interesting experience/Urdu/hindi

[Samar Abbas]

 These posts reflect the official line, which is taught to millions of
children. Hence it is time to analyse some inherent contradictions.
BTW - nothing personal about this post, which is about official history.

On Thu, 31 Aug 2000, Bharat Gupt wrote:
> Urdu...grew out of the linguistic trends prevalent in India much before
> Islamic invasion.

 So here, we learn that Urdu existed prior to the advent of Muslims (712
AD). But this is directly contradicted by the theory claiming hat Urdu
formed at the end of the Mughal Empire (18th century) : -

> ... the fact is that what we understand by Urdu nowadays
> was born after the last of effectual Mughals, Aurangzeb.

 So what are we to believe: was Urdu born before 700 AD, or in the 1800s ?

This is exactly what official historians do: first claim that Urdu is
derived from a Prakrit, then when data is shown proving that Urdu has
nothing in common with Prakrits, shout that that does not matter because
Urdu only formed after the fall of the Mughal Empire ! Then, when it is
shown that Urdu is older than the 19th century, claim once again that it
is a Prakrit and existed before the very rise of Islam !

  So we go around and around in a big circle. And why ? Somehow, one has
to prove, by any means whatsoever, that Urdu, Taj Mahal and Qutb Minar
have nothing to do with Mughals. Whether one places the date of origin of
Urdu before the Delhi Sultanate or after the Mughal Empire does not
matter. Any date for Urdu and Taj Mahal from 4000 BC to 2000 AD is
acceptable, but none between 700 AD-1857 AD. The Mughal Empire has to be
shown to be a Dark Age by any means.

> One script for one language is a creation of print technology.

 Ahh - so it was the evil Europeans who forced printing upon helpless
Indians which led to the usage of one script, one language, thereby
fuelling secessionism. I would like to see a single text where Tamil was
used to write Gujarati texts, or where Gujarati was used to write Telugu
verse. Any Nepali texts in Tamil script ?

> Urdu was never the language of the elite or the masses...

 So it arose before Muslims came, but somehow was not spoken by anybody
till the 19th century, when the British suddenly re-invented Urdu and
forced the Muslims to learn it.

> The sufis used it to create their syncretic expression for devotees of
> mostly the lower classes ...The westernised Urdu elite , not the lower
> middle class, now called the shots.

So, during the early Delhi Sultanate, Urdu was spoken by the "lower
classes" and not the elite. Towards the end of the Mughal Empire, it is
the evil elite which speaks Urdu, while the "lower class" Muslims
suddenly forget it and learn a Prakrit. Who spoke it in between
? "Neither the elite, nor the masses" - ie. it was somehow
forgotten by everybody. So Urdu arose both before 700 AD, and after 1800,
but did not exist in between.

Best wishes,
Samar