Urdu in India
By Dr. Rizwana Rahim
Chicago, IL
Re comments (in ‘Opinion’,
Pakistan Link, November 4) on my three-part article
“Urdu in India’:
Dr. Adarkar’s account of his parents’
familiarity with Urdu was so nostalgic of the
days past. It also shows the kind of interest
people had then in this language, and reaffirms
the historical fact I mentioned: Urdu cannot be
associated with just one religious, ethnic, cultural
group in India, the land of its birth. It is important
to remember that only about 50% of Indian Muslims
claim Urdu to be their mother tongue.
I agree that its “script is an important”
factor. In fact, the script is what distinguishes
Urdu from other languages of India -- not just
a “reason,” but its very raison d’etre.
Hindi shares its script with several Indian languages,
and they all have their roots in Sanskrit. But
this has neither blurred the individuality of
any of them, nor has it diluted the status and
recognition of any language where it’s most
prevalent as the official State language.
In the article, I had also mentioned how Punjabi-speakers
fought for long to keep Punjabi as a language
separate from Hindi, and how the Eighth Schedule
(official language status) has been amended three
times to add more languages: Sindhi in 1969, three
other languages in 1993, and four more in 2003,
of which two are ‘spoken’ languages
(one of them even reflecting the Indian Government’s
terms of settlement with a warring tribal group).
Rajasthani speakers, previously satisfied to have
their language included as part of Hindi, are
now demanding a separate State language status
for it. And, that’s not the end of the story:
the former Home Minister Advani acknowledged in
2003 that up to 35 more may be added to the Schedule
in future. This indicates continued interest of
native speakers to see their language get its
proper recognition: and, in this regard, Urdu
speakers are not unique.
As to the statement that Urdu has been losing
its “strong footing,” it is NOT by
a lack of growth in this language or the interest
of other language-speakers in it. Quite the contrary!
In fact, it is the manner in which Urdu’s
status is diluted in what I’ve referred
to as the ‘Hindi-Urdu-Hindustani mentalite`’.
It is in this shared situation that Urdu gets
short-changed, and its increasing contribution
to Hindi ignored.
Stating that “Muslims would tend to learn
it [Urdu] as a matter of course as a result of
studying the Qur’an,” would, I’m
afraid, be misleading. Sure, the Arabic and Urdu
not only share the same script but also the etymology
of many words, but I doubt if a non-Urdu-speaking
Muslim, who has also studied Qur'an, would claim
Urdu as his/her mother tongue. Rather, a Bengali-speaking
Muslim would claim Bengali as his/her mother tongue,
just like, e.g., a Telugu-speaking Hindu, well-versed
in religious scriptures, wouldn’t claim
to be a native speaker of Tamil, Kannada or Marathi
(all languages with Sanskrit roots and script).
Comments by Nara Mantrvadi miss the point, unfortunately
– of my reference to the theme in Anita
Desai’s book “In Custody” as
well as the thrust of my article.
If Urdu were really a “dying” language,
why would it be so heavily taken up in Hindi vernacular,
and used on the streets and in the movies, songs
and TV/Radio programs, etc. ? Prevalence of Urdu
words and phrases in other languages speaks not
only volumes for its “functionality”
but also of its increasing acceptance by other
languages.
Reference to “Auranghazeb’s kingdom”
is, in my view, an unfortunate red herring –
inconsistent with the theme and the spirit of
my article, which is: Urdu is a common legacy
of Hindu-Muslim contributions and culture, and
that the ‘Urdu-for-Muslim-Only’ is
only a myth. The question is not how “India/Indians
are systematically trying to bring Urdu to an
end,” but it is to see that Urdu gets a
fair and proper credit in its motherland, without
the implication that it belongs only to a religious
minority or the haze that blurs its individuality
or its rightful status as a rich, independent
language. It is a legacy of our Moghul past, just
like English is of the British Raj itself. English
has not only kept India united so far (despite
strong linguistic parochialism) but offers the
country as the best opportunity in the 21st century
cyber-world, opportunities that none of the Indian
languages (including Hindi and Urdu) can offer.
In this connection, the hypothetical case I had
presented in the article is worth a mention again:
“If language X offers no upward mobility
or increased opportunities, its use in schools
and elsewhere would, as a consequence, decline
with time, and the next generation would prefer
(quite understandably) another (say, Language
Y) that offers what X couldn't. Language X could
easily be Hindi itself, compared to English (Language
Y). Continued vitality and growth of a language
lie in the 'genetics' of the language itself,
i.e., how well a language is received and regarded
by each succeeding generation in the daily life
of its 'users' in both personal and official/business.”
I think the suggestion of Dr Khan Dawood L. Khan
to the Indian Ministry of Information (also mentioned
in my article) seems fair and reasonable. I believe
the Ministry should seriously consider certifying
a product as “Hindi-Urdu” when a product
offered or labeled as ‘Hindi’ contains
a significant contribution by Urdu (number of
Urdu words, etc), and the suggested 10-15% is
not an unreasonable figure. Of course, it’d
be preferable if the producers themselves took
this initiative.
I also think, the consumers, in general, and the
native speakers of Urdu speakers, in particular
(including those who also regard Urdu as our common
legacy), can help both the producers and the concerned
Ministry achieve this ‘truth in labeling
and advertising’ by monitoring the products
they view and reporting those that need to be
properly labeled (or re-labeled), based on a reasonable
basic minimal criterion (10-15% Urdu).
Otherwise, based on the current certifications
(of the producers and the Government), it appears
that, in India, NO songs were written or movies
made in Urdu, and Urdu made NO contribution to
Indian cinema worth a mention so far. An impression,
contrary to the fact!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
