Urdu:
India's Stepchild
By Dr Khan Dawood L. Khan
Chicago, IL
The Rodney Dangerfield refrain,
“I don’t get no respect. No respect
at all,” would seem equally applicable to
Urdu in India, its birthplace, its home!
Urdu is a symbol of India’s syncretic culture,
but based on various perceptions -- real or not
-- this so-called ‘Ganga-Yamuna tahzeeb’
often appears to have an oil-in-water consistency
about it. Not just to one or the other stream
but to both!
Aalimi Urdu Conference held in Hyderabad (India)
this year (14-16 January) is just a celebration
of the fact and this ‘tahzeeb’, regardless
of the perception. How productive or effective
this conference – in fact, any such gathering
of an Indo-Pak Urdu-Speaking diaspora -- would
be, beyond the self-congratulatory rituals and
lip-service by the current political leaders,
remains to be seen.
Since Independence, sustained efforts have been
made to dilute Urdu’s individuality, diffuse
its independence and undermine its status. A variety
of myths have been created and perpetuated in
the process, although every single one of them
has been shown totally insupportable and even
contrary to historical facts. No other Indian
language -- and Urdu, though comparatively young,
is just as indigenous to India as any other language--
had to face similar problems and challenges.
Urdu is portrayed as a language of Muslims and
Islam, and as THE ‘language of the Partition’.
This, however, ignores major contributions to
the language by many non-Muslim writers, poets
and journalists, to name some randomly: Prem Chand,
Krishen Chander, Rajinder Singh Bedi Tarlok Chand
Marhoorn, Mali Ram Wafa, Labhu Ram Josh Malsiani,
Kaif Arfani Mohanmurti , Naresh Kumar Shad, Pandit
Sudarshan , Upendra Nath Ashq, Qamar Jalalabadi,
Ram Prashad Bismil, Hansraj Rehbar, Dr. Gopi Chand
Narang, Gopal Mittal, Hari Chand Akhtar , Dwarkadhish
Mehar, Swami Ramanan, Pandit Dattatreya Kaifi,
Mahasha Krishan, Mahasha Khushal Chand, Nanak
Chand Naaz, Ram Rakha Mal Khustargrami, Sohan
Lal Vohra, Pindi Das of Gujaranwala. “How
many Hindus does Urdu need to flaunt to prove
its appeal across religions,” asks an editorial
writer in the Times of India [1]? Had Urdu not
been perpetually portrayed only as a Muslim/Islamic
langu age, the question at this point would be
laughable.
Except for the fact that Urdu
shares the Arabic script of Koran, which most
religious Muslim would learn to read, most Muslims
in the world are NOT Urdu speakers. In India,
e.g., the Bengali- , Tamil- , or Malayali-Muslims
who read the Koran, wouldn’t consider or
claim Urdu as their mother tongue. ; Although
it’s the official language of Pakistan,
less than 10% of Pakistanis are native-Urdu speakers.
Religion alone is NOT enough to unite people:
it doesn’t keep Sunnis and Shias together
(in Pakistan or Iraq); it didn’t keep the
East and West Pakistan together either. Separation
of East Pakistan into independent Bangladesh had
more to do with language and culture than shared
religion!
Some still consider Urdu either as a reminder
of our Mughal past and, therefore, not quite desirable,
or as another bone of Hindu-Muslim contention,
and thus no longer welcome. Both are far from
the truth. Have we not hung on, rather unabashedly,
to English and our British Raj past for the past
60-plus years? Don’t we recall how English
(NOT H indi) has remained the one truly national
language that not only kept India united (through
the disastrously divisive linguistic Reorganization
of the States and the language riots, first in
the South and then till very recently in the Northeast)
but also provided us a considerable edge over
other countries in this Information Age and global,
on-line 21st century? Nothing has caused more
internal strife and distrust than attempts to
impose Hindi as THE only national language. In
fact, the upsurge in demands for linguistic recognition
still continues. The Constitutional Amendment
(2003) to the Eighth Schedule has added two only-verbal
languages for the very first time, as a part of
the deal between the central government and tribal
groups that had been demanding independence and
other kinds of recognition. It’s expec ted
that 35 more languages would follow, while English
would continue to remain unquestionably as one
the two national languages.
‘Hindustani’ was supposed to serve
as a bridge between the Devanagiri-script Hindi
and Arabic-Persian-script Urdu. Aptly termed as
Hindi-Hindustani-Urdu mentalite (the traditionally
overlapping and shared cultural values, attitudes
and identity, as the French would say) in a detailed
review of the subject [2], what occurred mostly
was a gradual erosion of the legitimate status
of Urdu as an independent language.
The position that Urdu is an archaic and ‘dying’
as a language is absurd, and just a blind extrapolation
from “in Custody,” the 1985 book by
Anita Desai. Were it true -- even Ismail Merchant
who made it into a 1994 movie denied it in his
AsiaSource interview of May 2001 -- why would
we continue to see an ever-increasing number of
Urdu words and phrases used so enthusiastically
in supposedly Hindi movies, songs, TV shows and
in our vernacular? We don’t see any such
interest in or demand for the introduction of
Telugu, Tamil or any other language words into
the national media, do we? It is true, however,
that the indices of linguistic health and growth
(newspapers, books, etc) have not been as high
for Urdu as those of other languages, but there
are various reasons for it [2].
