Hindi vs Urdu
-
Upload
asif-hussain -
Category
Documents
-
view
201 -
download
8
description
Transcript of Hindi vs Urdu
0
HINDI
VS
URDU An Artificial Divide?
SUDARSH RATHI,201125172
ASIF HUSSAIN,201225086
RUDHIR SIDDHAM,201225195
1
The Question The purpose of this paper or 'the problem statement' is to
analyze if Hindi and Urdu two separate languages, two varieties
of a same language or a single variety.
Some definitions before we
proceed Register: Manner of speaking or writing specific to a certain
function, that is, characteristic of a certain domain of
communication (or of an institution), for example, the language
of religious sermons, of parents with their child, or of an
employee with his/her supervisor.
Style: The characteristic use of language in a text. When
referring to the speaker, style is more or less the controlled
choice of linguistic means, whereas in referring to texts, style is
the specific form of language. For the reader or listener, style is
2
the variation (or confirmation) of possible expectations, i.e. the
observation and interpretation of linguistic specifics.
Dialect Continuum: A dialect continuum, or dialect area, was
defined by Leonard Bloomfield as a range of dialects spoken
across some geographical area that differ only slightly between
neighboring areas, but as one travels in any direction, these
differences accumulate such that speakers from opposite ends of
the continuum are no longer mutually intelligible.
Standard Language: A standard language (also standard dialect
or standardized dialect) is a language variety used by a group of
people in their public discourse.
Alternatively, varieties become standard by undergoing a
process of standardization, during which it is organized for
description in grammars and dictionaries and encoded in such
reference works. Typically, varieties that become standardized
are the local dialects spoken in the centers of commerce and
government, where a need arises for a variety that will serve
more than local needs.
Pluricentric Language:A pluricentric language or polycentric
language is a language with several standard versions, both in
spoken and in written forms. This situation usually arises when
language and the national identity of its native speakers do not,
or did not, coincide.
Diagraphia: In sociolinguistics, digraphia refers to the use of
more than one writing system for the same language. Some
scholars differentiate between synchronic digraphia with the
3
coexistence of two or more writing systems for the same
language and diachronic (or sequential) digraphia with the
replacement of one writing system by another for a particular
language. Diglossia: Diglossia refers to a stable situation in which two
dialects or usually closely related languages are used by a single
speech community for different functions.
The Introduction The Hindi-Urdu controversy is an age-old debate with its roots
lying in the medieval history of India and the conflict finally
taking shape in the 19th Century. While the question, are Hindi
and Urdu same languages, was officially settled by the
Government of India in 1950, when it declared Hindi as the
official language of governance, the actual dilemma lives on. It
is very much important to note that the problem does not only
have social undertones but is awash and very much shaped by
social differences.
Hindi and Urdu are literary registers are literary registers of the
Khariboli dialect of Hindi Languages, spoken by a large number
of people in the sub-continent across the Hindi dialect
continuum. It is worth noting that, a large a number of people in
the 'Hindi belt' speak their local dialects of Hindi as mother
tongue and the above-mentioned registers of Khariboli are later
acquired. A persianized variant of Khariboli is referred with
4
names Hindi, Urdu & Hindustani.
In the following report we will first put forward and compare the
structural aspects of both the varieties and the similarities and
differences. We will then analyze the origin of these varieties
lying in the history of medieval India analyzing some literary
works for their linguistic features. We will understand the social
aspects of the development of the respective varieties and try to
ascertain when, how and why these they diverge. Here in we
will also try to analyze the existence of the 'Hindustani
language'. We will also see the role writing systems played in
this interesting case. Further later into the report we will take
example of some modern conversations as obsereve the
sociolinguistic peculiarities associated with it. Thus with the
help of these we will attempt to arrive at few conclusion, closing
statement and possibly and answer to the imminent question.
Here in we will also try to analyze the existence of the
Hindustani language
The Varities
Hindi Hindi, or more precisely Modern Standard Hindi is a
standardised and sanskritised register of the Hindustani language
(Hindi-Urdu). It is the mother tongue of people living in Delhi,
Haryana, Western Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, northeastern Madhya
5
Pradesh, and parts of eastern Rajasthan, and is one of the official
language of India though there are many non-native speakers
from other parts of India who understand it easily because it is
closely-related to their own native languages that, just like
Hindi, descended from various Prakrits. These languages have
common roots and the native speakers of several regional Indian
languages find it easier to understand the more Sanskritised
form of Hindi.
