Why Pakistan chose Urdu over Persian as it's National Language ?

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,574
New Delhi, India
#82
I am very serious. There has been an IAS who got his degrees from a madarsa (the degrees are recognized by the Government of India) and his medium of instruction was Arabic. Therefore, he was allowed to answer his questions in Arabic. He was successful in his attempt. Must be a Deputy Secretary in South Block by now.

Article 351 is not bigotry but a necessity, because you have yourself said that majority of Indians do not speak Hindustani and speak languages that are closer to Sanskrit, that is why Sanskritized Hindi was adopted.
Though people may have different views about it (Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad). Yes, I do like decorative Urdu scripts (whatever you call them, naksha navisi ?), they are so beautiful, but alas, so different.

But then, as far as I know Urdu script is not as phonetic as Devnagari, if just one diacritical mark is included (which is available in perhaps Marathi). It was just a matter of one wee little dot. I think out-lawing that was bigotry (we will accept wrong pronunciation but not the dot!). Google Translate allows that - (Jahāz - जहाज़).
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,574
New Delhi, India
#83
A dot would have helped us in Tamil and Malayali pronunciation also, of words such as 'Kadagham', 'Kazhagam', Kozhikode', etc. - कझ़गम, कोझ़ीकोड.
A dot signifies that the consonant should be pronounced a little differently, nothing more than that. Now we do not know how to write that correctly.
 
Last edited:

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,598
India
#84
Urdu is written is nastaliq or shekasteh nastaliq all of which originate from persianate culture.

It has nothing to do with Arabic script. Today unfortunately Pakistanis push the Arabic script online as they want Arabic as their national language.

Persian was a modified Arabic script. Urdu is using the modified Persian script that is used for calligraphy in poetry. Another form called shekasteh was used by Mughals for Dari Persian.

And a new version called shekasteh Nastaliq developed for official uses of Urdu by Mughals and others around bahadur shah zafar time.

To give you an idea, look

The modern forms are best in Jameel noori nastaliq kasheeda aka shekasteh nastaliq. And jameel noori nastaliq aka refined nastaliq

You won't find a single pakistani do such pains what I did coz urdu is indian language at heart.

And yes I use my tablet in shekasteh Nastaliq in urdu language. Yes to install the fonts was a damn long frustrated effort to success. But worth it. If anyone interested on how to lemme know
Nastaliq is modified Arabic Script only, it was first modified to suit Persian phonology, then re modified to suit Indian phonology.
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,598
India
#85
I agree with the first paragraph. Yes I've mentioned that zaban a urdu e mualla didn't exist until shah jehan taj mahal time. I've clearly explained that Deccani was taken to Dehli around 1700 by wali Aurangabadi and the persian poets mixed dari with it and called it rekhta. When they perfected it for darbari use it became a language of grandeur call the long Urdu phrase. Later when British destroyed the Grandeur it came to be know as just Urdu to represent a horde.

Later the other people fallen kingdoms with a similar history attached Urdu to their language which had become a Neanderthal lect. Indeed the same has happened to older languages now considered dialects of hindi due to loss of political power or status of might.

Hindi is the newest language of india If you don't count Hinglish
Likewise there is medieval poetry of Khariboli and Brajbhasha often referred as Bhakti kal poetry. Jatmal wrote Gora Badal ki katha in 15th Century. Khariboli(which will later referred as Hindi, Urdu, Hindustani etc.) is spoken in rural areas of Uttar Pradesh and Delhi even before the arrival of Muhammad Ghauri in India. As I mentioned Urdu is the just Muslim variant of Hindi or Hindustani.

Khariboli is native to Gangetic plains, it could only be carried to the Deccan where Marathi and Dravidian languages are the native language. I more thing I noticed about Deccani Muslims is that they find it extremely difficult to understand Persian loaded Urdu.
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,598
India
#86
A dot would have helped us in Tamil and Malayali pronunciation also, of words such as 'Kadagham', 'Kazhagam', Kozhikode', etc. - कझ़गम, कोझ़ीकोड.
A dot signifies that the consonant should be pronounced a little differently, nothing more than that. Now we do not know how to write that correctly.
Zh is pronounced something like R-L, unique to Tamil and Malayalam.
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,574
New Delhi, India
#87
OK. Put the mark under ऱ or ल़. What I mean that such a notation is useful for sounds from other languages, just like we use 'h' in English - khabar, khyber, khatm, or Chandogya, Jhumri Talaiya, etc. ;)
If we do not use 'h' in this way, 'khabar' would always come as 'kabar'.
 
