Anjuman

Urdu, usually associated with the Muslims of the Indian sub-continent, is a language that, even though was born and developed in India, is still perceived as an alien language to the land. The reasons behind such perception are several historical and linguistic misconceptions about the language that are backed by political factors. The idea behind writing this piece is to make an attempt at clearing these misconceptions by briefly discussing the history of its literature.

“What’s in a name?
That which we call a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.”
(Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet)

The language had many names before being known as “Urdu”. Depending on the different space-times, the language was called as – Hindavi, Dehlvi, Gujri, Dakhni, Lahori, Lashkari, Hindoostanee and Hindi. The script was Perso-Arabic, its syntax/grammar and phonology Indian; and apart from many loanwords from Persian, all the verbs were derived from Prakrit and Sanskrit. The word “Urdu” came much later in the end of 18th century – when this language replaced Persian at the Mughal court, and colonists like John Gilchrist (1759-1841) started propagating a division in the language (not based on any linguistic grounds, but based on communal grounds, although being a linguist himself), which was then picked by the Hindu Nationalists and certain Muslim political groups that supported the idea of a separate independent state for Muslims carved out of the British-India. During this period, the language was forced to be written in a recently developed script “Devanagari” and many loan words of Persian origin were replaced by Sanskritised words – making it ‘Hindi for Hindus’, and the same language when written in its original Perso-Arabic script – ‘being Urdu for Muslims’. As said earlier, the difference between Hindi & Urdu was communal rather than linguistic. Later on, the word “Urdu” which also has one of its meanings as “army camp” in Turkish, was used to create a pseudo-history of the language – claiming that the language came with the Muslim invaders and is therefore named as “army camps”.

“A Martian Scientist would conclude that all earthlings speak dialects of the same language.”
(Guy Duetscher, from “NoamChomsky on Anarchism”)

Apart from the linguistic studies of the language – like the language-family-tree of Urdu, and how different diglossia/dialects of the same language are confused and framed as different due to various reasons (mainly political) – the literary history of this language clearly shows that the language was born and developed in the Indian sub-continent by its inhabitants – both Hindus and Muslims (and even Sikhs and Christians) – and is still, although with lots of struggles, being carried by them.

From the 14th century – when early traces of the language being spoken and used for literature are found in its primordial forms – to the late 20th century – when the language became known all over the world with a literary heritage of more than 400 years; poets like Kabir (d. 1518) and Raghupat Sahay Firaq (d. 1982) are mentioned; whereas – Ajay Chand Bhatnagar (d. 1550s), Tek Chand Bahar (d. 1766 Persian lexicographer), Budh Singh Qalandar (d. 1780s), Teka Ram Tasalli (1780s), Raja Ram Narayan Mauzoon (d. 1762), Jaswanth Singh Parwana (d. 1813), Ratan Nath Sarshaar (d.1903), Brij Mohan Kaifi (d.1954)  and many others are often forgotten while mentioning the literary history of Urdu.

Although a work is yet to be done on these classical writers, poets and scholars of the language, Syed Bashir Ahmad (PhD, Osmania University, Hyderabad) has compiled brief biographical notes along with some literary works of non-Muslim writers in Hyderabad post-1947. This work – titled “Hyderabad meiN ghair-MuslimoN ki Urdu KHidmaat (Urdu-literary services of non-muslims in Hyderabad) – is even more interesting when contextualised by the partition of British-India into Muslim-majority Pakistan and Hindu-majority India, and further by the annexation of the erstwhile Hyderabad State (which was an independent state ruled by a Muslim with a population of Hindus in majority) by the Government of India in 1948. During which, mass-migrations and displacement of different communities occurred, and with them, the languages believed to be associated with them also suffered.

Another less focused area is the contribution of Europeans – not as aliens, but as native speakers (whether or not having Anglo-Indian descent) to this language. Some works like – “Ahl e Europe ne Urdu ki kya KHidmat ki?” (What service did the Europeans do to Urdu?) by Maulvi Abdul Haq (1870 – 1961) and “Europian Sho’ra e Urdu” (European Poets of Urdu) by Sardar Ali – do show an attempt made at this research.
Most notable of such works is “European & Indo-European Poets of Urdu & Persian” written by Ram Babu Saxena and published in 1941 by Nawal Kishore Press, Lucknow.

Unfortunately, not much attention has been paid – apart from certain political slogans and academic discussions – on this topic; and due to the lack of awareness, the divide has further increased in the common public narratives, and led to the marginalisation of Urdu (by attaching it to the Muslim minority of India). I intend to study the history of this in greater detail in the upcoming years.

مقدور ہو تو خاک سے پوچھوں کہ اے لئیم
تو نے  وہ  گنج  ہائے  گراں  مایہ  کیا  کیے
if there would be the power/ability/presumptuousness,
then I would ask the dust: ‘Oh wretch/miser,
what did you do to/with those valuable treasures?!
– Ghalib
(translated by Prof. Frances Pritchett, UoC)

---

---