However, it’s too naïve and careless
to suggest, as an editorial writer for the Times
of India [TOI] recently did, that Urdu is ‘in
the throes of death’ or that Urdu newspapers
in India or elsewhere are consumed by issues concerning
only Muslims and Islam, and ‘bellyache’
about unfair treatment to Urdu by Indian government
[1]. That’s a broad-brush, which this writer
even acknowledged! The orientation and focus of
other regional or religious press in India is
in fact just as narrow, if not narrower. Nothing
uniquely Indian either, because such newspapers
in other countries, including US, Britain, Israel,
and other democracies, tend to be that specifically
focused. There’s always the question of
fairness and balance, but that again is not just
limited to the Urdu press in or outside India,
as the TOI writer would have you believe.
Urdu newspapers are published not just in India
– they are also published in Pakistan and
other countries, including Canada and the US,
each with its own focus, and none necessarily
bound or supposed to be in agreement with the
Indo-Pak Urdu press. When the TOI writer acknowledges
that “Like some Hindi rags, they [Urdu newspapers]
too have begun to thrive on sensationalism,”
he disembowels his own argument. What he calls
“breast beating about the tardy treatment
meted out to the Urdu language by an apathetic
government,” is nothing more than a totally
legitimate attempt to seek redress. It is claimed
that “Nobody paid a bigger price for Partition
than Urdu. Pakistan, in its desperation to acquire
legitimacy, appropriated Urdu and its poet Allama
Iqbal.” This is too naïve, and ignores
the history of Partition [3]. Overall, the article
[1] seemed to be nothing more than “yet
another regressive rant,” or just what the
author calls the Urdu press.
The TOI writer adds that “Urdu has enriched
Hindi cinema immensely, providing mellifluous
lyrics and embroidering dialogue.” True,
but without getting its due credit! In this regard,
I have previously suggested [cited in 1] that
the Urdu-speakers of India can get it rectified
by : (i) noting down the number of Urdu words
used in Hindi movies, songs and TV shows, (ii)
forwarding the information to the producers of
such fare and the Union Ministry of Information
that certifies the products (or any other government
or non-government agency) asking them to co-list
Urdu in the credits if Urdu words exceed 10-15%
of the total, and (iii) seeing some ‘Truth
in labeling and advertising’ in the products
released. Imagine how popular purely Hindi or
highly Sanskritized-Hindi programs will be!
Many successful countries try to reduce sectarian,
regional and other differences and unite them
all behind a common set of goals. Instead, leaders
of India have preferred to reorganize the States
along linguistic lines and continued to stoke
the fire that kept an already diverse country
stay diverse, without letting it gel yet into
a synthetic whole. None of the indigenous languages
has yet been able to bring the country together
in this fashion. In fact, what did keep India
united over the last half-century of needless
linguistic regional turmoil that squandered much
of the country’s valuable time and resources,
was English, the language of our British colonial
past that most conservative nationalist were so
anxious to get rid of (just like they tried to
disown Urdu and other remnants of Mughal period).
In addition, it is English and English alone (NOT
any of the regional/official lang uages, including
Urdu) that will keep India highly competitive
and prominent on the world stage in this 21st
century information age. Regardless of the ongoing
turmoil within India, NONE of the regional and
official languages travels well even within India,
much less outside. Except English, no other Indian
(Hindi, or any Regional/Official language, Urdu
included) offers even a remote opportunity to
comfortably step into the cyber-world.
Urdu is a product of undivided India, and it will
remain as such, carried in both parts of the subcontinent.
The continuing campaign to deny Urdu its true
status in India is nothing more than trying to
disown what was born there.
REFERENCES:
[1] Mohammed Wajihuddin, The Times of India, Editorial,
January 13, 2006. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1369931.cms
[2] Rizwana Rahim, ‘Urdu in India’
(in 3 parts), September 30-November 3, 2005, http://www.pakistanlink.com/Opinion/2005/Sep05/30/02.HTM
http://www.pakistanlink.com/Opinion/2005/Oct05/14/02.HTM
http://www.pakistanlink.com/Opinion/2005/Oct05/21/05.HTM
http://www.pakistanlink.com/Opinion/2005/Nov05/11/03.HTM
[3] Khan Dawood L. Khan, Partition Players’
Politics’ (in 5 Parts), September 9 –
October 14, 2005
http://www.pakistanlink.com/Opinion/2005/Sep05/09/02.HTM
http://www.pakistanlink.com/Opinion/2005/Sep05/09/02.HTM
http://www.pakistanlink.com/Opinion/2005/Sep05/16/07.HTM
http://www.pakistanlink.com/Opinion/2005/Sep05/23/05.HTM
http://www.pakistanlink.com/Opinion/2005/Sep05/30/03.HTM
http://www.pakistanlink.com/Opinion/2005/Oct05/14/03.HTM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