Colloquial Hindi is mutually intelligible with another register of
Hindustani called (Modern Standard) Urdu. Mutual
intelligibility decreases in literary and specialized contexts
which rely on educated vocabulary. The number of native
speakers of Standard Hindi is unclear. According to the 2001
Indian census, 258 million people in India reported their native
language to be "Hindi". However, this includes large numbers of
speakers of Hindi languages other than Standard Hindi; as of
2009, the best figure Ethnologue could find for Khariboli dialect
(the basis of Hindustani) was a 1991 citation of 180 million.
Urdu
Urdu, or more precisely Standard Urdu, standardised and
persianized register of the Hindustani language (Hindi-Urdu). It
is the national language and lingua franca of Pakistan. It is also
an official language of five Indian states and one of the 22
scheduled languages in the Constitution of India.
6
Based on the Khariboli dialect of Delhi, Urdu developed under
the influence of Persian, Arabic, and Turkic languages over the
course of almost 900 years.It originated in the region of Uttar
Pradesh in the Indian subcontinent during the Delhi Sultanate
(1206–1527), and continued to develop under the Mughal
Empire (1526–1858). Urdu is mutually intelligible with
Standard Hindi spoken in India. Both languages share the same
Indo-Aryan base, and are similar in basic structure, grammar
and to a large extent vocabulary and phonology. The combined
population of Urdu and Standard Hindi speakers is the fourth
largest in the world. Phonology Hindi and Urdu still retains the original Indo-European
distinction between aspirated and unaspirated voiced plosives
(cf. Indo-European *ghrdho and Hindi ghar (‘house’’). It retains
the distinction between aspirated and unaspirated voiceless
plosives that emerged in Indo-Aryan, that is, the distinction
between kal (‘‘time’’) and khal (‘‘skin’’). Another Indo-Aryan
feature, that of retroflexion, is also their in Hindi and Urdu, cf.
tota (‘‘parrot’’) and ṭoṭa (‘‘lack’’). These two features, that is
those of aspiration and retroflexion, are mainly responsible for
why Hindi–Urdu sounds so different from its European cousins.
Stress is not distinctive in both Hindi & Urdu; words are not
distinguished on the basis of stress alone. The tense vowels are
phonetically long; in pronunciation the vowel quality as well as
length is maintained irrespective of the
position of the vowel or stress in the word. Hindi sounds a
7
represented with Devanagari script while Urdu sounds in Perso-
Arabic script
Hindi sounds
8
9
Urdu sounds
10
Morphology
Rules regarding both derivational and inflectional morphology
are identical in both Hindi and Urdu. Interestingly both the
languages uses affixes in ways consistent with the Indo-Aryan
and also affixes borrowed from Persian and Arabic. Example,
Urdu:
Sing. Plur.
/vālid/ /vālidõ/
(Parents,oblique case)
/vālid/ /vālid/
/vālid/ /vālidain/
(Parent) (Parents)
Clearly in first case the affix is from Khariboli,the second case is
similar to /pitā/ while the third one has affix borrowed from
persian.
Similarly in Hindi,
11
Hindi:
/likhanā/ ----------------------->/likhāī/
/likhanā/ ----------------------->/likhāvaṭa/
(write,verb) (handwriting,noun)
The first case is a common form in Hindi while the second one
is persianized.
In Hindi,a sanskritized register, and Urdu,a persianized register,
comparative and superlative adjectival forms using suffixes
derived from those languages can be found indicating a
divergence in the fact that from where the variety are drawing
upon.
Hindi/Sans. Urdu/Pers.
Comparative -tar -tar
Superlative -tam -tarin
The varying forms for the 3rd pn. dir. constitute one of the small
number of grammatical differences between Hindi and Urdu.
yah "this" / ye "these" / vah "that" / ve "those" is the literary set
for Hindi while ye "this, these" / vo "that, those" is the set for
Urdu and spoken (and also often written) Hindi. Many nouns
which are masculine in Urdu are feminine in Hindi, the opposite
also being true.
An interesting observation is that higher use of compound verbs
12
in Urdu compared to Hindi. For example look at the same
utterance in the two varieties,
Hindi:
उन्हें बदु्धि और अन्तरात्मा की दने प्राप्त ह ै|
Urdu:
उन्हें ज़मीर और अक़्ल वदीयत हुई हैं |
English:
They are endowed with reason and conscience.
