Urdu Lisaaniyaat

Language is fundamentally a human creation or institution. It serves those who rely on it to fulfill their purposes; they are its guardians and masters. They have molded it to suit their ways, adapting it to their circumstances and necessities. This has always been the case everywhere. Every structural component of a language is the product of continuous evolution, driven by the will and inclinations of its speakers. These speakers were influenced by historical events, human nature, and inner psychological drives. The traces of these influences are clearly visible to us, making language a worthy subject for scientific research and investigation. It is through these distinguishing characteristics that the nature of linguistic study is defined, much like the study of history and ethics.

Language is an integral branch of human civilization and the history of mankind. It draws upon multiple disciplines, yet the human mind—in its quest to explore and articulate thoughts—acts as a kind of middle ground between the evolution of language, its complexities, its connections, and its outcomes. Much like history, language cannot be analyzed in a conventional laboratory setting in the way chemistry or physics can. This is because a laboratory can only accommodate tangible facts that operate under the universal laws of nature. While language is indeed a reality, its very nature dictates that it is in a constant state of flux. This inherent mutability is precisely what distinguishes linguistics from other sciences.

In the realm of linguistics, the principles of analysis and dissection that govern physics and the material sciences simply cannot be applied. Language is free from the rigid constraints of molecules and atoms. Scholars are, however, attempting to bring language under the umbrella of science—specifically, psychology and phonetics. In this context, it is worth noting that psychology, in its current state, certainly provides a valuable theoretical framework through which linguistic issues can be examined. The early pioneers of Urdu were well aware of this. The native speakers and scholars of Urdu never divorced intellectual imagination from their language.

The systematic organization of verb conjugations; the scientifically grounded rules governing the syntax of adjectives and nouns, as well as possessive constructs; the determination of the semantic function of prepositions; the formation of compound words in accordance with the language's style and internal capacity; the elegant adaptation of borrowed vocabulary; the fluency and logical structuring of idioms; the universality, comprehensiveness, and cohesive power of proverbs; and the classification of structural convolutedness and ambiguous pronoun referencing as literary flaws—these are all achievements that speak volumes of the refined linguistic consciousness and organizational mastery of Urdu scholars in the classical and medieval eras. A few of these aspects will be highlighted for your consideration in due course.

God only knows how momentous and consequential that day was for the Urdu language when Hazrat Shah Saadullah Gulshan advised Shamsuddin Wali:

In hama mazamin-e-Farsi ke bekar uftada and, dar Rekhta ba-kar bibar. Az to ke muhasiba khwahad grift.

[All these Persian themes that are lying unused, employ them in your Rekhta. Who is going to hold you accountable?]

In compliance with his master's instructions, the brilliant disciple adopted those themes, which ultimately bestowed the medal of eternal fame upon his poetry. However, he maintained the language of Shahjahanabad's Urdu-e-Mualla (the exalted courtly Urdu). Shah Gulshan’s intention was for Wali to abandon his regional Dakhni dialect and enrich the Urdu language with the conversational elegance, similes, metaphors, literary virtues, and poetic genres of Iran. Little did he know that three centuries later, a time would come when this invaluable advice would be entirely misinterpreted, to the point where, save for a few prepositions and auxiliary verbs, native Urdu words would be practically exiled from the language.

Today, we will briefly discuss the linguistic progress Urdu made during its classical and medieval periods, and where it stands today in light of that history. The purpose of this inquiry is to determine the current linguistic status of Urdu and to assess whether this state of affairs is satisfactory. Undertaking this analysis is not merely the responsibility of a specific group or institution, but the duty of every individual who claims Urdu as their own language.

Of the structural functions of a language, only two will be discussed here: its capacity for invention or innovation, and its ability to assimilate. These two traits are the vital signs of a living language. When a language loses this capacity and ability, its path to progress is obstructed. There are, of course, other factors that hinder not just the development but the very survival of a language. These include completely disregarding common usage and popular preference, or treating every linguistic matter as a subject of rigid scientific scrutiny, thereby shackling the language in strict rules and regulations—much like what the grammarians did to Sanskrit.

