Urdu,Hindi,and Sanskrit

[Stephen Hodge]

Vidhyanath Rao wrote:

> It depend on what other limitations on printing they put in place,
would it
> not? As long as they get printed, would the script make any
difference?
> On the other hand, if the British had systematically stopped Indians
from
> printing the classics (after all, there were laws restricting the
ownership
> of printing presses in Company days, if not during the Crown Raj;
goverment
> control of means of communication seems still remain close to the
hearts of
> bureaucrats and politicians), would the script staying Nagari made
any
> difference?

Sorry, I perhaps I did not express myself well enough.   What happened
under Ataturk was a very harsh and destructive repression of religious
beliefs and practices.  One must also remember that, for example, the
Mevlevi religious practice of Sema ("whirling") was still, technically
speaking, illegal at least until the 80s.  According to my Turkish
Sufi friends, there was virtually a blanket ban on all Sufi texts
being published afresh and none could be reprinted in banned Arabic
script -- all that would have been available in pre-war years were old
Ottoman lithographic copies or manuscripts in Arabic script and access
to these diminished as each new generation grew up who could not read
the old script which is far harder to master than Nagari as it does
not represent Turkish very well.   Hence, supposing the situation in
India had been similar under the British -- a new script but no
publication permitted of most old religio-philosophical texts in
transliteration.

Best wishes,
Stephen Hodge