On the Origins of Urdu

 

Here is another article on Urdu appearing in the Dawn Newspaper! But the issue is not  whether Urdu is linguistically different from Hindi in terms of origin. The origins of Urdu could well be from one of the Apabhraṃśa or the kindred vernacular dialects which

presumably included Hindi which were spoken in the very same historical area of the Upper Doab and in the Western Rohilkhand and Urdu may well have an origin parallel with and distinct from Hindi though both the original languages being kindred languages spoken in the same historical area of the Upper Doab and in the Western Rohilkhand were very apparently very similar. To begin with the name Urdu was not even prevalent and the whole comprehensive  language was only called Hindavi or Hindi. But that was at a time when the Turko –Persian influence had not yet set in with the invasion and advent of the Chagatai Mughals who established a Persianate State in India. 

 

 

 

As stated by Michael Prawdin in "Builders of the Mogul empire", Akbar's promulgation of Din Ilahi should not be therefore taken as the half-insane act of a vain-glorious autocrat, imagining himself to be God's representative on earth, but as an effort to introduce some framework  of law and custom which would justify his rule and make him the righteous sovereign of a foreign country in which he was making his empire.  Because at this time all laws were based on religion,  this framework had to be a religious one, a divine pronunciation of truth, but just because it had to be religious it was bound to fail. It is reported of Abul Fazl, who with his father was one of the chief architects of Din llahi, that while propagating it he at the same time employed a dozen scribes to copy the Koran for him. Then, the Mughal army were a horde of thugs and criminals and were pillaging the land of India had to necessarily communicate with the native  Indians and they as alien foreigners  were not conversant with Indian vocabulary and had to supplant Indigenous Indian vocabulary with Persian, Turkish or Arabic vocabulary while necessarily having to communicate with the natives in their own language and they resorted to writing the language with the Perso- Arabic script. This language used by the alien nobility became known to be Urdu or the language of the nomadic horde residing in tents or camps! Sher Shah Suri, for example