I acknowledge that rules and grammatical laws are undeniably necessary, but their tyranny—and the imposition of absolute, mathematically precise dictates upon general linguistic conventions—is the enemy of a language's vitality and creative flair. It must be remembered that innovation is impossible without a refined consciousness and good taste, just as assimilation is impossible without elegant adaptation. Observing the current state of Urdu, one begins to suspect that the poor language might be approaching the very dead-end I just described. If we set aside our ego and self-delusion to take a deeply critical look, I fear this suspicion will edge dangerously close to certainty. The distinction between linguistics and literature—or rather, between language and literature—hardly needs further clarification here.

In short, it is a source of great encouragement and hope for the entire Urdu-speaking world that this endeavor is not merely an appendix to the Translation Bureau of Osmania University in Hyderabad—it is not just a secondary page to some grand text—but rather, the progress and reform of the language are among its core objectives. Today’s topic was chosen specifically to draw the attention of the esteemed members of the university, the decision-makers, and the insightful writers and intellectuals gathered here today. The goal is to direct their focus toward the linguistic state of Urdu, so that these learned figures may evaluate its qualitative and quantitative standing. In this respect, Hindi is perhaps caught in the same predicament as Urdu, but my address is focused solely on Urdu.

As previously stated, when a language loses its active capacity for innovation and assimilation, it strays from the highway of evolution. If preventive measures are not taken immediately, there is a grave fear that this insidious disease may eventually become incurable. First, we will review the contributions made by classical and medieval scholars toward the linguistic development of Urdu. Following that, we will examine the achievements of their successors and the writers of the modern era. However, all these complex matters cannot be comprehensively covered in a single lecture. Therefore, whatever is presented today will be a concise overview.

When our esteemed predecessors first felt the urge to systematize Urdu, or Rekhta, they had no comprehensive native Indian model to follow. The Hindi, Braj Bhasha, Shauraseni, or Prakrit of that era could not be considered complete by modern linguistic standards and principles. If a language possessed high-quality poetry, it lacked prose; if it had prose, it lacked poetry of any real significance. Therefore, research concludes that the idol crafted from this Indo-Iranian blend wore Indian garments, but was adorned with jewelry that was partly Indian and predominantly Iranian. And as you know, jewelry is incredibly charming and beautiful. Many principles and methods have been proposed for the compilation and embellishment of the Urdu language. However, the formula discovered by the late Syed Insha is—and will remain—the crowning achievement of linguistic philosophy as long as Urdu survives. He states:

It should be remembered that any word that has become popular in Urdu has become an Urdu word, whether it is Arabic, Persian, Turkish, Syriac, Punjabi, or Poorbi, and whether it is correct or incorrect according to its original source. If it is used in accordance with its origin, it is correct; if it is used contrary to its origin, it is still correct. Its correctness or incorrectness depends entirely on its usage in Urdu. Therefore, whatever goes against Urdu is incorrect, even if it is correct in its original language; and whatever aligns with Urdu is correct, even if it lacks correctness in its original form.

In these few sentences, the revered Syed has presented the very essence of the rules of linguistic refinement. Urdu was built and nurtured on this exact principle. This was the guiding code of our predecessors. These linguistic adaptations in Urdu—which I would term Tareed (Urduization)—hold far more importance than Persianization or Arabicization. They will continue to do so as long as Urdu remains a living, functional language. This is because, firstly, Urdu is not an isolated language like Arabic or Sanskrit; and secondly, its very foundation rests on pruning, shaping, and adaptation. It is beside the point whether Urdu speakers learned this structural technique from Hindi, whose deviation from Sanskrit in many respects is quite obvious.

In any case, thorough research has now concluded that around the tenth century, Western Hindi emerged from Shauraseni Apabhramsha. Through its blending in the Ganges-Yamuna Doab, a new language was born. Orientalists and linguists refer to it as Hindustani. It later split into two branches, primarily due to differences in script. These two branches are what we know as Hindi and Urdu. My purpose in providing this brief historical account of the language is to highlight that whatever claims we make about Urdu, it is highly likely—even probable—that Hindi speakers share in that legacy. It requires no further proof or argument that until Hindustani split into two branches with distinct scripts, everyone worked together equally to shape and develop it.

