Sanskritization, de-Sanskritization and Colonial Rule

ssissu, how did you reach those conclusions?

Matter (bhoothasanghatham) can be understood in three modes, solid, lequid and gas. then interaction between them or reactive force and the space for that to happen. these are earth (solid), water (lequid), and gas (air). Reaction is fire and space is akasha. the pancha bhootha. Man also can be understood as bhootha diminent qualities,air (thought) oriented or brahmin, fire (action) oriented kshatriya, water or imotion oriented vayas and earth oriented sudras.thats how the classification came. what it is now is a distorted version as all classic sciences of great India is currently practiced!!

persians themselves did not use arabic script untill islam. they used some kinda aramic (pehlavi) etc..so sindhis or panjabis have unlikely to used shahmukhi.

123 # srk,

Though I am not sure if Sindhi ever had its own script. I am sure Kashmiri had its own script & that`s called Saraswat or something of that name. Now nobody knew it. Persian had replaced it.

Sindhi at some point in history in the ancient past wud have had its own script.

Nevertheless the north-west India (Sindh) had some historical evidence in the form of rock edicts of Asokan empire. The script found in that edict was Kharosti and that`s written from right to left i.e similar to Persian.

If Tibet with its natural barrier in the form of Himalayas had a script that is derived (sic) from Brahmi, I dont think why Sindhi had not one that`s not derived from Brahmi or a variant of that is written from left to right. In any case geographical proximity of Sindh to Persia and its infleunce thereof cant be ignored as Sindh was the extreme backyard of Indian mainland.

The sufi traditions point to the preponderence of Hindu religon and surnames point to the influence of Persian in Sindh. If Kutch and Thar desert was the buffer btw Sindh mainland India, the difficult Balochistan was the buffer btw Sindh and Persia.

Nevertheless, Sindhi MUST have had its own script which can be called its own which is not Indus script (cuniform) coz it`s totally pictographic.

Btw, Iravatham Mahadevan wrote a world-class masterpiec on Indus script.

Harimau,

Urdu came from the camps of the Moghuls apparently. It has become refined, and the Luknovi traditions are well and alive in Lucknow and Karachi. If you study Urdu literature from united India of the 30`s and 40`s (i think the most interesting times and literature) you will come across authors such as Munshi Prem Chand, Rajinder Singh Bedi and others, it was a language not defined by religion at all.

Regards Punjabi, the opposite has happened much of Punjabi in Pakistan has been Urdu-ised and in India it has been Hindi-ised. It is only in the country side you will hear a purer Punjabi, and it shares a lot in common with Sindhi and other local North Indian Languages. Due to all these languages beign North Indian, Urdu included, they do share some similar words but thats about all.

Urdu in Pakistan has not allowed words from Punjabi or Sindhi to enter into the Urdu lexicon, which would just enhance the language even more, instead of `destroying` it as you say.

Every language evolves, and for all our languages the next big influence is English, however, the sad part is that we are not Asianising the English we borrow instead using it directly into our languages making Urdu/Hindi/Punjabi/Any other language sound jaded and the English seems not to fit into it properly.

Srk

I will look into see what the script for Punjabi and Sindhi was before Perso-Arabic and Devanagri, tho i think it might be Devanagri as this is what is used for Sanskrit and probably what was used to write all languages of the area.

Ref ally #99

[#98

From the Redhouse Buyuk Elsozlugu

Ordu - Army
Orduevi - mil Officers Club
Ordugah - Military camp, military encampment

As far as i am aware Ordu is where the word Urdu originates from. In modern Turkish the language Urdu is known as Urduca.]

Thank you very much. In the movie ``Topkapi``, there is a scene where soldiers pour out of a compound signposted ``Ordu``. That is why I asked. ;)

To think that Urdu, a langauge primarily composed of words borrowed from several languages, is considered a literary language, when it evolved as a means of communications among disparate tribes! If Urdu is now considered a ``refined`` language, surely the credit goes for that goes to the natives of India. I believe Lucknawi Urdu is considered the best form of Urdu. I truly hope Pakistanis haven`t destroyed it by adding Punjabi words to it!

ally, I am Telugu speaking south Indian. Most of the south Indian language scripts seems to have evolved from the Brahmi script. If south Indian languages and scripts evolved from the areas of Indus civilization, i am sure Sindhi must have its own scipt, not sure what it is though.

have no idea srk, i know that Gurmukhi is only 400 odd years old and before then everything was written in Shamukhi... dont know what it was before then

what was the script used to write Punjabi and Sindhi before Md Bin Qasim showed up in Sind?

Re: # 94, ally Saheb,

Punjabi written in three different scripts is treated one language.

Sindhi is written in two script but is the same whether you read it in Nastaliq or in Devnagari.

There is one more example exclusively from India. Konkani too is written in Devnagari, Roman and Kannad and if you read it in any of them you are constitutionally recognized as reading Konkani language.

It is only with the language of the area endowed with `Ganga-Jamni tehzeeb` that you read Urdu in Nastaliq and Hindi in Devnagari even if you read exactly the same thing word by word. There must be something wrong with this tehzeeb itself and they must accept Punjabis and Sindhis as better tehzeebyafta who could easily resolve and reconcile similar problems logically and did not divide their own language.