was an Indigenous Indo-Aryan Indic Pashtun Indian ruler whose ancestors were from the historic Mandesh area of Ghor (Samskrit Man Desh) in Afghanistan and he used Devanagari script in his coins. The Suri dynasty traced its origin from the Ghorids of Ghor, a formerly Hindu and later Islamic dynasty originating from Mandesh in the Ghor region of the fastness of the Hindukush of modern-day central Afghanistan. The Mughal invaders never really Indianised themselves and endeavoured to create a Persianate State in India and one of the reasons for the decline and fall of the Mughal Empire was because amongst the Muslim nobility, there were two distinct classes viz the Hindustani faction and the Mughal faction. The Mughal faction comprised those whose ancestry was either Irani and Turani and they detested and suspected the Hindustani Muslims and considered themselves superior racially and considered Indian Muslims to be inferior to them and there was a continual struggle for control of power and authority. The Hindustani Muslims comprised of inter alia the Sayyids of Barha, the Afghan nobles, and Khan-i-Dauran, whose ancestors came from Badakhshan in the far north of the India and other indigenous Indian Muslims whose ancestors had been Hindus.      The foreign Muslims were arbitrarily called Mughals, but were really either Turani or Irani. The foreign nobles of diverse origin, were opposed as a class to the members of the Hindustani party and as colonizers had a vested interest to ensure that the Indian Muslims did not identify themselves with their brethren fellow Indians professing the Hindu faith lest the same would expose and isolate the Mughal faction and they patronized foreign cultural and religious terminology and vocabulary in order to further their imperialist ambitions in the bag and baggage of Islam. The same status quo continues to this date as the descendants of the Mughal faction continue to be amidst us. The foreign Mughals interrupted the history of India. Had they not invaded, India’s beloved indigenous Lodi dynasty  or Sur Dynasty would have obviously eventually re-unified the whole of the Sub-continent of India! In the present scenario, the predominant Muslim population in the sub-continent of India are descendants of Hindu converts and belong to the Indo-Aryan ethnicity. Once the predominant Muslim people of the sub-continent of India rediscover their glorious  Indo-Aryan ancestry, heritage and ethos, which are all extraneous to their profession of the faith of Islam and their religious beliefs, they would Indianise their language and script. The phenomenon will be something that will first happen in the sub-continent of India not in India but in Pakistan and when it happens, it will not be under duress or coercion but due to a renaissance and their rediscovery of their very own Indo-Aryan ancestry, heritage and ethos. It is not as though the Pakistanis are an inferior people and unworthy of it. As stated in the article, Max Muller, the renowned linguist, has given us a guiding principle in this regard pertaining to the criterion for a language, Viz. “ the classification of a language and its relationship with the other language is based on morphological and syntactical structures of that language and vocabulary has very little importance in this regard…”! Take the instance of another Indian language, Pashtu: “The sentence construction of Pashto is akin to that of Hindi. Unlike Persian, but as in the Prakrits, the Pashto noun comes after the adjective and the possessor precedes the possessed in the genitive construction. The verb generally agrees with the subject in both transitive and intransitive sentences. An exception occurs when a completed action is reported in the past tense. In such cases, Pashto forms are the same as Hindi forms: the verb agrees with the subject if it is intransitive and with the object if it is transitive”. Pashto has been considered an Indic i.e. Indo Aryan Indian language , rather than an Iranian, language: “The Pakkhto, likethe Hindi, is a dialect of the Sanskrit as regards its grammaticalconstruction, only Persianised in respect to the bulk of the words composing it”, according to Bellew. (Henry Walter Bellew, A Grammar of the Pukkhto or Pukshto Language, London, 1867) The reality is that other than the supplanting of the indigenous Indo-Aryan vocabulary and terminology with Turko-Persian vocabulary and the substitution of the indigenous Indo-Aryan Brahmi/Devanagari script with the invasive Perso-Arabic script, Urdu is not a different distinct language and is the same as Hindi which in theory retains the native indigenous  Indo-Aryan terminology and the indigenous Indo-Aryan Devanagari script. If Urdu was a distinct separate language, Urdu ought to have a distinct grammar and distinct original native vocabulary or words which are not invasive loanwords from Persian, Arabic or Turkish.  There are none whatsoever which can confer Urdu with the status of a distinct independent language. The so-called Urdu words are per se not at all Urdu words but only invasive loanwords which supplanted indigenous vocabulary. Also, Urdu does not gave a distinct grammatical structure and syntax distinct from Hindi. Hindi is an Indo-Aryan language derived from Proto-Indo-Aryan Samskrit and hence the language has Indo-Aryan Samskrit words which are not loanwords, just like French is a Romance Language directly descended from Latin and her words are predominantly derived from Latin, or Persian is a Proto-Iranian language  and hence her native words are derived from Iranian. There are foreign phrases used in Urdu but these phrases are not per se  part of the Urdu language which can confer a distinct language status on Urdu. English for example uses foreign phrases or maxims  like inter alia coup d’ etat or carte blanche of fait accompli or in absentia  or modus operandi or magnum opus or obiter dictum or persona non grata  or ipso facto or quid pro quo or sui generis or vis-à-vis or volte-face.  The real issue is the Indo-Aryan identity of the people of Pakistan. Language has nothing whatsoever to do with religion and has to do with nationality and ethnicity. Samskrit or Hindi is not a Hindu language but is the Indo-Aryan and Indic Indian language and the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan are predominantly Indo-Aryan and once they appreciate their national identity and ethnicity, a revival of nationalism will inevitably result in the discarding of the alien predominant Turco Persian vocabulary and the restoration of the indigenous Indo Aryan terminology and script. For example the Persian word used for the Arabic word for  God  is Khuda which is a Persian word derived from xvatay or xwadag meaning lord, ruler of Master derived from Middle Iranian rather than the Arabic word,  Allah and the word Khuda is ultimately derived from India’s Samskrit language Svabhava or svadhava which literally means own being or own essence or self powered which later became Kwadava and subsequently Khuda! On scrutinizing archaeological and textual evidences  from the Trans-Kuen Lun Range state of Khotan in Greater India adjoining India Proper on the Sanju-la and Hindu-tash Passes section in Ladakh of the Kuen Lun Range on the International Border of India, the Indic Indo-Aryan Indian origins of the word Khuda is apparent.  The word Khuda is even used predominantly in the  Sub-continent of India particularly Afghanistan and Pakistan.  The word Khuda was used as a noun in reference to Ahura Mazda. The issue is whether the word Allah is the Arabic word for God, or whether the name Allah is the name of an Arabian God amongst many other Gods and Goddesses like Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, or Manat. Although Persian belongs to the Proto-Iranian branch, It borrowed and assimilated many terms from the Indo-Aryan Samskrit especially during the cultural exchange and the influence of Buddhism and Hinduism in ancient Iran.  As Muzaffar Hussain says in “Spell of Hindi on Pakistanis”, “Can Pakistan Run Away From shadow of India??”,  “…Therefore, truly speaking, the Arabic and Persian words can be termed as  "foreign" to the subcontinent. While the words of Braj, Bhojpuri, Avadhi  or Malvi are indeed very much indigenous. The Pakistanis along with their Hindi-baiter Indian cousin should shun the Arabic or Persian words if at all they are so averse to "foreign" words. But blind dogma can never be countered with reason. This chauvinism went to such an extent that the Pakistanis began saying Allah Hafiz when they realised that Khuda in Khuda Hafiz hails from Iranian culture, which today belongs to  the Shias of Iran, a bete noire for all Sunnis. Thus the Pakistanis'  inability to do away with Hindi words from their "living speech is an  indication that Hindi indeed is a natural speech, a "living speech" of  the subcontinent. What keeps Hindi and Urdu apart is the "left-going" script of Urdu. If this dividing factor is removed then Pakistan has forty million Hindi-speaking population. Pakistani schools do not teach Hindi. But it is part of the "Indian studies". At one time Lahore University had courses in Hindi up to post graduate level…”.