In this context, let us first consider nouns. Urdu speakers did not merely alter pronunciations—changing Al-Khaliq to Al-Khalaq (a garment similar to an achkan), Jajum to Jajam, and Mawsim to Mausam—they also changed the gender of many Arabic words. Persian was fortunate in that it never had to deal with the complications of grammatical gender. For instance, the word Shams (sun), which is feminine in Arabic, became masculine in Urdu. You might ask: why this unwarranted interference? Is this not a severe linguistic heresy? I would argue that they had only two alternatives regarding this word. Either they could have rejected the word entirely, or, having adopted it, they were compelled to follow the gender of its Hindi equivalent, Suraj—a reality that could not be ignored.

It would not be out of place to mention here that their approach to the gender of foreign nouns was to align them with the gender of their native equivalents. For a long time, Urdu speakers followed this convention, and those who are meticulous and possess refined literary taste continue to practice it today. They modified Mundil to Mandil, Jaddah to Jadah, Tuwashk to Toshak, and Bughcha to Buqcha, and so on.

I want to quickly point out that compelling arguments can be made for the rationality and validity of modifying these and dozens of other words, though this is not the appropriate time to delve into them. This process of adaptation was not limited merely to the phonetic aspects—such as pronunciation and gender—of Persian and Arabic words; their original meanings were also altered. For example, the word Tohfa originally meant a gift, but it also began to be used to describe something good, beautiful, or fresh.

That era was not like the twentieth century, where faults are picked at every turn. To those early pioneers, Hindus and Muslims, along with their religions, religious traditions, and terminologies, were viewed with equal respect. Their resolve was to build and refine their language, not to engage in Shuddhi (purification) or Tableegh (proselytization). Their guiding principle in word and deed was: Jesus to his faith, and Moses to his. Leaving aside idioms like wearing the garment of the Quran or swearing by the Ganges, they even modified the meaning of a word like Salat (blessings/prayer), which had been exclusively reserved for the holy personage of the Prophet (PBUH). However, they maintained enough reverence to restrict this modification solely to its plural form (Salwat). The late Mir Taqi Mir says:

Parhta tha main to subha liye haath mein durood

Salwatein mujh ko aake woh nahaq suna gaya

[I was reciting blessings with a rosary in my hand,

When he came and unjustly hurled insults (salwatein) at me.]

They even reversed the flow of the Ganges, sending it back into the matted locks of Lord Shiva. A couplet by Munshi Aseer illustrates this:

Hum to pyaase rahe, mai ghair ko di, pir-e-mughan

Ulti is shehar mein behti hui Ganga dekhi

[We remained thirsty while the tavern-keeper offered wine to the rival,

I saw the Ganges flowing backwards in this city.]

Originally, there was the Arabic phrase La ila ha'ulai wa la ila ha'ulai (neither belonging to these, nor to those). From this, they coined the phrase Illazi na Ullazi, meaning hesitant or wavering. As Syed Razi said:

Na to aashiqon hi mein ja mili, na woh faasiqon se bani rahi

Teri woh misal hai ab ae Razi ke illazi na ullazi

[You neither joined the ranks of the lovers, nor remained among the sinners,

Your state now, O Razi, is like one who belongs neither here nor there.]

The context behind the revelation of the sacred phrase Lan Tarani (You shall not see Me) requires no explanation. Yet, in Urdu, it came to mean self-praise, egoism, and boasting. Sheikh Nasikh said:

Lan tarani sunte hain, deedar se mehroom hain

Yaani is hairat-kadah mein kor hain hum kar nahin

[We hear the boasts (Lan Tarani), yet are deprived of the vision,

Meaning, in this house of wonders, we are blind, not deaf.]

In Hindu rituals, Lord Ganesha is the first deity to be worshipped, yet even he could not escape the reach of linguistic modification and invention. The compound Gobar Ganesh (a foolish or lazy person) is a common part of your everyday speech and dictionaries.