Samar

#98

From the Redhouse Buyuk Elsozlugu

Ordu - Army
Orduevi - mil Officers Club
Ordugah - Military camp, military encampment

As far as i am aware Ordu is where the word Urdu originates from. In modern Turkish the language Urdu is known as Urduca.

Ref ally #92

[....Plus countless other words, open up any page in a Turkish dictionary and you are guaranteed to find so many words that you recognise and are used in Urdu today or have been used in the past. Open up a Persian dictionary and you will be even more amazed at the amount of words that are the same.]

Do you have a Turkish-English dictionary handy?

Can you look up the word `Urdu` in Turkish and tell us what it means?

I am being serious here.

``Elements of Persian grammar have been borrowed along with the vocabulary, and a knowledge of them is essential for reading literary Urdu, particularly poetry``
Exactly my point.One language two scripts? Yeah Right!

ally , thanks a lot. I owe you one.The paragraphs that you have so painstakingly reproduced,clears whatever little doubt I had in this issue(and hopefully it is as helpful to all those who read it)

Hey hey hey ally, every North Indian, not just among Muslims but also among the (unreal) Hindus (that`s a private joke) living there, knows his khatoon from his datoon. All mahilas and aurats are of course, always welcome, in addition.

Samar #87

What u say is right, In India many languages are written in Devanagri, and if one can read Hindi s/he can read many other languages like Nepali and Marathi. In Pakistan too it is the same, all our languages are written in the Perso Arabic script. Even those languages that have devanagri equivalents e.g. Punjabi and Sindhi. Punjabi is actually written in three scripts Shamukhi (Perso-Arabic, the original Punjabi script) Gurmukhi and devanagri, tho in Pakistan only Shahmukhi is used.

Jang

Those parts of Urdu grammar that come from Persian and Arabic are taught to us, if the teacher wants s/he will tell the student that they have come from Persian/Arabic etc. otherwise the student will assume them (quite rightly) just to be Urdu. which they have become now.

Rahul

You asked on UP for a good Urdu grammar book:

Urdu: An essential grammar by Ruth Laila Schmidt, Routledge

http://www.amazon.com/Urdu-Essential-Grammar-Routledge-Grammars/dp/0415163811/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-3084605-2125441?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177789048&sr=8-1

It has one chapter dedicated to Persian grammar in Urdu and one to Arabic grammar in Urdu, describing things such as the Izafat (increase, addition) e.g. Hukumet`e Pakistan, Jan`e man etc.

I quote from the book

`Urdu developed in close contact with Persian, which was the language of administration and education during the period of Muslim rule in India. Even after Urdu began to replace Persian as the language of poetry in the 18th centruy, Persian retained its official status for another century, and remained a rich source of literary vocabulary in Urdu. Elements of Persian grammar have been borrowed along with the vocabulary, and a knowledge of them is essential for reading literary Urdu, particularly poetry.`

From my personal experience this is true, when we did A level Urdu we had to read books like Taubat Unusoo and Umrao Jaan etc. We filled reems and reems of A4 paper with vocabulary that had almost all come from Persian and some from Turkish with of course the usual suspects from Arabic. Our teacher had a degree in Persian, and had been a broadcaster of news on Radio Pakistan. I would say to properly understand Urdu literature and especially poetry one should know at least the basics of the Persian language and its vocabulary, as unending amounts of it is used in Urdu.

Even my basic studies of Turkish have helped me understand soooooooo many Urdu words and where they come from, words like Ujret, i.e. Wages not much in use nowadays as people would just write tankhwa but used not long ago in the writings of Manto, Munshi Prem Chand and people of that time. Plus countless other words, open up any page in a Turkish dictionary and you are guaranteed to find so many words that you recognise and are used in Urdu today or have been used in the past. Open up a Persian dictionary and you will be even more amazed at the amount of words that are the same.

If i opened up a Hindi dictionary on the other hand (if i could read it) i would be utterly lost.

Quoting from the grammar book, the preface by Gopi Chand Narang

`Unlike Arabic and Persian, Urdu is an Indo-Aryan language akin to Hindi. Both Urdu and Hindi share the same Indic base, and at the phonological and grammatical level they are so close they appear to be one language, but at the lexical level they have borrowed so extensively from different sources (Urdu from Arabic and Persian, Hindi from Sanskrit) that in actual practice and usage each has developed into an independent language..... although the grammars of these laguages cover so much common ground, nevertheless in order to do justice to the differing sociolinguistic paradigms, seperate materials have to be developed for each of these languages, which taken together form the 4th largest speech community in the modern world.`

I remember seeing an interview of Imran Khan on Star News, the presenter asked him who he thought the most `sunder mahila` in Bharat was, he was confused and asked her to repeat the question when she did he asked her what a `mahila ` was, when she said aurat, he finally clicked and said `ah yani khatun!`. These kind of linguistic issues will continue to occur as we have more interaction, and eventually we in Pakistan will understand what a mahila is and you in India will understand what a khatun is!!!

#90 jang
Here is the answer to your question.

