SV: interesting experience/Urdu/hindi

[Bijoy Misra]

Certainly Mr Abbas seems another Rajaram on the other side,
I am amused by both the efforts.  Not clear how many followers
exist or are these just attempts..  On the other hand,
objective stirring does have merit.

So how does Urdu originate now? and what is the theory and span
of Mughalstan?  Are there other "..stans", like marthastan,
kalingastan, tamilstan?  What is the complete theory?
Are "...stans" separate or merge into one India nationhood?

Kindly illuminate..

BM


On Sat, 2 Sep 2000, Samar Abbas wrote:

> On Thu, 31 Aug 2000, Lars Martin Fosse wrote:
> > I am afraid that your critique of Bharat Gupt's Urdu history is not well
> > founded so far.
>
>  The purpose of my posts are to alert European indologists to the dangers
> of unconciously accepting official propaganda as `history'. All I can do
> is urge you to keep an open mind when dealing with these questions. Many
> Europeans specialising in Indus Valley, Sanskrit etc. unconciously accept
> official propaganda on areas in which they do not specialise: Saka,
> Mughal, Buddhist history etc. Please remember that `official' history in
> South Asia reflects 50 years of dominance by a particular race - under the
> veneer of `respectability' is a very chauvinist and racist ideology.
>
>  Also, the official history establishment here is highly corrupt and
> dishonest. Arun Shourie's book `Eminent Historians,' while lamenting that
> history is not chauvinist enough for him, does expose the corruption,
> nepotism and fraud practiced by the official establishment, barring a few
> isolated individuals. This establishment is writing history - so please
> keep an open mind about all areas of Indian history, which means
> questioning the fundamentals.
>
> > The oldest Urdu literature goes back to the 14th century and was
> > produced in the Deccan.
>
>   These ideas are based upon another `official' text-book theory: that
> Urdu actually developed in the Deccan. This hypothesis is used by official
> historians when the pre-Islamic and British-origin theories of Urdu are
> debunked. When the date is narrowed down to 700-1800, then it is only the
> geographical region which can now be shifted. Whatever one does, one has
> to shift the origin of Urdu outside the Delhi Sultanate - whether in time
> or in space does not matter as long as the purpose is solved.
>
>   However, there is another caveat with this theory: Marathi Prakrit, or
> perhaps Tamil, and not Braj, would then be the mother of Urdu.
>
> > We must assume that there was a "hatching period" before the first
> > preserved literature ...
>
>   This assumption is necessary in order to parry the counter that "Marathi
> cannot be the mother of Urdu".
>
>   So we now have a contorted babu-style theory: Urdu supposedly originated
> from a hypothetically existing Khari Boli (itself only attested by the
> 19th century), but this development itself must be `assumed' as it is not
> attested in the literary record. Then somehow, Urdu went southwards (again
> an unattested process), and then it is only here - and not in its homeland
> in the North - that Urdu literature was created. Then this Dakhini Urdu
> went back north (which invaders took it there, we are not told), and here
> somehow mutated back to the original Urdu derived from Khari Boli. I can
> only urge European Indologists to seriously question such official
> hypotheses. Prof Sachau himself did not accept any such theories [ see my
> previous posts].
>
> > Urdu is rooted in older Prakrits, but received influences from a
> > number of other "invading" languages.
>
>   Is it sensible to claim that Prakrit was spoken in the camps of Ghazni
> and Ghori ? Please look at the modern military camps of Afghanistan, which
> are the modern counterparts of Ghaznavi's and Ghori's camps. Is a Prakrit
> spoken there ? Are such people likely to adopt any if they conquer Delhi ?
>
>  Also, it could well be the other way around. It is always the invaders
> who imposed their langauge on others; only rarely was it vice verse. To
> assume that the likes of Mahmud Ghaznavi and Muhamad Ghori smashed dozens
> of Hindu temples but somehow adopted Prakrits stretches the imagination.
>
> > The term "Urdu", BTW, comes from the Turkish word "Hordu" (ever heard
> > of the Golden Hord?), meaning military camp.
>
>   The question then becomes: which military camp ? The camps at Ghazni
> have been identified by Prof. Sachau as the home of Urdu and not camps in
> the Deccan or in Khari-Bolisthan. No Prakrits in Afghanistan in 900
> AD either.
>
> > When does urdu become "urdu"? When does the old Prakrit turn into a
> > distinct linguistic formation ?
>
>  The favorite Prakrit mother of Urdu, Khari Boli, does not have any
> literature from the period, which was mainly in Brij and Apabrahmsa. All
> earlier `Hindi' literature was in Braj, not in Khari Boli. Khari Boli was
> only used from the 19th century onwards, when it came to replace Braj as
> the main medium of Hindi literature. Khari Boli may well not have existed
> upto the 17th century as far as we know. To claim that this neglected and
> perhaps non-existent language somehow is the progenitor of Urdu is
> stretching the imagination.
>
> > But it is also true that the court language was Persian, the "French"
> > of South Asia ... [C]ompare the situation in Russia: Two
> > hundred years ago, Russian aristocrats hardly spoke Russian. Instead,
> > they used French, the language of culture and prestige !
>
>  A very good comparison. Usage of French by the Russian court does not
> mean that Russian did not exist at the time. Maybe Russian existed in folk
> literature, but exist it did. Claiming that Urdu did not exist because
> Mughal courts used Persian is akin to claiming that because French was
> used in Russian courts, Russian did not exist !
>
>  The situation could well have been the same here: Urdu folk literature
> spoken by the masses, Persian in the court.
>
>  Also, court language in Delhi was not always Persian: under Babar it was
> Chagatai Turkic, Arabic was also widely used, and perhaps the Lodis and
> Suris spoke Pashto. The development of a common link language would thus
> become more likely under such circumstances.
>
> Samar.
>