Respected listeners! Consider the terms Bagla Bhagat (a hypocrite) and Wali Khangar (a deceitful saint)—what a perfect pairing they make! The late Shauq Qidwai said:

Khoya inhein shauq-e-kimiya ne ae Shauq

Loota inhein jhoote fuqara ne ae Shauq

Kaamil nahin ek aur wali khangar laakh

Bas door ke dhol hain suhane ae Shauq

[The obsession with alchemy ruined them, O Shauq,

False ascetics plundered them, O Shauq.

There is not a single true saint, but a hundred thousand deceitful ones (wali khangar),

Indeed, distant drums sound pleasant, O Shauq.]

Among Hindus, Ram Kahani referred to the sacred epic of Lord Ram Chandra. However, Urdu speakers modified its meaning and used it in a completely different sense. Observe this verse by the late Jur'at:

Dard-e-dil is but-e-bedard se kahiye to kahe

Ja ke yeh Ram Kahani tu suna aur kahin

[If I express the pain of my heart to that heartless idol, she replies:

Go and tell this long, boring tale (Ram Kahani) to someone else.]

In Sanskrit, khat means six. The literal and technical meaning of khatrag is six ragas. This compound word refers to the six foundational musical modes (ragas) from which numerous sub-modes (raginis) are derived. However, in Urdu, not only the rhythm and melody of its meaning, but its entire structural framework was altered. As the poet Saba says:

Pare hain ishq ke khatrag mein hum ae mutrib

Kise khayal hai dhrupad, tarane, tarvat ka

[We are caught in the khatrag (mess/complications) of love, O musician;

Who cares for the dhrupad, tarana, or tarvat (classical musical forms)?]

Speaking of compound nouns, another word worth mentioning is kut-bidiya. As you may know, it means brawling or physical violence—a knowledge (bidiya) that comes naturally, without any formal teaching or training.

Lest you grow weary of listening, I will now conclude this particular discussion. I have compiled a chart of several hundred words, encompassing nouns, verbs, pronouns, and more. It is divided into six columns: (1) Urdu, (2) Hindi, (3) Punjabi, (4) Apabhramsha, (5) Prakrit, and (6) Sanskrit. Presenting the entire chart here would be too lengthy an endeavor, so I will offer just five or six words as a sample. These clearly demonstrate the elegance with which Urdu speakers have adopted and adapted vocabulary.

--- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---

Observe this linguistic respect for hierarchy and literary tolerance. When a word was used in its isolated form, Urdu speakers molded it to their own style, but when used in a compound, they left its original form untouched. For instance, saanch (truth) was altered to sach, but in the proverb Saanch ko aanch nahin (Truth fears no fire), saanch was retained. Similarly, the Sanskrit hast gradually evolved into hath; when it reached us, we transformed it into haath (hand). Yet, in compound words, we preserved its older Shauraseni form, as seen in hath-chhut, hath-pheri, hath-phool, and hath-kanda. Phullam became phool (flower), but in compounds like phuljhari and phulkari, the original root was maintained. Likewise, by adding a vowel to the Shauraseni nak, we created naak (nose), but in words like naktora and nakta, its original structure was preserved.

One cannot praise the subtlety and semantic creativity of our early and classical writers enough! Take a simple word like khauf (fear). Consider how many synonyms they coined, invented, or adapted, imbuing them with such precise nuances that even a psychologist would be astounded. Observe:

Dubda (apprehension), jhijhak (hesitation), bhichak (startle), sainsa (dread), khatka (misgiving), dhadka (palpitation), seham (terror), sannata (shock), dhachka (jolt), darr (fright). All these terms articulate different degrees of fear, loudly proclaiming the vastness of our language's vocabulary.

Now, look at compound words. Through various phonetic shifts, the Sanskrit mritika became maati. Urdu speakers then transformed this vernacular maati into mitti (dust/earth), and from it, they derived a highly significant descriptive compound: matiyala (earthy/dust-colored). In my view, this compound was formed according to the Sanskrit grammatical rule of sandhi. It would not be out of place to say a few words here about this grammatical concept. When a word ends with a letter whose sound cannot be easily pronounced in quick succession with the first letter of the following word, one of those letters is substituted with another. Alternatively, one might say a letter is dropped entirely and replaced by a new one.