#9 by Aasif on April 28, 2007 8:41am PT
rahul:
as shobig wrote.. urdu is taught in the same manner. The rules or qua-ed take all the rules into account which are borrowed from other languages. Like fa-el , ma-fool (made famous by references to shoresahib on UP) ... zameer, issm etc..

since erudite folks are on this board, can anyone tell me how Urdu as a language is formally taught (e.g. Pakistanis would know this)? Hindi is taught with grammer...noun-verb-adjective etc, sandhi-samas, alankar..some examples of prose-poetry and so on. Can urdu be taught without learning some elements of Persian or Arabic as a basis?

Re: # 87,

A little correction :

`...At any book fair you will find large editions of all the major poets of (so called) Urdu IN DEVNAGARI SCRIPT and these are sold in lacs.

Re: # 84, Kaalchakra Saheb,

Thanks for very kind and affectionate words. You are Kaal so I`m not surprised you got me right. I have turned 25 this March and you can address me whatever you think fit for me. I will keep in mind your advices while interacting with Khamyji.

Regards

Samar

Re: # 83, khamy1,

Thank you for giving the name(s) of the script in which some write Urdu/Hindi in India. I knew Nastaliq for Arabic. Other two are good names too. A query: Why this script is called Shikasta? Is it because it is scribbled like torn apart letters?

Khamy Saheb, I am sorry for being sarcastic to you in my previous posts. My contention throughout the debate is that change in script does not change the language because grammar and other aspects remain unchanged. In 19th century some Hindoo revisionists started writing Urdu in Devnagari script and started substituting Sanskrit words for Persian/Arabic. Then they called it Hindi. Did language change? Muslims, in reaction to this, reciprocated with using more Persian/Arabic words. Did the language change? This process went on and even intensified throughout the freedom struggle and some years after partition too. What happened is that the people of India were completely illiterate during all those years and at the time of independence literacy was only 17% or so. So what these Hindoo/Muslim revisionists were doing could not affect the language as such and the masses carried on with whatever language they were using (i.e. Urdu/Hindi). I think you will appreciate that language is what people speak and what our poets and writers of that time did was to shy away from the people`s language by unknowingly or deliberately substituting words from alien languages such as Sanskrit and Persian. Around 60, at least in India this changed and Urdu/Hindi writers and poets started turning more and more to people for their vocabulary which got reflected in the poetry of various poets writing in Nastaliq and Devnagari. As the situation stands, majority is in favour of Devnagari so it will be used extensively and will ultimately become the only script for Urdu/Hindi. This we are already witnessing. At any book fair you will find large editions of all the major poets of (so called) Urdu and these are sold in lacs.

This is my little explanation on what I think on this matter. I don`t dare claim this explanation is complete or faultless. There are many other aspects which must be taken into account but the place and my knowledge do not permit me to explore more. I`m not against any script and those who want to write in Nastaliq must write in it but Urdu/Hindi will be better served if they write in the language of the people and that is what many of them have started to do.

At least after reading the above explanation you won`t regard me idiot enough to think Persian and Hindi as the same language(s). Also, you will, perhaps happily condone me without having to `explain` you ` Josh Saheb`s ghazal.

Regards,

Samar

kaal,
``The word `language` does not mean the same in the way you two use it.``
I have tried to explain.Maybe its still not clear.anyhow....
``What do you think we should or can do, other than people learning an additional script, nastaliq? ``
First step is to realize and accept the current position,regardless of what the history may be.
I think, there is some unconscious ideological commitment , which causes some of us to stick to this ``one language two scripts`` formula.I have no idea what it is.Perhaps it is the ethos of the ``Ganga Jamuni tehzeeb`` that some of us have.But it should be remembered that Ganga and Jamuna are two separate rivers.We can take the best from both, but they can(should) never be thought of as one river.
But anyway,I dont see any shortcuts.
I have tried to think on the lines of , if Hindi can be expanded to accomodate arabic/persian influence; but that is too tacky a solution and full of confusion.You can write hosh-o-hawas, but you cant use that construct with hindi words.It just wont feel right .
The only way to save Urdu is to recognize it as a separate language.
I am too lazy right now to think about how the social and political logistics of how such a realization can be brought about.What do you think?

dost , grammar is what you say, and what I say too.The reason why what I say I think is important, I have explained in other interacts.
jang , I am in awe of your felicity in using matrimonials as a general purpose crystal ball ;to analyse any and every social phenomenon. As for the other point, I am not really ``afraid``,but just resisting because it is not directly concerned with our current topic ,which is linguistics.
samar, ``OK! How dare you think after 60 years of independence genuine Urdu/Hindi poets could be counted on fingers? ``
Relax, bro.You are losing it now. ``Urdu/Hindi``, you said? When my whole point on this board is that its ``Urdu,Hindi`` not ``Urdu/Hindi``.and why did you weasel out of khamy1`s post? Dont you think you owe an answer to yourself, if not to anyone else? Finally, I genuinely appreciate your attempt to get to me.

samar1982

Two points for your consideration.

1. For some (possibly completely inexplicable) reason I have this image of you as a ``young kid`` (which to me means, someone 23-24 years of age). I might even have addressed you as such (only affectionately). If I was and am wrong, apologies.

2. Khamy1 is a wonderful person. In time you might get to like him as much many of us do. Of course, that doesn`t mean he won`t try to beat up on you when he feels like it. :)

You and rahul are conducting this debate at a very high level. It`s a joy to sit back and learn from you two knowledgeable folks. Thanks for some good reads.