In sentences in which a conjunctive participle is used to refer to
the first act in a series of two, if the first act is in some sense a
'cause' for the second act, Hindi prefers the conjunctive suffix -
kar be dropped and only the root of the first verb used. In Urdu,
on the other hand, the use of conjunctive suffix is always
required.For example,
Hindi:
uṅko dekh ham ro paṛe
Urdu:
uṅko dekhkar ham ro paṛe
English:
On seeing him we burst into tears.
Despite few subtle differences in rules the grammar is consistent
across the two varieties.
The Lexicon
It is generally accepted that Hindi and Urdu differ mainly in the
13
lexicon and vocabulary though the nature and degree of lexical
differences present complex problems when viewed under the
light of other integral linguistic aspects. Thus it becomes
extremely difficult to draw a clear boundary line between Hindi
and Urdu. Emperically you can ascertain if a word-form has
been borrowed from Sanskrit or Perso-Arabic but that does not
necessarily infer that the sample observed is Hindi or Urdu. This
is because both Perso-Arabic and Sanskrit words are common in
both Hindi and Urdu. For example we could take some work of
a writer like Premchand and try to ascertain whether it belongs
to Hindi or Urdu but the use of the writer's lexicon would be
affected heavily by his linguistic and educational background
thus blurring the differences if any.
The History and Origin
The history of Hindi, Urdu and Hindustani is so entwined that it
may point towards a conclusive answer to our 'the question'.
Most of the grammar and basic vocabulary of these variety
descends directly from the medieval language of central India,
known as Sauraseni,a dramatic prakrit in which msot medieval
dramas were written. After the tenth century, several Sauraseni
dialects gave rise to varieties including Braj Bhasha, Awadhi
and Khari Boli, the latter being prevalent in Delhi and
surrounding rural areas.
After the Islamic invasion of India, in the Delhi Sultanate
period, Delhi become a seat of power and centre of commerce
under various Arabic, Persian and Turkic dynasties. These made
14
Persian the language of the imperial court and thus began a
variety of interaction of between the Muslim and Hindu cultures
and their languages. During this formative period of the
language it was referred as Hindi, Hindavi, or Dehlvi, a
language under the influence of Persian as well as many regional
varieties. Though this period saw most literary works in either
Persian or other dialects of Hindi like Awadhi and Braj-bhasha
by bhakti saints many sufis of North India, Nath-Panthis, local
poets, Kabir and Amir Khusrao.
Amir Khusrao
The following is the work of Amir Khusrao Delhavi who is said
to write Hindavi, the first recorded poet in Khariboli,
Khusro dariya prem ka, ulṭī vā kī dhār,
Jo ubhrā so ḍūb gayā, jo ḍūbā so pār.
15
(Khusro! the river of love has a reverse flow
He who floats up will drown (will be lost), and he who drowns
will get across.)
Sej vo sūnī dekh ke rovun main din rain,
Piyā piyā main karat hūn pahron, pal bhar sukh nā chain.
(Seeing the empty bed I cry night and day
Calling for my beloved all day, not a moment's happiness or
rest.)
Kabir
while the following are the few works of Kabir in Khariboli
affected by other dialects of Hindi,
Jab Tun Aaya Jagat Mein, Log Hanse Tu Roye
Aise Karni Na Kari, Pache Hanse Sab Koye
(When you were born in this world
16
Everyone laughed while you cried
Conduct NOT yourself in manner such
That they laugh when you are gone)
Chinta Aisee Dakini, Kat Kaleja Khaye
Vaid Bichara Kya Kare, Kahan Tak Dawa Lagaye
(Worry is the bandit that eats into one's heart
What the doctor can do, what remedy to impart?)
The former may be identifiable with Urdu today while the later
with Hindi though the works are inherently written in the same
languages with borrowings from little Perso-Arabic or Sanskrit.
From here on, this emergent language Hindavi travelled to south
with spread of Muslim rule towards the Deccan giving rise to a
variety there which was in turn influenced by local languages
and eventually emerged as Dakhani. With the consolidation of
power at Delhi from the period of 12th to 17th century, the
language developed at centres like Delhi,Agra and Lucknow
influenced by local Awadhi and displaced others to emerge as
the prestige dialect. During this period the language was also
reffered to as Rekhta (literally "mixed language") though the use
of the name is though to have extended into the 19th century as
evident in this quote of Galib,
Rexte ke tum hī ustād nahīṅ ho ğālib,
Kihte haiṅ agle zamāne me ṅ ko ī mīr bh ī th ā.