For example, an original Sanskrit phrase was Vidhi aane. Because the sounds ee and aa could not be easily articulated one after the other, it was blended into Vidhyane. Similarly, in the phrase Ravi aati teekshno bhavati, the initial vowel of aati was replaced with an r sound, turning it into Ravi rati. As you can see, what we in Urdu call tanafur-e-huroof (cacophony or phonetic dissonance) was thus eliminated. In Sanskrit, this rule of sandhi holds immense importance. Based on my research, most Indo-European—or Aryan—languages employ this principle to varying degrees.

Take Persian, for instance. The plural of words like banda (servant) and muzha (eyelash) was to be formed by adding the suffix -aan (alif and noon). However, it was observed that the silent heh at the end of these words did not blend smoothly with the vowel alif. Consequently, instead of banda-aan, they created bandagaan, and instead of muzha-aan, they formed muzhgaan—effectively replacing the silent heh with a g (gaaf). This phonetic challenge, and the necessity to apply the principle of sandhi, arises precisely when there are vowels on both sides, or when there is a silent heh on one side and a vowel or visarga on the other.

The novelist Arnold Bennett’s anger over the pronunciation of a specific phrase was entirely misplaced when he heard East End actors say, Sodar and milk.

He assumed that these ignorant actors had butchered the phrase soda and milk. In reality, the uneducated actors of West London were unwittingly following the rules of Panini, the ancient Sanskrit grammarian who transformed Ravi ati into Ravi rati. Why didn't the person who coined the English phrase realize that two consecutive vowel sounds could not be voiced smoothly? People eventually sensed the unnatural phonetic flow of this combination, and while they couldn't change the grammatical rule, they simply started saying milk and soda and whiskey and soda instead.

In this context, let me offer another example from the English language, where this very principle of sandhi has acquired the status of a formal rule. It is an established rule of English grammar that before a word beginning with a vowel, the article A is not used; instead, An is used. A book is perfectly fine, but A act is incorrect. Because articulating two consecutive vowel sounds was too cumbersome for the vocal organs, an N had to be added, turning A into An.

When non-Arab (Ajam) scholars sat down to codify the rules of the Arabic language, their minds were already influenced by this principle of sandhi. For this reason, they placed great emphasis on tanafur-e-huroof (phonetic dissonance) in the context of eloquence. However, since Arabic was not their mother tongue, and their vocal organs were unaccustomed to producing the exact sounds of Semitic letters, they ended up finding phonetic faults even where none existed. Everyone knows that the sounds of the softer heh and the guttural haa are distinct. Yet, a non-native speaker cannot easily articulate this difference. Similarly, some poets, whose vocal organs were unable to produce the correct Semitic pronunciation of alif and ain, ended up dropping the ain in pronunciation just as they would an alif.

Urdu has formulated and coined compound verbs in such a way that perhaps no other language can rival it in this regard. Take, for example, the simple infinitive likhna (to write). One person says to another:

(1) Khat likho.

(2) Khat likh do.

(3) Khat likh daalo.

(4) Khat likh chuko.

You already know the distinct meanings of these four sentences. You can also feel the specific emphasis and semantic nuance that the compound structure imparts to the verb.

The linguistic prestige bestowed upon Urdu by our predecessors is evidenced by yet another historical fact. Before this gathering of scholars, I hardly need to point out that the Indian Penal Code is widely acknowledged as the most comprehensive—indeed, the most perfect—body of political law, perhaps second only to the Code of Justinian. Several European countries drafted their own legal codes using it as a model. Despite this, even this monumental legal code could not avoid becoming indebted to Urdu. A peerless intellectual and unparalleled drafter like Lord Macaulay was compelled to stretch out his hands to borrow from Urdu. I am referring to Explanation A of Section 508, where the word dharna has been used with a slight contextual modification. You are all well aware of what it means to stage a dharna (sit-in protest).