Re: # 82

naskh, nastaliq or shikasta, take your pick...

Re: # 79, khamy1,

Yaar, as Kaal has addressed you in his first post you are a real `cheat`. First you wanted me to `explain` Josh Saheb`s poetry and now you want to extract from me all the knowledge about the intricacies of languages. It is beyond your capacity to pay for all this, my dear!

Yes, I do realize my mistake about the SAUDI script though. It has skipped my mind and still not coming. Could you tell me it`s correct name, please. Off course, if you could afford it free of charge.

Samar

rahul:

I wonder if we are talking semantics here. When I think of grammar, I generally think of the sentence structure, for example, placement of nouns, verbs, subjects, objects, etc. and not the difference between hindi maatras and Urdu zer/zabar etc.

Khammy:

It is a matter of spoken and literary languages. I think of Urdu and Hindi as a continuum, with a rich variety of vocabularies. On the one extreme is the Sanskrit vocabulary and the other extreme are Persian/Turkic/Arabic vocabularies. At the Sanskrit end of the literature, you get Hindi like Kamyani, which only those who have learned Hindi literature can fathom and at the other end, you get Urdu, like some Josh and Iqbal poems, which only those who learned Urdu literature can understand. Remember that even those who call themselves Hindi or Urdu speakers will not understand those literary works in their respective tongues. On the other hand, there is a huge big middle of the continuum where the two languages converge; you may call it the spoken middle.

rahul, samar

Perhaps you guys are speaking of different things. The word `language` does not mean the same in the way you two use it. :(


khamy1

Stop bullying samar :)

If he knows Persian (see, I am impressed!), he knows that there is no such thing as saudi script. He is making a `cultural` argument.

---

Rahul, it`s clear that you know this stuff. What do you think we should or can do, other than people learning an additional script, nastaliq?

Re: # 71
[As I know `Persian` I can very well `translate` this ghazal for you. ]

...thank you for being honest...may i then assume that if you did not know persian, you could not understand/explain this piece of poetry by shri josh?...are you going to tell us now that persian and hindi are the same language written differently? if that is your contention then your earlier comment about urdu script being saudi script which is really no script makes you an idiot, which you probably are...however, your being an idiot is based on my initial assumption, which may or may not be correct...so there....;)

#66 rahul dont be afraid to open the can of worms ;-)

i guess there is a hindi/urdu of 99% of the masses, then there is the khalis-zuban of the asharafiyas and shuddh-hindi for Bharat sarkar sevarth (even here the word sarkar is ``urdu``).

i did a little experiment by going on the matrimonial site of rediff and did a search for musslman rishtas and hindu rishtas. hindu rishtas has languages listed as telugu, rajasthani, haryanvi, panjabi, marathi, hindi and so on .. no urdu in sight. of 20 urdu rishtas from various areas, two listed as hindi (both from UP), 1 as bengali and the rest as urdu, and they were from vizag, pune, bangalore, rajasthan, chattisgarh, bangal and so on.

so, its clear, that in the least, hindus dont think they speak urdu and muslims, even from vizag and pune speak ahle-zuban.

Re: # 75, masanamuthu,

No problem! Every human being has been bastardized to the core. I can not use this word for languages though. Any language.

Samar

Re: # 72, rahul_capri,

We are communicating on different wavelengths. This is my last attempt to get to you.

What I am trying to make you understand is Urdu/Hindi poetry was/is safe in the hands of Muktibodhs, Raghuvir Sahais, Rahi Masoom Razas, Asad Zaidis, Devtales, Rajesh Joshis and many others plus some others who write this language in Saudi script. OK! How dare you think after 60 years of independence genuine Urdu/Hindi poets could be counted on fingers?

Samar

samar:

Hindi and Urdu are the same. Thinking about it, this looks like a good weapon in the hands of anti-Hindi-imposition folks. They could make use of the fact to get ``Hindu parties`` to support pure Hindu languages like Tamil, Kannada, Telugu etc.. against the bastardized Hindi.. I din`t mean to start a ``flame war``..

Re: # 73, masanamuthu,

I will tell you why! It was because what Indus aired in Urdu got communicated to you in Hindi!!

What is in a name yaar!!!

Samar

As a person who does not know much about Hindi / Urdu, I was watching a Pakistani (free preview channel, Indus I think..) . I could not figure out any difference between watching `Zee` and `Indus`.. They sound the same..