 

 

In the French language, there is the Académie française which regulates the excessive usage of foreign words in French. In Persian, there is the The Academy of Persian Language and Literature to protect the purity of the Persian Language. Ferdowsi, in fact, was a motivation behind Reza Shah's decision to remove the foreign loanwords from Persian, replacing them with Persian equivalents. In 1934, Reza Shah ordered to rebuild Ferdowsi's tomb and set up a country-wide ceremony in honor of a thousand years of Persian literature since the time of Ferdowsi, titled Ferdowsi Millenary Celebration, inviting notable Iranian and foreign scholars. The academy strives to protect the integrity of the Persian language. It heads the academic efforts for linguistic research on the Persian language and its sister Iranian languages. It has also created an official orthography of Persian. The attention of the academy has also been towards the persistent infiltration of Persian, like many other languages, with foreign words. During the 8^th to the 10^th Centuries,  there was the period of Persian renaissance or Persian Revival when the Indo-European Iranians quite rightly realized that under the bag and baggage of  Islam, the Arabs were surreptitiously suppressing the Persian language and their cultural heritage was being erased. Persian was forced to absorb invasive alien and foreign Arabian words, Phrases, and grammatical structures. The Persians to uphold their national identity, reclaimed their linguistic heritage and caused lexical purification to take place by replacement of the invasive Arabic loanwords with original native Persian equivalents and the promotion of the use of pure Persian vocabulary, and the restoration of Persian grammatical structures and the assertion of Persian cultural identity. There was a promotion of Persian identity wherein the distinct Indo-European Aryan Persian identity  and culture was emphasized, separate from invasive alien and foreign  Arabic cultural and linguistic dominance. There was an emphasis on the pre-Islamic Persian heritage including Zoroastrianism and ancient Persian Pre-Islamic history.  The old script for writing Persian was the Pahlavi Script prior to the 7^th Century which was completely displaced by the 9^th century officially by the Tahirid, Samanid, and Saffarid dynasties. In Turkish, the Turkish Language Association (TDK) was established in 1932 under the patronage of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, with the aim of conducting research on Turkish. One of the tasks of the newly established association was to initiate a language reform to replace alien and foreign invasive  loanwords of Arabic and Persian origin with Turkish equivalents. By banning the usage of imported words in the press, the association succeeded in removing several hundred foreign words from the language. While most of the words introduced to the language by the TDK were newly derived from Turkic roots, it also opted for reviving Old Turkish words which had not been used for centuries. However, In India and Pakistan, we are unworthy of such a renaissance as we are inferior people and we should not endeavour to purify Hindi or Hindustani and rid the language of excessive Arabic, Turki and Persian words as that would be construed as communalism by the descendants of the Ural- Altaic Turko-Mongol Chaghattai Mughals and Persians like the Geelanis and Owaisis who under the façade or garb of communalism and antagonism towards Hindus,  subvert Indian Nationalism amongst Indian Muslims under the façade that they are the leaders and spokespersons of the Muslim community in the Sub-Continent of India!

