Linguistic Imperialism

Zia,
I too am baffled by this incessant Arabisation. Intentionally or not, the perpetrators come off as annoying, smug little holier than thou types whom I want to beat with a pointy umbrella.
Unfortunately it is an unavoidable fact that languages do evolve, taking in various influences from here and there. I am already at my wit`s end with my students who have resorted to using `dat` and `da` instead of `that` and `the` in their RESEARCH PAPERS. But I will fight this dumbing down, if I have to shove a whole set of the complete Oxford English Dictionary down their ingrate little throats, by God I will.
Meanwhile, have a good RamZan.

So your language is under attack?

What language? You mean the one that you speak from your mouth?

Don’t worry – it will never happen – no need to worry – utter mutes are unable to speak! They express themselves amply through other means!

Like rapes.

And lies.

And cheatings.

And denials.

And killings.

And lies.

And cheatings.

And denials.

And braggadocio.

And lies.

And cheatings.

And denials.

And boot-licking.

And lies.

And cheatings.

And denials.

And slurping fauzi urine.

And lies.

And cheatings.

And denials.

An extremely resourceful crowd, this one – it has never been lacking in so many alternate resources.

And judging by the guts of THIS crowd – it never shall cease to speak its TRUE language – the unspoken language – the language of utter submission down to the deepest depths of degradation – for it will never have the balls to speak the only language that survives all time – the language of truth!

Enjoy your chat!

Whether people here wish to admit it or not... neither the Persianisation, nor Arabisation or even Turkification of the Urdu language is as focused and charged as the Sanskritisation of the Hindi Language...

Quite the contrary... if there is an equivalent in the Urdu language... it is the anglicisation which unlike Sanskritisation is not ideologically motivated...

Secondly.... there is as much a trend of Hindi-nisation of Urdu as there is Arabisation... for example... recent additions to Urdu that on finds amongst the ``ahle-Zaban`` in Karachi:

Shooraaat instead of Aghaz
asherwat
vishwas
Mata pita
Ki instead of kay
Pardhan Mantri
Agiya
Aatma

... Culprit no 1: Kyunki Saas bhee kabhee bahu thee...

So please give up this intolerance... why must Arabisation alone be condemned? Why not Hindi-nization as well?

I hate both... but Anglicisation, Persianisation and Turkification I can stand... as Romair has harped on ...

re:#97 by ali_1
Looks like somebody did something bad when Chowk`s Eunuch was incarcerated in Guantanama Bay. He has lost his mind on top of God knows what.
Sridhar

Paak dharti mubarak ho
yay khoobsurat mulk mubarak ho
aap bulund himmat kay nishaan ho
yay Pakistan ki zameen
hamari yaqeen kaa markaz mubarak ho

Paak dharti ka nizam
logoN ki quwwat aur bhaichaara hay
qaum, mulk, sultanat
hamaisha tak chamkay gi
hamari khwahishoN ki munzil mubarak ho

Yay sitara aur hilaali jahnDa
hamari taraqqi or khud-kifalat ka guide hay
Maazi or zabardast haal ka tarjumaan
aur mustaqbil ki jaan
Allah jalaali ki hifazat hay

.
.

kaka would warn painDus (punjabis) like Manto etc not to argue with ahl-e-zubaan (kaka) as to what is Urdu and what is Faarsi..

Re: # 140

Dear Romair:

Here is the discrepancy I noticed in your post.

[The criteria of civilisation that one uses do not point to there being an Indian civilisation. There are various factors that create a civilisation:

- geogrpahically contained area with distinct geographical boundaries
- language
- culture
- religion
- physical features
- history
etc.]

Which I tend to agree, but then suddenly the volley comes when you suggest

[I think people tend to attach religion to civilization. People assume that there is an, ``Indian`` civilization that people should be loyal to (even if they live in Pakistan or Bangladesh), because they equate the common thread of Hinduism with India. When, in fact, religions come and go, through civilizations. They leave a mark and move on.]

So, what is it? What is the role of religion in creating civilization?

Religions come and go? or is it a factor that creates civilization?

Can we make up your mind?

