feudal, decadent, aristocratic Muslim centres of rule of which Lucknow is the best known archetype. The language of this culture, he argues, is Urdu.

Thus, Urdu, Awadh and the tawaif (courtesan) have been instrumental in shaping Hindi cinema as a whole and not just some “Muslim” component of it.

Others deny this. The people I interviewed, including such famous names as Javed Akhtar and Gulzar, said that it was Hindustani which was more easily understood than the other variants of this major language of north India. Javed Akhtar actually said it was Hindustani dipping towards the Urdu end of the language but Gulzar said this was easy Hindustani or folk Hindi.

Nadira Zaheer, wife of the famous Raj Babbar and daughter of the equally famous Sajjad Zaheer, told me she writes for the theatre in a language she calls Hindustani but which sounded mostly like Urdu to my ears. I was told that teachers are hired by actors to teach them the Urdu pronunciation. The biography of singers, such as Lata, also confirms this.

My own hypothesis is that the language of Bollywood dips towards the Urdu end, as does that of soap operas on TV and the street itself because this is the natural language of north Indian and Pakistani cities. It is popular because it is intelligible to more people than any other South Asian language and, therefore, it sells better than any other language.

The sellers of entertainment are aware of this and hence, wisely, do not get ensnared by ideology into using Sanskritised Hindi. Likewise, they do not use highly Persianised Urdu.

As it happens, ordinary Urdu spoken in Pakistani cities is very much like ordinary Hindi spoken in Indian cities. That is why the language of Bollywood is so close to the language of Lollywood. And that is precisely why officialdom, chauvinists and extremists on both sides want to deny the similarity of the commonly understood street language in north India and Pakistan and that this language — call it what you will — is closer to spoken Urdu in Pakistan than they wish to acknowledge.

samar1982, excellent, excellent post!

summer of 82,
``I think it makes little difference``
Poetry stretches the limit of what a language can do.And that ``small`` thing makes a WORLD of difference.We can agree to disagree.
Though your point about spoken Urdu/Hindi being ``almost`` similar is valid.

Re: # 54, rahul_capri,

See, languages basically are for communication and not for academic discussions which come much later. I have already gone through all this so there is no point in confronting it again on this board. My point is, whichever way you write, if the reader grasps it the purpose of language ends there. I have just to point out an anomaly. While Tulsidas, who is an Awadhi poet and is more difficult to understand, is taught and considered as Hindi poet, Ghalib and Mir, who are better understood throughout Hindi belt and in many parts of Punjab, Maharashtra and Gujrat, are not. My point is as simple as that. Academically too, Urdu and Hindi are considered direct heirs to Braj and Awadhi languages and for much of the earlier period treated as one and even called Hindvi, Rekhti, Hindustani. English, pursuing their own agenda, and their Indian associates, foolishly, broke this unity. Anyway, history can`t be altered but the fact remains that these are one and the same language written in two different scripts.

Don`t tell me about grammar being different in Urdu and Hindi. Many linguistics have proved it otherwise. As for, Sandhi/Samas in Hindi and something different construct in Urdu are concerned, I think it makes little difference. You can write Mughal-e-azam or Mughale azam and it does not matter much. Even many words in Hindi itself can be written in two/three ways. Ex: Sambandh.

Coincidentally, there is an article by Tariq Rahman in today`s Dawn which highlights my point further.

Samar

Re: # 53
Here is an article for you .http://www.urdustudies.com/pdf/11/19somenotes.pdf
You seem to contend that the only difference in Urdu/Hindi is of scripts. Well, of course both scripts can be used.Even Roman can be uised for both Hindi Urdu.But, in terms of literary tradition and many grammar constructs, these are 2 different languages.This difference is more marked in poetry than in prose. Consider this:Muktibodh/Nirala/Nagarjun/Dhoomil are Hindi poets.They would never have been considered Urdu poets even if they wrote in Nastalique(Urdu Script). Btw Gulzar also writes in Nastalique.
a small example -``Mughal-e-azam.``This is a way to construct compound words, or words from words.In Hindi there is sandhi and samaas,but it is different from the Urdu way of constructing compound words.
This difference of effect is very marked when u compare works of say Nida Fazli-Qateel Shifai, or Manzar Bhopali- amjad islam amjad etc.

Re: # 52, rahul_kapri,

You have given me an opportunity to say something on Urdu/Hindi divide. But, first I should give you a few names of modern Urdu poets. These are : Shahryar, Nida Fazli, Bashir Badr, Late Dushyant Kumar and many others. Now, the first three write in Saudi script and treated to be Urdu poets and the last one wrote in Hindi/Devnagari script and treated as Hindi poet. All the four are very popular and read in Hindi/Devnagari script at least 100 times more that what they are read in Saudi script. Here are few lines for you:

Saat samandar par se koi kare vyapar
Pahle bheje sarhaden fir bheje hathiyar (Nida Fazli)

Log tut jate hain aik ghar basane men
tum taras nahin khate bastiyan jalane men (Bashir Badr)

You can perhaps read more on aishaM’s i-log.