samar,
``They are all mixing up language with script, may be due to religious reasons. ``
yaar, when did i talk about script(or religion)? khair ...lets agree to disagree as we earlier did.Since kaalchakra understands what I am trying to say and what is at stake here...let me reply to him.
``Indian urdu poetry will be very different from Arabic/Persian poetry of the past.``
kaalchakra...My point is that Urdu has internalized these ``influences`` since it was born.These are innate. not acquired. These influences are in its dna; which the poetry of earliest Urdu poets like Ghalib,Mir would tell you. One fine day you decide this influence has to go.Fine..arrey bhai accept toh karo.!! Why this continued dishonesty of ``One language two scripts``? In fact you are allowing only that part of Urdu to flourish that is already common(intersects) with Hindi.So one day this dishonest statement of ``One language two scripts`` will be true in India,if it is not already.
``And he would draw more words and sensibilities from his connections to awadhi and brajbhasha than from Arabic and Persian languages and cultures. ``
That Indian has no other choice! He may want to write like Ghalib, Mir, Faiz but he does not have the ammo for it.He can try, but he will end up with a watered down version..and the sad part is..he would not even know why is that so..for he is been fed the mantra of one laguage two scripts for so long..he thinks he actually knows Urdu.Of course...some may be ndustrious enough to realize this and learn,but that is another thing.
``By the way I could figure out most of Sri malihabadi, although not all. Had we been up against something like kamayani, I would have been in worse trouble :( ``
now tell me, when you read kamayani.what is the problem? Only some words that you can go look up.You can actually write like that if you so desire.But this by Josh..you can understand...(and understanding is not a problem yet), but can you imagine yourself writing iike that?
So..lets not even talk about Urdu/Hindi/Hindu/Muslim/Nastalique/Devnagri for a while. Lets talk in terms of poets..The land which is the birthplace of poets like Mir,Ghalib, Josh ,Firaq, Majaz..will never have any other poet like them.Poets like them will be on the other side of the border, and the greatest of them all ..Faiz`s mother tongue is Punjabi.Ironical, isnt it?
But as Ghalib would have said..
GHalibe-KHasta ke bagair, konse kaam band haiN ? roi`ye zaar zaar kya, kiji`ye haaye haaye kyuN

Re: # 69, khamy1,

As I know `Persian` I can very well `translate` this ghazal for you. But I am not going to do that for free. Moreover, you have asked me to `explain`, which is not my forte, so excuse me.

#68 by Kaalchakra,

Well said Kaal saheb. They are all mixing up language with script, may be due to religious reasons. I have no problem with different scripts, even naming these language(s) differently don`t concern me. But insisting on these being different languages is harming majority of Urdu speakers and writers.

But I agree to disagree till the matter is not decided by the people.

Samar

Re: # 64, rahul_capri,

First of all I will tell you that I too read a lot of poetry. I really love poetry. In #55 I discussed Urdu/Hindi and the language divide caused, as many have agreed, by Hindoo/Muslim revivalism during 19th and 20th century and by officialdom and politics after partition. This encouraged even poets like Jayshankar Prasad, Pant, Nirala and others to write Sanskritized Hindi and many Urdu poets wrote Urdu loaded with Persian. After 47 this started to change gradually and many modern Hindi poets used peoples language, so to say. You can call it Urdu, you can call it Hindi. The poem I have quoted is by Muktibodh, a Maharashtrian by birth, writing poetry in Hindi/Devnagri script and you can see for yourself the language he has written in, Urdu or Hindi. That is why I don`t agree with you that Urdu is whithering away in India. I is safe in the hands of the people and many Hindi/Urdu poets who write in easy, accessible to all language. Apart from Muktibodh, Samsher, Dushyant, Raghuvir Sahay, Dhumil (and Nida, Badr and many others) have used this language. Now, at least you should not deny the benefit of common script, though I am not against different scripts at all. As for the Faiz and Josh or Prasad and Pant are concerned both are equally difficult to understand only due to their Sanscritized or Persianized Hindi/Urdu. You have to consult dictionaries to understand both.

#65, Also, combination of words is not at all a problem. Laparwah (or La-parwah), Nalayak, Beqasoor, Lawaris, Nabaligh are most common words of Hindi language and any substitutes for Sanscritized words for these have been resisted by common people and these words are still in vogue in Hindi. So overall, Urdu/Hindi language is safe in the hands of common people and what you are worried about is Saudi script, which in my opinion, will die of its natural death in India. I think we should bother ourselves for our language and not for a foreign script.

Samar

It should have been: ``He seems to know Urdu/Hindi language and literature MUCH better than I do.``

khamy1

You, cheat! :)

If someone picked any passage from, say, kamayani of Jaishankar Prasad, 90% of Hindi speakers couldn`t make head or tail of what on earth the poet was trying to say. So that proves little.

For a language that has been influenced by so many great cultural forces, over so long a period of time, we can only talk about a wide range, a continuum of expressions, vocabularies, and ideas. These stretch, naturally, from Arabian/Persian to indigenous and Sanskrit-based. The situation is almost identical to that in Hindustani classical music. Internally very very diverse, but not five different things.

Unless we argue that Urdu is basically and irreplaceably a Muslim language meant merely to express Islamic religious idiom (an argument made effectively by many), the Arabic/Persian component had to wither away after India became free. How could it be otherwise? But as a non-religious language of every day existence, of common secular discourse, it will bloom, taking on a more and more indigenous form. Poetry too will come, but in a new form: Indian urdu poetry will be very different from Arabic/Persian poetry of the past. An Indian might feel more at home writing about his girlfriend gayatri living in the gaon of gola gunj than about the ghilmans :). And he would draw more words and sensibilities from his connections to awadhi and brajbhasha than from Arabic and Persian languages and cultures.

Still, rahul may yet be right. He seems to know Urdu/Hindi language and literature better than I do.

By the way I could figure out most of Sri malihabadi, although not all. Had we been up against something like kamayani, I would have been in worse trouble :(

[Ditto! I said both are the same language(s) written in two different scripts.

