Urdu and Hindsutani

Samar Abbas abbas at IOPB.RES.IN
Fri Dec 4 17:56:51 UTC 1998

My replies to Ashish Chandra are below.

On Thu, 3 Dec 1998, Ashish Chandra wrote:

> It was just about the crappiest pieces I have seen in a long time.

 I apologize for his language. It is to be hoped that he phases out his
use of such vulgarities in his postings. He is also advised to use
scientific methods and arguments.

> You have the gall to call the invaders "liberators" ? How dare you.

 Most indologists agree in calling the few centuries preceding the Delhi
Sultanate as a `dark age'. This was after the fall of the mighty empries
of the Mauryas and Guptas, after the Huns had invaded India. Many features
of post-Gupta society are considered barbaric by many. Thus they were in a
sense liberators.

> Hindi has
> existed long before Urdu was born.

Please note: Hindi, Hindu, Hindustani are all Perso-Arabic words. THey are
not found in original Sanskrit. The name of the language being non-IA is
against an IA origin of Hindustani.

> It was never a language of learning
> per
> se but its form has existed long before the so-called "greatest empire" of
> your ancestors came into being in Bharatvarsha.

The languages that existed before that empire weree Kanauji, Braj and
Mithili. They were never referred to as `Hindi' by their speakers, who
considered Hindi a short form of Hindustani, and hence a Muslim language.
Braj and Kanauji are still spoken, but their usage is declining, being
replaced by Hindustani, the language of the Mughal Empire.


More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list