In 1776, the word Urdu was first time used to describe this
17
language by poet Mashafi(1750-1824). It comes from 'Zaban-e-
Urdu' or language of the camp as it was called during the
mughal period as Urdu was the word for a barack.For example,
Shahajahan named the market near the royal fort 'Urdu-Bazaar'.
At this period we observe the emergence of different bases of
the two varieties of Hindi and Urdu mainly for three reasons.
1. Firstly, a large body of Dakhani literature had been and was
being written in Perso-Arabic script and this affected the
northern variety which adopted that script to develop a
separate identity thus limiting the access to a large literary
strata.
2. Secondly, some conscious efforts were made by stalwarts
like Khan Arzu, Shah Hatim and Mazhar Janejanan who
laid out principles for weeding out the indigenous Hindi
words and incorporating their Arabic and Persian
counterparts in 18th century.
3. Finally, by the end of 18th century and the beginning of 19th
century prose was being written widely in Khariboli by
Hindu writers who wrote in Devanagari or Kathi script and
drew upon Sanskrit vocabulary.
The British at the Fort William College at Calcutta encouraged
writing in both styles and by 1800 Hindi and Urdu emerged as
pluricentric varieties with a flurry of works in both of them. The
divergence was further consolidated by the polarization of
literateurs in favour of one variety or the other. This was
followed by many colonial events that contributed to the
development of antagonistic attitudes between them. First,
Persian was replaced by Urdu written in Perso-Arabic script as
18
the official and court language with English in British-ruled
provinces in north India. Not only this helped the transfer from
Muslim to British rule but also caused uproar in the Hindu
community drawing resistence along communal lines. It was
argued that the Persian script something alien to the Indian
people and gave rise to the Hindi Movement flooding north
India with pamphlets and critiques written in Devanagari
supplimenting linguistic chauvinism. When, in 1881, Urdu in
Persian script was replaced by Hindi in Devanagari script, the
Muslim community saw this as a offensive against Urdu and
retaliated with Urdu Movement. This heightened the cultural
inclinations of the two communities towards different languages.
Hindi and Urdu started to be considered essetial to the identity
of Hindus and Muslims respectively.
During the national movement revolved around the issue of
selecting vernacular of people,'a vernacular Hindi' as the
language in which the citizens of the future nation could speak
to each other. It had the support of Gandhi who deplored as
linguistic antagonism and debated in favour of re-merging the
varieties as Hindustani. Although it was not clear what exactly
this Hindustani would be, it was unquestionably the people's
vernacular that had the appeal and support for becoming the
centerpiece of national struggle. But over the period of time, the
discursive space of the people's vernacular was progressively
usurped by Sanskrit 'Hindi' and Persianized 'Urdu'. What
remained common in this transformation is only the continuity
in the name from Hindustani to Hindi (literally still meaning
Indian). The internal linguistic forms underwent radical change.
With the partition, 'Sanskritized Hindi' and 'Persianized Urdu'
19
came into existence.
Such linguistic engineering is often undertaken at the behest of a
select social elite either to appropriate political power or to
maintain the status quo. In such cases, a premium is always
placed on the language of the social elite. The emergence of
separatist tendencies in linguistic engineering not only created
the 'Hindi-Urdu' equation, but also set into motion forces of
Sanskritization and Persianization within the secular Hindustan.
Here we observed that political motivations drove both
communities to champion for a pristine Urdu or pristine Hindi
which possessed aspects of power which were trying to create
speech communities speaking a language that mimic and
glorifies cultural history. This provides the means by which
people construct ideological representations of differences in
linguistic practices and focus on linguistic differences for
defining 'self' against some imagined 'other' in the identity
formation.
Can script effect language?
In sociolinguistics, digraphia refers to the use of more than one
writing system for the same language. An case of digraphia is
Hindi-Urdu, which is written, as mentioned above, in the
Devanagari script or the Perso-Arabic script is considered a
typical and extreme example of it. In such cases of 'typical'
digraphia the difference in script can create profound differences
both linguistic and societal- in grammar and lexicon, in culture and religion, in way of life and
20
sensibility.