Samar[- samer1982 #63.

...if you think they are the same language written differently then do me a favor and explain to us the meaning of this rare ghazal by a hindi poet shri josh malihabadi.


RizwaN ne sar-e-arsh ye di jaa ke duhaii
ay Khaliq-e-Israar-e-azal ramz-e-sarishti

jannat ki fizayeN haiN mukaddar kai din se
amada-e-ighlaam haiN hooroN se baheshti

ghilmanoN ke sifroN se lahoo behta hai paiham
kambakht ghisaRte haiN hareeri maiN voh khisti

kya kya maiN nasabnamay bataoon ke Khudawand
inn maiN koi rizvi, koi naqvi, koi chishti



Thanks in advance…;)

Re: # 62
jang, yes thats correct,Hindi and Urdu poetry both in tone and subject matter have been different.Going into its reasons is another can of worms, though.

Re: # 61
dost, i already gave one example --mughal-e-azam..How two words are combined to make a compound word..another type is hosh-o-hawas.In Hindi you have sandhi and samas.
Further in Urdu, you make antonyms by adding ``Na`` or ``Be`` or ``La`` .. Na-aashna , La-parwah , Be-Nazeer
In Hindi..you add ``a```` ..asambaddh , adharm ...
Can you say naadharm?or Besambaddh?
Someone who knows both these languages better can perhaps give more examples.

Re: # 60
samar, The reason why I earlier said..``agree to disagree``, because we were talking through each other. You showed no sign that you wanted to talk about poetry in #55. Though poetry, as I said, stretches language and the poetry of today defines the language of tomorrow I would even say that it is bigger than language..anyhow..this is a digression.
The poetry that you have quoted..is it by Dushyant Kumar? and yes, I agree Shaharyar is a genuine poet.I like Bashir Badr as well.But 4-5 big names to show for 60 years post independence(There are many others, not so popular)? are not these exceptions pointing towards the obvious that Urdu is slowly withering away in the land of its birth..?
I gave you an example of how compound words are formed using ``e`` and ``o``.Ghalibs poetry is full of it.Its not something new that has come up in Urdu .I guess this construct has come from arabic persian,which is only natural because Urdu has borrowed many words from these languages .Pick up anything written by Faiz. Someone brought up in Hindi can understand it,but never write like that. The converse is also true.Someone brought up in Urdu can not write something like ``Ram Ki Shaktipooja`` for instance.
Sometimes I feel that this ``One language two scripts`` notion is more ideological than technical.So it is very difficult to unlearn. anyway....

Re: # 61, dost-mittar,

Ditto! I said both are the same language(s) written in two different scripts.

Samar

#61 its very clear to me from content or subject matter (besides conjugation of adjectives) ...urdu poetry is about saki, maikhana, yearning etc couched in devition to god (lest the mullah gets upset). it tends to have most oblique references and celebrated sad ethos. hindi stuff is more direct, folksy, light-hearted and 50% of it being about khrishna and his gopis.

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

#26Lokesevak
``http://www.nada.kth.se/ins.proj.kth.se/projectindia2005/viveka.html
``China is manpower and India is brain power`` was intriguing.``

How many such rhetorics have there been in recent times not far ago it was said in india WHAT BENGAL THINKS TO DAY INDIA THINKS TOMORROW

its ironic that Bengal itself has thaught to follow China over Moron Non bengali indians

Pandeys are most likely Biharis......

What makes everyone assume that the author is a Bihari
whay not U.P.ite Bhaiya (derogritily on Chowk)
or for that matter just a psdeudonym

#35 Kaal

Say what you may, but Aparna summarizes text well.

She writes good summaries.

She avoids wasting time with inane interactions - which will only create unnecessary acrimony, after all.

She prefers to put that time to better use, like...

Like, like, like....

Like writing more good summaries! ;)

Beej, I had come back to really blast the author (may be, it`s a bad start of the day), but then I love two famous Biharis - Babu Rajendra Prasad and Hanuman Bhakt Beej Bihari. So, it`s ok. :)

DrSahib, thanks Sir.

#32
Kaal, keep your kool!

#31
kaal ji,
Writings of Kabir and Raidas for example. Sikhism was actually also extension of the bhakti lehar.

Maximum converts into Christianity and Islam also came from sudra varna.

Actually, drsahib, please ignore #31. Not that your opinions are not valuable (they are), but I will not interact on the board of a grad student whose writings are juvenile at best and who will not participate in discussions.

drlokraj jee

That`s an interesting mention of the writings of the bhakti tradition. Which specific ones do you have in mind regarding the official use of the caste system to control day-to-day running of the society?

---

Also, your lumping of the introduction and growth of Sikhism in India with those of Christianity and Islam, and then linking everything to one Indian factor is a piece of masterly theorizing. Hopefully all of us will get to learn more of the details from you over time.

I have not heard of the `flexibility` of caste system where people can move up the ladder. This phenonenon of `upward mobility` has been recognized part of class sysyem, but not the caste system and both these syatem of stratification are not synonymous.

Also, author says that the British made it official or were innovative in using caste system to control society, which again defies historical facts. Writings of the Bhakti tradition which started even before the mughals came to India, stand testamony to this fact. All newer religions in the subcontinent, including Christianity,Islam and Sikhism flourished mainly because people wanted to escape the system which made them second or even third class citizens and refused to give them even the basic rights.