Respectfully submitted,

Behram B. Atashband

romair #140

Read this well written article on ``Why India is a Nation?`` by Sankrant Sanu, whose earlier article criticising Microsoft encarta`s entry on Hindusim made them change it. He is one of the most logical writers I ever read.

http://www.sulekha.com/blogs/blogdisplay.aspx?cid=4676

Romair mon frere, au contraire, vous avez torte.

Using your logic, there is no French civilization - we need to specify Burgundian, Provence, or Normandie as the bases for civilization in that nation-state. Similarly, there is no German civilization, because we all know there are Saxon, Westphalian, Bavarian, Badden Baden, Bohemian (although it`s now Czech), and Schleswig-Hollsteinian civilizations. So, the only civilization that remain are Roman and Chinese. I won`t mention Pompeii, Ravena, and Siracusa. Let`s not split hairs with Mandarin, Manchu, or even Mongol.

here is a map if Hsuan Tsangs travels to what he thought of as ``india``.

Romair #140, {``The only quality that is common, in the thousands of years history of South Asia is religion. South Asia has currently, and has had, a common majority religion, called Hinduism. However, the area of India, in its 5000 year history has only been one country for a few hundred years (under the Brits and Ashoka). How can an Indian civilization appear, in such a short``}

Romair Bhai,
Now I understand why you are a military genius. :) That is the last refuge of one who fails in every other field. First of all, let`s start correcting your mistakes:

Please add Akbar and Aurangzeb to the list of Brits and Ashoka as rulers who forged most of India into one large country, geographically.

You answered your own question - India has always had a specific geographical boundary (Indus River on the west, Burma on the east, Himalyas to the north, and the triangle poiinting southward. There are several languages in India, but Sanskrit has had the most impact - even on Farsi, Lithuanian, German, Spanish, and English. There is a distinct Indian culture (dress, dance, music, art, sculpture, food, language) allowing for gradual variations associated with distances. Of course, physical features and history are self-explanatory. There is something we all call Indian history (Pakistani history starts in 1947!). If by physical features you mean natural terrain, I miss your point. If you mean people`s features, then obviously you miss the point. There is such a thing as a ``desi-looking`` person, a category that most Pakis fall in. :)

Now, you say that Punjab, Sind, and Bengal are civilizations. Well, let me pick on Punjab, because that is one way to get your goat. I have read the entire half page describing Punjabi civilization. :)

Romair, do you mean Sikh civilization, or Saraiki civilization, or Potohari civilization? Or are these sub-civilizations? Did Lahore always have the same civilization as Panipat? or for that matter, Multan, Bhawalpur, Jullundur, or Amritsar, or Simla? Come on, I think that you are painting with a broad brush. If there is no distinct Indian civilization, there definitely isn`t a Punjabi or Bengali civilization. Chittagong civilizastion is very different from Murshidabad civilization - both being Bengali.

Using your logic, there is also no Greek civilization. Do we include Macedonia? What about Thessaly? How about Crete?

Get real.

Salim_Chauhan #139: ``You are right about being proud of India and its civilization...``

Could you explain exactly what an, ``Indian`` civilisation happens to be? I have asked this question to many people, and no one has been able to provide a satisfactory answer. Is there even such a thing as an Indian civilisation? The criteria of civilisation that one uses do not point to there being an Indian civilisation. There are various factors that create a civilisation:

- geogrpahically contained area with distinct geographical boundaries
- language
- culture
- religion
- physical features
- history
etc.

The only quality that is common, in the thousands of years history of South Asia is religion. South Asia has currently, and has had, a common majority religion, called Hinduism. However, the area of India, in its 5000 year history has only been one country for a few hundred years (under the Brits and Ashoka). How can an Indian civilization appear, in such a short time?

Based on this, where exactly does the, ``Indian`` civilization start and where does it end? And what areas are included in it, from a historic perspective? Had the British left out Bengal and Assam and conquered Iran with the Sub-Continent, would Iran be a part of present-day Indian civilisation.........What if they had successfuly conquered Afghanistan?

Surely, there has to be more to a civilisation, then what the Brits conquered and were able to stuff into their empire.............