As mentioned above one of the main reason for the divergence
of Hindi and Urdu was the use of Perso-Arabic Script in Urdu
literary and official practices. Towards the second quarter of the
nineteenth century, the British
government decided to replace Persian with Urdu in Perso-
Arabic script as the official language so that the people could
freely approach the government with their petitions. This gave
rise of oppostion of the Urdu variety from the Hindu community
who considered that the script was an alien script and was
inaccessible giving rise to institutions like 'Arya Samaj' and 'The
Hindi Movement' favouring sanskritization of the language.This
situation continued till 1870. In the 1880s, the governments of
Bihar and the Central Provinces decided to allow official work
to be conducted in Hindi written in the Nagari script. The
Devanagari script was allowed to replace the two scripts—
Perso-Arabic and Kaithi then extensively in use. It was also
introduced in the schools throughout these provinces, but no one
wanted it, because it was of no practical use to anyone. Instead,
people continued to use the Kaithi script. Attendance in schools
using the Devanagari script for instruction continued to be low
and the government was forced to reconsider the issue of the
scripts. At this time, criticism of the Kaithi script gained
momentum. Supporters of the Nagari script aggressively pointed
out that Kaithi was not just hard to read but was also
phonetically inadequate . In the wake of these criticisms, the
government decided to improve the Kaithi script. In some areas,
particularly in Avadh, significant improvements were
introduced. Consequently, Kaithi became a more functional
21
script. However, the efforts to improve the Kaithi script did not
go far in either effect or duration, as the government policy
suddenly veered in favor of Nagari-script Hindi as the official
language of U.P. By 1900, “Khari Boli” Hindi written in the
Nagari script had received official recognition in Bihar, the
Central Provinces, and the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh.
The supremacy of the Devanagari script over the other prevalent
scripts was sealed by government.
Such events drived a wedge between the communites. An
extraordinarily large amount of political energy was expended
on Hindi-Urdu digraphia as communal tensions between Hindus
and Muslims increased. There was fear among Muslims that
Urdu and in particular its script were in danger of being
supplanted altogether by Hindi. Such fear had been driving them
towards persianization of the language. Gandhi an advocate of
'Hindustani' rather Hindi or Urdu believed that the question of
script was irrelevant.Those who favored the traditional Perso-
Arabic script of Urdu were free to write in that; those who
preferred the traditional Devanagari script of Hindi were free to
use that. But as similar to the idea of Hindustani, this idea lost
momentum as India approached partition.
It would be going too far to blame Hindi-Urdu digraphia for the
partition of British India into the separate nations India and
Pakistan; but it would not be going too far in the least to reify
Hindi-Urdu digraphia as a metaphor for communal conflict
between Hindus and Muslims on the subcontinent.
22
The Present
An interesting account,
A student from the United States makes her first trip to Delhi,
India after spending four semesters at the University of
Michigan studying Hindi. In desperate need of a guidebook, she
steps into a small, Hindu-owned store and asks,“Namaste.
Mujhe ek achhii kitaab kii zaruurat hai. Kyaa aap merii madad
kar sakte hain?” (Namaste. I’m in need of a good book. Can you
help me?). The storekeeper is stunned and compliments the
student on her exceptional Hindi. However, the store does not
stock the appropriate book. The student notices another store
across the street. As she steps in, she notices the storekeeper is
Muslim. Replacing a Namaste with a Salaam, she inquires about
the book, employing the same word choice. Again, the
storekeeper is surprised, and with a big smile on his face tells
her, “Masha’Allah. Your Urdu is perfect.” The puzzled student
picks up her book and leaves the store.
This student had elected Hindi for the past four semesters, not
Urdu! Yet, she is being complimented for her conversational
skills in this language. This paints a very familiar picture in
today's India and highlights that the Hindi-Urdu debate hasn't
died down. While notions of the two languages have diverged
since independence, colloquial varieties of Hindi and Urdu are
almost indistinguishable from one another.As we remeber, the
broader basis of vocabulary and syntax from which both Hindi
and Urdu had developed called Hindustani is considered the
23
lingua franca across North India and Pakistan by many experts.
After partition, newly independent India made its Hindi more
Sanskritized and Pakistanis made their Urdu more Persianized.
The outcome is a diglossia in society. Indians and Pakistanis
speak relatively the same lingua franca of Hindustani on the
streets – while notions of standard Hindi and standard Urdu have
become polarized. Therefore, in an effort to avoid common
Hindustani words, their media use a strict, artificial, stilted form
of Hindi or Urdu. As Singh puts it most realistically, the result
that it is difficult for a common man to understand either Hindi
or Urdu in the 'pure' form.