Trying to displace blame for every ill of the hindustani society on to the colonial era is is either denial or just evil.

kamath,

first of all, have you actually READ Armstrong`s The Buddha? It is a very well researched book with extensive quotes from traditional Buddhist scripture. It certainly isn`t a coffee table book. In addition to her I have read many writers on buddhism including books by tibetan monks too.

According to some historians hindu caste system was one of the first racial apartheid and segregation systems, may be that explains why higher castes are usually lighter skin than lower castes.

Re: # 25

And he is allowed to practise in the USA. Such obvious mental disbalance.....

Before it was ``Sare Jahan Se Accha Hindostan Hamara,`` little alien darbari verbiage rooted in egoistic and mostly Urdu poetry’s obsessive pre-occupation with alcohol and women... a debauched side of middle being, then came language of lower being which demarcated Self in neat compartments but fails to capture relationships which drives the universe and the ``nothingness`` of the individual being ... this verbiage objectifies every thing. It changed Hindostan to object India. Now India will try to be Bharat, ie. one who lives (rrut) in knowledge (Bha). The ultimate knowledge of oneness of all. The higher being`s ultimate language is silence, but Sanskrut comes close because its association to codified revealed knowledge even in such mundane areas such as health (ayurved), civil eng (sthapatya) and even computing (ganit.) More and more westerners are learning Sanskrut. This time not for colonizing but to genuinely understand the sages. A visit to Rishikesh will give an idea.More than 3/4 of Sanskrut learners are westerners, whose main interest is Yoga and Ayurved.

Even western kids and educational institution are into it. One of the message at he top on this site
http://www.nada.kth.se/ins.proj.kth.se/projectindia2005/viveka.html
``China is manpower and India is brain power`` was intriguing.

On a Vedic quest






Dr. Dirghangi and his wife performing Agnihotram at his home in the U.S.

``I AM doing Agnihotram not for name or fame but because I love it. It is considered the mother of all Yagas. I believe in Srouta Yaga. I want to know how Agnihotram is performed in different parts of the country.`` Indeed it is the quest of a sincere Nityagnihotri. But he is neither a traditional scholar nor an academic researcher in Vedic rituals. This Agnihotri, Dr. Jayanta Kumar Dirghangi, is a certified medical practitioner of the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynaecology with many professional affiliations to his credit, practising at Memphis, Tennessee.

It needs tenacity of a different kind to juggle a demanding career and a religious rite like Agnihotram with its stringent regulations performed twice daily, day after day. It has become an all-consuming passion with this doctor ever since he set out on this journey to discover his roots over eight years ago. He returns to his motherland unfailingly every year to quench his thirst for knowledge of the age-old Vedic tradition.

Dr. Dirghangi developed an interest in Sanskrit, Vedic chanting and Srouta Karma at an early age and the late Prof. Gourinath Sastri encouraged him to study further. Amidst his hectic professional life in the U.S. he pursued these disciplines relentlessly till he was initiated into Agnihotram on May 1, 2000, according to Apastambha Srouta Sutra, Krishna Yajur Veda. A person, who wishes to perform Agnihotram and other Srouta rites must first acquire the sacrificial fire.

The rituals starting from Agnihotram should be performed with oblations to the three distinct altars having different fires namely, the Garhapatya, Aahavaniya and the Dakshina. The acquisition of these fires and instituting them in one`s house are done through a ritual called Adhana (Agnyadhana, Agnyadheya), during initiation.

Dr. Dirghangi received guidance from the 45th Azhagiya Singar of Ahobila Math and instruction from Sengalipuram Adhvarapathy Dikshitar and Therezhundur Anantanarayana Dikshitar. When a close friend introduced him to the veteran traditional scholar, Agnihotram Ramanuja Thathachariar, it opened up further vistas in his avocation and he mastered the intricacies of performing the ritual and learnt the meaning of the Mantras from him. He has travelled to remote villages seeking the help of masters of this practice, observing them perform, clarifying doubts and documenting the subtle differences among the different Srouta sutras like Apastambha, Asvalayana, Vaikhanasa, Manaba and so on.

He is learning the procedure according to the Rig, Sama and Atharvana Vedas though he follows the Yajur Veda. Back at home in Memphis he has an improvised smokeless Yagasala, where the sacrificial fire has to be maintained. The furnace had to be improvised to conform to the laws of the US where smoke in any form triggers an alarm. He felt the need for a handbook on Agnihotram explaining its performance, meaning and variations. So he has undertaken the task of compiling one himself. His trips to India are well planned. Dr. Dirghangi shared his experience during this trip with this writer. ``This time I visited Kerala to meet the Namboodiris. Through one of my patients I was introduced to an Agnihotrin at Thiruvananthapuram. The Namboodiris performed the Agni (Athirtha) Yaga, which is a little longer than the Somayaga, in 1975, and in 1995 at Panjal near Thrissur and Guruvayur, and he learnt about their history. As many as 64 Namboodiri families migrated from Gujarat long ago and of them 32 settled in the Tulu speaking region of Karnataka and the rest in Kerala. Some of these families continue to practise this rite. Each family becomes the high priest (Yajamana) of a particular Yaga. From Thiruvananthapuram I went to Thrissur as these Namboodiri families live around this place. I met Neelakantan Namboodiri, who is an authority on the Rig Veda, at Vattakulam. I spent a day with him and performed Agnihotram with him. From there I proceeded to Kouprra to meet Sankara Narayan Somayajipad who performs the Somayaga. Finally at Chembra, I had the opportunity of interacting with Ravi Akkithiripad who is the only one allowed to perform the Athiratha Yaga by hereditary right in Kerala, while in Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh others are permitted to.``

