SV: interesting experience/Urdu/hindi

[Samar Abbas]

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.