Following partition, the Pakistani governement favoured the
'Islamization of Urdu' had words from Sanskrit and local dialects
were 'purged out' in favor of Persian and Arabic words. In
addition, allusions to a common Hindustani culture and land
were replaced by references to Persian and Islamic culture and
an Iranian landscape. Though the elite embraced this hyper-
Persian form of speech, many others were alienated by this new,
foreign understanding of Urdu. The vast majority of Urdu
speakers were a product of the Hindustani culture not Iranian.
Similarly, the newly-formed Republic of India was engaged in
the translation of official documents from English to Hindi. The
outcome of this project was the creation of thousands of
neologisms of Sanskrit origin describing administrative terms
and practices. But, what is important to mention here is that
mere familiarity with Sanskrit lexicons may not necessarily
guarantee any comprehensibility of these neologisms. This also
gave rise to absurd terms like dur purviya deshon 'Far East
24
countries'. These countries may be 'far' for the English speakers
but not for us. Such 'pure' registers are highly artificial and
ideologically motivated.
The 'Hindi' Film Industry (Bollywood) has contributed in large
part to the propagation of Hindustani as a reflection of the type
of colloquial speech used by millions of Indians and Pakistanis.
As a commercial institution, the Industry seeks to become
accessible to as broad an audience as it can, and therefore
employs Hindustani. This decision allows audiences from across
India as well as Pakistan to freely understand the films in a
manner which Sanskritized Hindi would not have. Use of
pristine Hindi in the telecast serials such as Ramayana,
Mahabharata, etc., while use of Urdu for movies like Mughal-e-
azam, Jodhaa Akbar etc. are an interesting phenomenon.
Ashok Kelkar(1968) explains the situation of Hindi-Urdu as
follows,
As a linguistic system Hindi-Urdu has no marked dialect
variations; but it has the full gamut of styles :
formalized highbrow (poetry, learned discourse, ratory,
religious sermons and the like in the "great tradition'' of urban
centers of power, commerce, and
religion); formalized middlebrow (popular printed literature,
songs, mass propaganda); casual middlebrow (everyday
educated talk especially in
linguistically mixed groups and within the regionally uprooted
upper or middle class family; private letter writing and
newspapers waver between this and the
25
previous styles; out of the four styles this is the most receptive to
borrowings from English); and casual lowbrow (this is defnitely
substandard and outside the
"Great Tradition''; everyday talk in lower-class, uneducated,
urban milieus; this style, often called "Bazaar Hindustani'' , is
sometimes resorted to even by educated speakers and even in
printed literature destined for the uneducated lower classes) The
polarization between "Hindi'' and "Urdu'' reaches its maximum
in the formalized highbrow style. Hindi is associated with the
Devanagari script (called Nagari for short) and the drawing
upon Sanskrit for "higher vocabulary'' and metrics, with secular
nationalism and Hindu revivalism, and with what
anthropologists have called ``Sanskritization'' (the spread of
Vedantic and Brahmanical culture). Urdu is associated with a
modi®ed form of the Perso-Arabic script and the drawing upon
classical Persian (and through it, upon classical Arabic and
upon Turkish) for "higher vocabulary'' and metrics and with
Muslim renascence and the courts of the Muslim princes.
It can be pointed out that this act of Sanskritizing and
Persianizing the pople's vernacular was carried out with political
objectives. At one hand, Pakistani Government used it
effectively as an important tactic in the regional power struggle,
and, on the other hand for Indian Goverment, it helped
'Sanskritized Hindi' or the rashtrabhasha catapult to national
level.
As A.Rai (2000) states in 'Hindi Nationalism'
26
In Urdu, the love for the pristine is of a vanishing tribe who
simply uses Perso-Arabic expressions for defence. In Hindi, the
love for the pristine is of an emerging culture, which harks back
on the Golden Age of revivalism, a sense of nostagia and false
sense of linguistic identity.
Reality Check
In the following section we will analyze a little data on the
colloquial Hindi-Urdu and try to arrive at some conclusion with
the help of some statistics. The content analyzed is dually
attached. ( Please refer to Data Folder)
Conversation I:
A foreigner and a priest, Benaras. The priest can be observed to
speak a literary style common to Brahmins, especially in
Benaras, Allahabad etc. called 'shudh hindi'. It can be observed
that this style has many words of Sanskrit origin such as
praaciin,adhik and the use of singular yah and wah and plural ye
and we.