In reality, there is no Indian civilization. Nor is there a Pakistani civilization. They are taking form, and may appear in a hundred years or more (longer for India, since it is so much bigger). South Asia has many civilizations - Punjabi, Afghan, Sindhi, Baluchi, Tamil, Bengali etc. This is how South Asia has existed and this is exactly what would have happened, after the Mughal demise had the Brits not involved.

Punjab is a civilization. Bengal is a civilization. As is Sind. India and Pakistan are not civilizations............They are nation-states which contain and divide between them, many civilizations. Hence one can expect an Indian to be proud of the Indian nation-state. But not of an Indian civilization (since there isn`t one). And, obvoiusly, one cannot expect anyone from any part of Pakistan to be proud of the Indian nation-state or civilization. And vice-versa for Indians, vis-a-vis Pakistan..........

At the same time, one can be proud of of one`s civlization. Or one can be ashamed of it. That is really upto the people who occupy those civilizations, at the moment. I live around present-day Taxila, in Islamabad. I can proud of it, or ashamed of it. Or be indifferent to it. It is my choice. After all, it is my home. Why should anyone outside my area have any right to be concerned? Do I care if someone in Bangalore is proud of his city`s history or not? I don`t care.........

I think people tend to attach religion to civilization. People assume that there is an, ``Indian`` civilization that people should be loyal to (even if they live in Pakistan or Bangladesh), because they equate the common thread of Hinduism with India. When, in fact, religions come and go, through civilizations. They leave a mark and move on.

I can, thus, understand if an Indian Punjabi should comment on my loyalties or lack thereof to my Punjabi language and culture. But, for the life of me, I cannot figure out why someone in Bengal, or Tamil Nadu or Ottowa or Rajasthan should try to tell me who I should be loyal to and who I should be proud of. Whether I want to be Arabic, or Irani or French, or Punjabi in my land, is, after all, my business.............Isn`t it......

#137,
Ya Shaikh Kulharee BinAlKhatnawy. :)

You are right about being proud of India and its civilization. Also, you are absolutely right about the Mughals being Indian - except that Sadna wants to exclude Maharaja Aurangzeb.

Re: # 132

Yar Kauray,

Pa jee kithay ray oo lately. `Even modern music in the West is becoming influenced by Bhangra, Dandiya, etc.`` This is not 80s anymore. Bhangra blend in English music ended in early 90z

regards,

haideri

That’s all fine and dandy, but what is annoying is for someone to insinuate that we were Goongay & Dooray (dumb and deaf) before the Arab and Persian conquests. What most of us easily forget that most advances in the Indian sub-continent took place before the invasions and conquests. Our advancement was the reason for these conquests. We had already developed silk while the Arab were still climbing trees. We took in persecuted Zoroastrians and they became Indians, we accepted Jews, we accepted Mongols, we took in everyone who wanted to come, and so on. Everyone who came to Mother India became Indian. It pisses me off that now we would want to be not-Indians? No one in the world would consider Moghals as not Indians. They are known as Indian emperors. Shah Jahan was Indian. It was only the European colonists that destroyed our Indian fabric through their policies, followed by another gang of thugs. And the destruction continues on to date.

Regards

Sir Kulharee Bin Camel al Cow fil Hindi, Esq.

#134, Yes, Kaura, Arabic had influenced (or as you put it polluted) Farsi long before the latter came to India. BTW, the word you use so often, ``harami`` is Arabic and means ``resulting from the forbidden.`` In today`s Arabic, ``harami`` actually means ``thief.``

Behram Sahib #128, {``These days the persians themselves want to get rid of the Arabic imperialism.``}

Sir,
I would say that the good old days of linguistic fascism and racial superiority are long gone. In the 1920s and 1930s, with Hitler`s search for German Aryan roots, Ataturk`s purge of Arabic and Farsi from Turkish, and the Reza Shah`s father`s disdain for Arabic, it had become chic to be ``Pure`` in language AND race. Thus, you have the Hindu supremacists, the Aryan racists, and who knows the Paki TNTs?

Language and race are easily impacted by a single generation. :)