I wonder if insisting Saudi script for Urdu has saved Urdu language or it is safe in the hands of 40 crore Hindi speakers and readers.

Samar

Note: Saudi = Arabi

Re: # 49
samar, Do you know of any modern Urdu poet from India?

Shah2,

A very interesting note on Hindi Sanskritisation of Hindi :)

Twenty years ago, just getting a telephone connection involved a long wait, or having a family member who was entitled to a phone, or paying out a lot of money. Even, when one finally got the phone, one still felt trapped. Phones often did not work, and the phone company was usually unresponsive to complaints. Simply put, the ethos was one of shortage and limited access. This ethos was incompatible with the modern international ethos, where it was desirable to have all citizens ‘connected’; where having a phone could no longer be restricted to an elite.

The experience of buying a cell phone is disorienting: you buy the phone, get your number at the same time, and make your first call before even leaving the shop. Many new phone owners never even go through the experience of getting a landline: they simply go straight for a cell phone. Even children can have their own phones. The landline sector wasn’t reformed: it was transcended!

If we think of a pre-literate Indian dialect as analogous to not yet having a phone, then a standard regional Indian language would correspond to having a landline. Let us take the case of Hindi.

The history of modern Hindi is interesting. The modern ‘Shuddh Hindi’ of literacy did not simply grow smoothly out of the dialects of the Hindi heartland. According to Alok Rai, modern Shuddh Hindi, indeed, the choice of the Devanagari script, is the outcome of a power struggle in the mid-19th century between Brahmins and Kayasthas. Each group had its own writing system, Devanagari or Kaithi, and a number of schools teaching in that medium. By the time the Brahmins won out in the power struggle, English was already a language of importance to the top elite.

Shuddh Hindi did not come into being, according to Rai, to bring together the peoples of India equitably. The deliberate Sanskritization of Hindi was intended to block easy access to the semi-privileged community that ‘owned’ this language. Shuddh Hindi was actually constructed as a gatekeeper!

What has sustained the myth of the worthiness of Hindi as against English is the perception of Hindi as something local. Like the old land-line phone system, we had to believe in it, even though it was unable to connect us.

It appears to me that rootless (Hindoo) NRIs have developed this tendency of searching roots, reading old Hindoo scriptures, or when opportunity presents itself, discussing a bit of Hindoo rituals. In the process they have become more Hindoos than Indian Hindoos. I have heard that they even perform many old-fashioned ceremonies during marriages and offer Pooja to any damn Sadhu who come to screw them, really. I live and have traveled a lot in India and know how Hindoos take their religion. Left to themselves they don`t give a damn to their religion. Pujaris, Sadhus, Pundits are the most ridiculed lot in India. Sanskritization? What Sanskritization? They all love Urdu you know. Why should they read Arabic script. They read Urdu poetry in Hindi script, even in roman script. Poetry means Urdu Ghazals for them. Anybody heard reciting Nirala, Muktibodh or Pant? Do you know these are the biggest poets of Modern Hindi language. These Indian Hindoos all speak mixed languages. They don`t care which language they speak in the name of (Sanskritized/de-Sanskritized) Hindi. So, though the article has some substance surely, almost all the interacts are crap.

Samar

Re: # 39
>its ironic that Bengal itself has thaught to follow China over Moron Non bengali indians

It`s a big irony that the Marxist China is the most capitalist country in the world. With social security, medicare and medicaid USA is a socialist country in comparison. Let ``thinking Bengali`` have few more somersaults to land a mile behind, not forward.

Re: # 39
>WHAT BENGAL THINKS TO DAY INDIA THINKS TOMORROW

Whoever (most probably a British) said this probably meant: WHAT BENGAL THINKS In English TO DAY INDIA THINKS TOMORROW

So that Indian TOBACCO Industries get established and thrive, alien marxist idealogies are spread. Bengalies succumb to foreigners and their ideologies very easily.

At a risk of generalization, I would say they are similar to Malays. Compare Thailand/Vietnam and Indonesia/Malaysia, to understand what I am saying. Bengalies might be thinking more or arguing more. But this ``thinking`` is like planting apple tree on local banana tree or eagle wings on a chipmunk, so that few can sing ``Saala Main to Saab Bun Gaya, Saab banke Kaisa tan gaya, Ye suit mera dekho, Ye boot mera dekho.`` Bengal also has produced leaders such as Ram Krishna Paramhansa, Vivekananda and many more. But there ideas are more popular in Maharashtra, Gujarath and south India. Prabhupad is more popular outside Bengal. ``Thinking Bengal`` has per capita GDP close to Bihar.

Anyhow, all above is irrelevant to the topic of India becoming Bharat ie Sanskrutization of our motherland.

Naqshbandi
Re: # 29

Of course I have read Karen Armstron`s book. I think her understanding , explanation and interpretation is a bit stupid and does not rise above that of a coofee table book writer.

After reading all these books on Buddhism (as you claim!) and if you say `` Buddhism rose as a reaction to caste system..``. I wonder if you understood the intellectual background of Buddhism at all !!

Kamath