SV: interesting experience/Urdu/hindi

[Samar Abbas]

On Thu, 31 Aug 2000, Bharat Gupt wrote: "[After] invading Ghaznavite
> [&] Turkish hordes settled in India they took to Indian women and their
> progeny could not have spoken anything else but the synchronic
> language/dialect of the Indian region laden with persian-arabic words.

 Whilst this argument is partly correct, it holds with more force for the
Aryans (soft AIT is official). The invading Aryans also had a shortage of
women, partly due to female infanticide, sati and the need to preserve a
larger fighting male population. So they also took to Dravidian women (a
custom which survives in the devadasi & Kerala sambandham), and their
mulatto progeny would, as per the above argument, have to be Dravidian
speakers. Then there would be no IA languages in India, and everybody
would be a Dravidian speaker.

  Yet, official history claims that somehow, the Aryans kept their IA
languages while the Mughals did not. That despite the fact that the Aryans
did not possess writing (and hence preservation of their original IA
dialects would have been more difficult) and were at a lower
civilizational level than their Dravidian predecessors, whilst the Mughals
did possess writing (so preservation of their language would have been
more likely) and were at an equal, some say, higher civilizational level
than their predessessors, the Sakas, Greeks and Aryans.

  It logically follows that either both the Aryans and Turks lost their
languages, or both kept their languages. Indeed, the Aryans were more
likely to lose their language than the Turks. Yet, official history claims
just the opposite. Once again, a certain subtle double standard at work.

> (This of course is different from the Pakistani official version that
> the Arabs, Turks etc., "gave" a new tongue Urdu to the subcontinent
> and which did not "develop" in India.

 Incidentally, the Indian version mirrors this, holding that the invading
Aryans "gave" new Indo-Aryan languages to the subcontinent while somehow
the Mughals, under more favourable circumstances, lost theirs. If and when
an Eelam arises, no doubt history there will teach that IA is derived from
Dravidian. Perhaps, schools in Tamil Nadu already teach this. So we
would have three versions.

  BTW there are websites claiming that Sanskrit is derived from Tamil
(please check archives). This Tamil view of Sanskrit is akin to the
official Sanskritist view of Urdu, all one has to do is replace `IA' for
`Urdu' to go from one theory to the other. Yet Sanskritists vehemently
deny any Dravidian origin for Sanskrit whilst brazenly putting forth just
such a theory for Urdu.

 I can accept this Prakrit origin theory of Urdu, but then would be forced
by logic to accept the Dravidian origin of these same Prakrits, thereby
leading to the conclusion that Urdu is derived from Old Tamil. So, to
conclude this discussion, I will only accept either of two logically
self-consistent theories for the origin of Urdu: 1. It is derived from
Tamil, 2. It is derived from Ghaznavid Persian.

> Also consider the fact that with the huge influx of Indian slaves
> (more women and children then men) in Afghani and Iranian markets,
> some degree of linguistic, musical, sartorial and culinary impact must
> have taken place in the Ottoman Empire and its sorroundings.

 This is a good idea. Most research on such topics concentrates on the
impact of India on Arab culture (the diffusion of mathematical knowledge,
zero, etc.), and not upon the much nearer Persian and Turkic cultures.
However, I can recount the following instances :
- Tamerlane is said to have built a mosque in Samarkand which was modelled
  on Indian architecture.
- The Kalila wa Dimnah (based on the Pancatantra) was popular in
  the Ottoman Empire. Of course there are chess and Al-Beruni.
- Gujarati businessmen dominated the Kabul market in the 18th century.
- Mahmud-e-Ghazni was impressed with Indian architecture, and modelled
  palaces/mosques on it. None survive, however.
- The Rumi darwaza in Lucknow was used for trade to Rum (Ottoman Empire)
  and it is said a single long road connected Delhi and Lucknow to
  Istanbul.Of course, in those days, travel would have been much easier.
- Maratha title Peshwa is derived from Turkic Pasha or vice versa.

Regards,
Samar