 

 

If Urdu is really a distinct independent language, derived from the fusion of Persian, Arabic, Turkish and Indian, let Saudi Arabia, Persia, West Turkistan including Uzbekistan, Central Asia, and Turkic Anatolia (Asia Minor) make Urdu their lingua franca and their language par excellence of science, arts,  culture and literature. The cat will be out of the bag and skeletons would tumble out of the closet!  They won't, because the purpose of Urdu was only solely cultural and linguistic imperialism and subjugation in the sub-continent of India and Urdu has no other purpose whatsoever, and the people of Pakistan will eventually realise this.

 

 

Ajit Doval's new pernicious fantastic definition of sovereignty is an act of treason and imperils the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India

 

The National Security Adviser, Mr.Ajit Doval said on May 24 that the undefined borders in the west and north have adversely affected the country  and that India’s economic progress would have been much faster “if we had more secure borders.” He

says that a large area of Kashmir in the west is occupied by Pakistan but he does not similarly say that a large area of Kashmir is occupied by the Chinese in the north, but  instead rather  says that “India shares an undefined border with "China" in the north”. “If both our borders, in north and west had been defined and not in state of adversarial disposition, India’s economic progress would have been much faster if we had more secure borders and in future I don’t think that our borders are going to be as secure as we will require for our fast economic growth.

So what is Mr. Ajit Doval inferring?

So according to Mr. Ajit Doval, India for India’s economic progress, should have secure borders by giving away the areas in Kashmir like India’s beloved Aksai Chin in Ladakh and the Cis Kuen Lun Tract extending from the Shingshal and the  Chhogori K2 Peak in central Kashmir to the Taghdumbash Pamir & Mariom Pamir & Dafdar, & the Kukalang, Yangi, Kilian, Sanju-la and Hindu-tash Passes 36°27'01"N 78°46'59"E in northern Kashmir under Chinese military occupation in a platter and convert the Ceasefire line into the alleged so-called secure  international Boundary!

What gibberish is Ajit Doval inferring? Is he saying that just because the International

Boundary is undefined  and allegedly in a state of adversarial disposition, in order to have "secure" borders, India should give Aksai Chin 36°26'06"N 78°46'49"E in Ladakh  in a platter to the Chinese? That in order to have "secure" borders, India should give Aksai Chin 36°26'06"N 78°46'49"E in Ladakh  & the Cis-Kuen Lun Tract in Kashmir in a platter to the Chinese occupying India's neighbouring sovereign countries, just because the Chinese  are claiming it though Aksai Chin is not at all a disputed territory by any stretch of imagination whatsoever and is per se historically  an integral and  inalienable part of Ladakh, Kashmir since time immemorial.

This is a repeat of what transpired in 1954.  Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru visited China in 1954

and he in the same year unilaterally and arbitrarily made ab initio  illegal changes to the International Boundary of India for the alleged reason of securing a firm and definite international boundary. In between, Nehru issued a memorandum of July 1, 1951 ( SWJN ; Volume 26, page 477).  which stated inter alia that the frontier should be considered a firm and definite one, which is not open to discussion with any one. A system of check posts should be spread along this entire frontier.  Precious old Survey Of India  maps which depicted Sanju-la and  Hindutash Passes in Aksai Chin in Ladakh, Kashmir  were summarily arbitrarily and unilaterally burnt to facilitate the Chinese! The fallacious logic and reasoning claimed and alleged by Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru was that the border should "be firm and definite one, which is

not open to discussion with any one", but his vile fraudulent and dishonest collusive  intentions were soon to be exposed and  laid bare eventually. Pertinently, it is imperative to note that the Director of the Intelligence Bureau , B.N. Mullik had recommended the setting of new posts in Kashmir in 1959, at inter alia Sarigh Jilganang Kol and Palong Karpo which was discussed in January 1959 at a meeting in the external affairs Ministry in the presence of Gen Thimayya, Chief of the Army staff and the notorious Foreign secretary, Mr. Ratan Kumar Nehru. Both the Army Chief and the Foreign Secretary had opposed the proposal to open border posts at inter alia Sarigh Jilganang Kol though Sarigh Jilganang Kol was situate deep inside Kashmir even according to the obnoxious conservative ‘Nehru Line’ published out of the blue in 1954 by Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru

because according to them, the opening of the said posts would ‘provoke’ the Chinese , and create tension. The attitude of the External Affairs Ministry (hear, hear) was that “this part of the territory was useless to India. Even if the Chinese did not encroach into it , India could not make any use of it . The boundary had not been demarcated and had  been shifted more than once by the British”. (Mullik , The Chinese Betrayal, page 204). Now, Mr. Ajit Doval obviously wants to further shift the so called "secure border" from the Yangi Davan Pass to the east of Haji Langar or Palong Ri and Cholpanglik in Aksai Chin in Ladakh which was the secure border as per the ab initio illegal and null and void and ultra vires the sacrosanct Constitution of India, and  non est in law 1954 line published by Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru in collusion with the regime in China to the present  Cease Fire Line along the Galwan  and Shyok Rivers in western Ladakh to facilitate India’s economic progress and  growth.

Well, Mr. Ajit Doval, If the International borders in the northwest are undefined, then

India should demarcate the International Boundary of India with East Turkistan on the watershed of the Kuen Lun Range in Raskam, Kashmir as done by me. India should hold talks with the de jure Government of the Chinese Occupied Sovereign state of  East Turkistan  and demarcate the International Boundary of India with East Turkistan on the water shed of the Kuen Lun Range wherein are the Taghdumbash Pamir & Mariom Pamir & Dafdar, the northernmost point in the Republic of India & the Kukalang, Yangi, Kilian, Sanju-la and Hindu-tash Passes 36°27'01"N 78°46'59"E in northern Kashmir  & make the boundary precise, not vague & unambiguous and the limit to India’s sovereignty and territorial integrity is unambiguous and precise.  The de jure Government of East Turkistan has already gone on record by stating that Aksai Chin is a part of India and they do not claim Aksai Chin and that the Johnson Line is recognized by East Turkistan as the International Boundary of East Turkistan with India.

Ajit Doval gives his own  pernicious fantastic definition of sovereignty and territorial integrity of India. It is per se outright anti-national and seditious and amounts to treason. It is fraught with impending ominous danger and a disaster waiting to happen.  The ceasefire line of Line of Actual Control does not

define India’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The actual de jure International Boundary of India with Chinese Occupied East Turkistan on the Taghdumbash Pamir & Mariom Pamir,  and  the Kukalang, Yangi, Kilian, Sanju-la and Hindu-tash Passes 36°27'01"N 78°46'59"E in northern Kashmir defines the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India and for Mr. Ajit Doval to say otherwise is treason and he should to sacked for treason and for imperiling India’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and the sacrosanct Constitution of India.   According to Mr. Ajit Doval, “borders are important because that is the limit which defines our sovereignty. Up to the last point where our border soldier is able to go and put his foot down, that is the limit of our sovereignty, zameen par jo kabja hai wo apna hai, baaki sab adalat aur kacheri ka kaam hai, usse fark nahin padta (what matters are the areas where we can establish our claim physically, the rest is a legal matter for the courts, and does not make a difference).“ According to him, 

 "The land which is in our possession is ours;  the rest is a matter for courts and is immaterial”. Thus is per se treason. The de jure border is material and it is the Line of Actual Control and the Cease Fireline which has absolutely no sanctity and basis and should be treated with the contempt it deserves and summarily be ignored and all endeavour should be for driving away and throwing the Chinese out of Aksai Chin and the Cis-Kuen Lun Tract,  and  Mr. Ajit Doval apparently prefers to convert the ab initio illegal and null and void Ceasefire Line or the Line of Actual Control into the alleged so called International Boundary. 

“We got to see whether the border on northern or western side, they not only determine the limits of our sovereignty, not only important for our territorial integrity, they also have an impact on our internal security and stability,” the NSA said.

His statement that sovereignty extends only "Up to the last point where our border soldier is able to go and put his foot down" is per se false mischievous collusive seditious anti-national act for which  the Government of India should take punitive action against him for treason and sedition. Such a person like Mr. Ajit Doval is unfit and incompetent for holding the post of National Security Advisor (NSA). He is per se imperiling the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India and he should be summarily be removed and terminated for treason by the  Government of India.

But the more ominous issue is whether  this present  dispensation at all has the inclination to protect India’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and is actually hand in glove with him  and tacitly supporting Mr. Ajit Doval  who may be actually  acting at the behest and instance of the  subservient and servile present dispensation in Dehli!