Last edited:

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,598
India
#88
Yes indeed I'm aware. I was talking about it being a mother tongue of Brahmins in the past not now. I apologise if you misunderstood.

Now it's more of an acquired native language like Desi English is to many Indians. It's not second language but it's neither a mother tongue.

The harm is it would not serve the idea of hindi and stop the bigotry towards Urdu. There was an episode 7 of samvidhan it was about language choice 1947. Abdul Kalam Azad ji gave a fabulous speech about how we will never become a great nation in the world if we don't adopt Hindustani as offical. And indeed we haven't. We haven't done what bapu wanted.

As you are well aware Manak or shuddh hindi are the only forms available in education as medium of instruction and books. I've personally talked to thousands of such hindi medium students who say hindi is just simply not enough for them and learning Urdu phonetics and English language is must or they are called adivasi Gao wala and so on.

The saddest part is these are not even Hindustani language but speakers of rural languages which have been demolished as dialects of hindi no less.

The fact that BIMARU states represent the status of these very people saddens me.

There are many more sounds that come from majorly Arabic, Persian and Turkik languages which are also not present in hindi.

Indeed hindi is nothing but sanskrtized Urdu and therin lies the problem of artificial language that nobody speaks naturally and is baffled at as you say
What are you talking is far from reality. The Urdu language was confined to Mughal elites and not a common man's . The Hindi we speak at home is normal, the Bollywood has more contributed to Persianization of Hindi, many of us would admire Urdu song but none of us have any interest in talking in Persian loaded language. Beside, claiming Urdu as original languages like saying German is derived frim Yiddish language.
 

Asherman

Forum Staff
May 2013
3,279
Albuquerque, NM
#89
Shouldn't this thread be in current events since you find it so hard to hold a civil and rational discussion on the topic on any sort of historical basis? Can you even discuss the languages of India and the Sub-Continent without partisan judgments that are almost bound to cause conflicts?
 
Mar 2015
1,427
Yorkshire
#90
What are you talking is far from reality. The Urdu language was confined to Mughal elites and not a common man's . The Hindi we speak at home is normal, the Bollywood has more contributed to Persianization of Hindi, many of us would admire Urdu song but none of us have any interest in talking in Persian loaded language. Beside, claiming Urdu as original languages like saying German is derived frim Yiddish language.
I have been a bit surprised at some of the contributions.

The British spent a great deal of effort in collecting Legal and Law Documents and translating them from Persian into English (there was a recent exhibition of these at the British Museum). By 1838, when of course British India, was limited to mostly Bengal, they banned the use of Persian in Law disputes and supplanted it with English plus the local language. They considered that Hindi and Urdu were basically the same but the elite of the two communities when using Hindi had a preference for adding some Sanskrit phrases while the Moslem, Persian. The big plus with Urdu was that it could be handwritten much faster and hence there was a preference for its use, especially as the vernacular Hindi languages in Bengal covered a lot of variants.

Hindi and Urdu were considered to be the major languages of North India with a cline of Urdu speakers from a low in the East to a high in the West.

As more of India was taken over other vernaculars were added such as Telagu etc.

The same sort of development was adapted in the schooling system where Hindi became more prevalent over time at the expense of Urdu. So without trying to unnecessarily antagonise the various communities the clear aim was to supplant Persian with English whilst adding the vernacular to the legal, governmental and educational systems. The Victorians saw English as the language of Science, technology and progress (I doubt fine Persian poetry had many English followers - although there were some)

Urdu was of course the Language of command in the British Indian Army and all British Officers had to learn it.

Taking all this into account, I can't see why Pakistan should do anything other than use Urdu as their national language.