``I spend the best part of my visit every time with Thathachariar Swami who has been extremely generous in sharing his knowledge on the subject. I continue to learn the meaning of the Mantras from him as they have both a literary and a subtler meaning. I must share another experience with you. The earlier feature in this paper generated a lot of interest both in the US and in West Bengal. I keep getting calls from people evincing interest in Agnihotram. It gives me immense joy that I should be instrumental in reviving interest in the Vedic sacrifices. I have been invited to present a paper at the Asiatic Society and a lecture-demonstration on Agnihotram before the intelligentsia of Calcutta in this trip.`` Before you wonder where he will be venturing into next, he signs off saying, ``My dream is to become a Somayaji ultimately.``

SUDHAKSHINA RANGASWAMY



Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Re: # 6
Mian Naqshbandi :

Everybody knows Karen Armstrong is the darling of every Muslims nowadays along with Prof. Esposito etc. etc.

I think the former defrocked nun Karen Armstrong is essentially a `coffe table writer`. If you believe that is your limit to understand the depth of Buddhism, stick to her half baked ideas about Buddhism and read more on Quran. You might feel at ease.

Wa Salaam!

Kamath

naqshbandi#1:

I was surprised to read that post since you are generally well-informed.

``Excuse my ignorance but aren`t the Laws of Manu responsible? The British in fact were the ones who outlawed many of the more obscene aspects of the caste system.``

Believe me, most of us were completely innocence of any knowledge of Manu or his Samriti. The rumour has it that the British dug it from obscurity to find the basis for a Hindu personal law. Some of the more colourful quotes from that book were actually learnt by me only at chowk.

``Buddhism developed as a reaction to the caste sytem``

That`s a common misinformation. Buddhism developed because Budhha sought individual enlightenment, he was never concerned about the social stratification. Could you please give any quotations from Buddha where he speaks against the caste system per se?

nauman:
Urdu`s official status is quite assured and it is one of the sixteen national languages of India. Its downward spiral is due to the lack of its utility in economic pursuits. Most of the roads in Delhi, even the newer ones, have Urdu signs.

And works of Ghalib and other poets are freely available in Devnagri script on the footpaths of Delhi.

The article presents some well-known facts, which may nonetheless be not known to a large number of chowk readers. I am not sure if the process of desanskritisation has ended. I agree with Jang`s observations.

I think that a more interesting phenomenon has been the ``broadbanding`` of castes and subcastes in recent times. My mother could not have married outside a band of about twelve khatri subcastes. I could have been married to any khatri and, if bold, even Aroras. My younger brother could have married any khatri or arora. My nephews and nieces are marrying outside their castes and region and even religion. However, marriage with a dalit caste is still very very rare.

Re: # 6
Sonny read my reply. Your question is answered therein.

Karen Armstrong is in my opinion a vacillating twit.

the author refered to shivajis marathas who ``raised`` their caste from kunbis (kurmis or peasants) to kshatriya. indeed, his father was not considered kshatriya by his peers. one of shahjis wife came from Jadhav clan, claimant to the Yadav lineage of Deogiri..this was a forced marriage arranged by adhmednagar shah to contain infighting among his mansabdars. later, during shivajis time, not only the kurmis became khatriyas but two more mutton-eating castes, the kayasthas and the landed gauda-saraswats started doing the thread-ceremony to their children. (i dont think the gaudas of karnatak do this, only those from konkan do).

but sanskritization is definately still on in ``cultural`` behavior...just look at names of madrasis like Ramesh, Vijay etc. such names were unheard of fifty years back..i heard rumors that even bhindi bazar and kashmir kids want to be named ``Rohit`` and ``Neha``

I am afraid the only real point this article makes is that the caste-system was flexible in olden times but has become rigid in the modern times. However, this is a dangerous generalisation that the author has attempted. The title of the article is misleading and has no real relevance to the author`s main thesis.

I may remark that ``Sanskritisation` and `de-Sanskritisation` were real historical developments in the evolution of South Indian languages. (The author may not know it). In the first millennium, Sanskrit words sneaked into the pristine Tamil language over centuries and that kind of process later on happened in respect of Malayalam, Kannada etc. At one point of time, more than a thousand years ago, a sort of compromised Tamil language was used called MANIPRAVALAM (meaning mani, pearl, that is sanskrit, conjoined with pravalam, namely coral, standing for pure Tamil). The dravidian movements in Tamil Nadu in the last century aimed at de-sanskritization of Tamil which had many sanskrit-derived words. The author`s title to the article, in the light of such facts, is hopelessly misleading. In fact castes have nothing to do with sanskrit as such, barring the religious texts as a whole where the brahmin alone would have been relevant.

V.S.Gopalakrishnan <