Now as an exercise we will replace these few of these 'Hindi'
constructions with 'Urdu' alternates like
Hindi Urdu
prasiddh mashur
27
wastu saaman
adhik zyaada
and so on. We observe that the conversation is still quite legible
to us and may stay as we go one replacing indicating that these
varieties are highly entwined in our society. It is interesting to
observe how the priest uses 'Sanskritized' hindi though he
understand the colloquial variety of the foreigner. It shows an
intent of showing his identity as Hindu, a common thought in
temple town like Benaras.
Conversation II
The foreigner among friends, Lucknow. The use of lexicon here
appears starkly different from the previous language of
Brahmin. This is a more urban setting and the language here is
somewhat more 'Persianized'. Remember, we can recall
Lucknow was one of the centre of development of both Hindi
and Urdu and thus the sitaution prevails here. Also, since Urdu
was historically the language of nobility in Awadh, it enjoys
great prestige here.
Conversation III
The foreigner with counterpart and local traveller, Patna. The
local dialects of Hindi has large native speakers here. Standard
Hindi is artificially aqcuired as shown by the pure nature of his
language. It is worth noting here that though the variety spoken
28
by the foreigner and his counterpart is colloquial, local who has
artificially learnt Hindi is overjoyed at the prospect of Hindi
from a foreigner's mouth. He regards standard variety with
prestige compared to his local mother tongue.
Conversation IV & V
This is a comparson between two situation a guest to a Hindu
home in Allahabad, and to a Muslim home is Aligarh. Notice the
overall similarity in the pattern of polite-ness in both cases.
Differences tend to appear only in vocabulary mainly. Many
expression are almost interchangeable like
C.IV
padhaariyee, andar cal-kee baiThaa jaaee.
C.V
aaiyee, andar tasrif laaiyee, tasrif rakhiye
also inviation for food or drinks. Both the case show how the
choice of language corresponds with their identity though both
may be as comfortable switching to colloquial.
We now try to derive some statistics using these conversations
based on the functions used in them. Also we observe some
videos, a hindi news telecast, a urdu news telecast and a movie
29
scene. We observe the difference between standard registers
used in news broadcast compared to the colliqual variety in the
movie scene. We will observe the presence of Tadbhava derived
from Sanskrit & Tatsama words borrowed from Sanskrit vs
Perso-Arabic borrowings.
30
31
32
33
34
Closing Statement
We viewed are question from various point of views to ascertain
the distinction between Hindi & Urdu,
Structurally, they show very little variation and that in
lexicon which is common among dialects or even within
the same dialect as synonyms. We can structurally
conclude them to be a same variety.
Historically, they developed together and the divergence
that emerges is merely socio-political and weak on
linguistic grounds.
Analytically, we observed that though Standard registers
(like the ones used in news media) are highly 'Sanskritized'
35
or 'Persianized' but the colloquial variety exhibits almost
equal influence of both phenomena.
The efforts by the authorities to standardize the language in
different directions was driven by the political motivations
and introduced diglossia in the society where there was
none.
We observed how digraphia can have social and linguistic
effects even to mobilization along communal lines and
motivating efforts to force artificial variation in the
language.
The difference in the Hindi and Urdu is that of style not
much else.
Thus we can arrive at this result that Hindi and Urdu are
essentially same variety of pluricentric language Hindustani. We
also observe that like representing a social, religious, or cultural
group as a homogeneous entity, even a language may be
imagined as homogeneous. Under political motivations, the
internal linguistic variations of a language may be ignored, and
there may be a conscious selection of those expressions which
only exaggerate and increase already existing differentiation.
There is a totalizing vision in such linguistic ideology.
36
Bibliography
Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics, Hadumod
Bussmann
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urdu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindustani_language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amir_Khusrow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabir
King, C. R. 1994. One Language, Two Scripts : The Hindi
movement in Nineteenth Century North India, Bombay : Oxford
University Press.
Rai, A. 2000. Hindi Nationalism, Orient Longman .
Kelkar, Ashok (1968). Studies in Hindi-Urdu. Poona: Deccan
College Postgraduate and Research Institute.
Michael Clyne (1992),Pluricentric Languages: Differing Norms
in Different Nations
Gumperz, John J.,Conversational Hindi-Urdu. Vol. 2, pp. xiv-
214. Berkeley: ASUC Bookstore, University of California.