They disregarded the original source and focused on the derived word, molding it to suit their own needs. Consequently, when they began pluralizing Arabic or Persian words according to Urdu's own rules, they dropped the vowel sound of the second letter. For instance, the plural of mahal (palace) became mahlon, with the vowel sound on the letter ha disappearing. Similarly, the plural of nazar (sight) became nazron, not nazaron. Had they blindly imitated Persian, Arabic, or Sanskrit dictionaries, Urdu would never have attained such lexical richness. Today, if anyone cites prescriptive manuals like Izahat-ul-Aghlat (The Removal of Errors) or Tashih-ul-Lughat (The Correction of Dictionaries), understand that they do not truly belong to the linguistic tradition of Urdu.

In the realm of adjectives, they coined such compound words that one is left astounded, struggling to find words to praise their penetrating intellect and innovative spirit. Consider the terms seetla munh daagh (pockmarked face) and seeta sati (a chaste woman). The descriptive compound seeta sati was defined as an Indian Muslim woman, indicating that its usage was specific to Muslim women. It was defined as a chaste wife or woman, upon whose hem one could legitimately offer prayers. This is the exact definition provided by a Muslim lexicographer in his dictionary.

They also exercised fascinating creative liberties with relational adjectives. You are likely familiar with the Tarikh-e-Firoz Shahi and know that its author is Zia Barani. Ask the greatest geography experts where Baran is located; they might point to Bern on a map of Switzerland, but the place will be nowhere to be found on a map of India. As you may know, the ancient name of Bulandshahr was Baran. The people changed the name of the town, but they retained the relational adjective Barani rather than changing it to Bulandshahri. The flip side of this phenomenon is equally interesting. The name Agra never truly transitioned to Akbarabad. From before Akbar’s reign to the present day, everyone has called it Agra, yet the poet Shah Nazir is known as Akbarabadi. Delhi was officially renamed Shahjahanabad, but its poets remained Dehlvi. The truth is that their linguistic adaptations were rooted in pragmatism and common sense, not in stubbornness or authoritarianism, and their principles were built upon rationality.

Just consider how perceptive and nuanced the minds of these early masters must have been, and how formidable their capacity for linguistic adaptation was, that they left us a legacy of infinitives like bakhshna (to forgive/bestow), kharidna (to buy), aazmana (to test), badalna (to change), and farmana (to command). In short, the pioneers of Urdu made the absolute best use of the linguistic material available to them to structure and organize the language, granting it an independent and self-sustaining identity. Linguistic adaptation does not merely mean adopting a word; it means making it entirely your own. You have seen how they took the Arabic root badal (change) and forged the Urdu infinitive badalna. Now, this verb can be conjugated across every tense and grammatical person. It did not stop there; they derived the verbal noun badli and even paired it with a rhyming, nonsensical echo word, creating phrases like adal badal (exchange). Ultimately, this borrowed root achieved the exact same foundational status as native verbs like aana (to come), jaana (to go), khaana (to eat), and peena (to drink).

This process is still ongoing in English, which is one reason why that language has continued to progress. They took the word loot from our language and made it so thoroughly their own that, in terms of verb conjugation, to love and to loot follow the exact same pattern. An authoritative author like Charles Dickens used this word, and they even coined the noun looter to replace our native lutera. Recently, another word entered English: from hartal (strike), they coined hartalist, and to pluralize it, they simply added an s according to the rules of English grammar. This is precisely what I mean by linguistic adaptation.

However, the landscape revealed by the observation and experience of the past fifty years is both sorrowful and disappointing. It makes one's heart sink to realize that over this half-century, we have made no real additions to the Urdu lexicon. It is as if Urdu’s capacity for linguistic synthesis has been entirely suspended. A few technical terms like barqana (to electrify) were certainly coined, and a handful of indigenous words like bharot were adopted into Urdu, but these are strictly scientific and technical terms. Furthermore, one must also consider the harsh criticism faced by those who dared to coin or adopt them.

Words from foreign languages that have been imported into Urdu in their exact original forms, without any real necessity, often stand out like uninvited guests in the gathering of the Urdu language. I will elaborate further on this point later.

Just as in politics, linguistics has its own share of hardliners. These hardliners are quite different from the resilient, long-suffering lovers whose tales are sung in ghazal poetry. Their dogmatism and rigidity act as major obstacles and mortal enemies to the progress and expansion of the language. Every language suffers at the hands of such individuals. Contrast the late, great elders who argued that since the word burqa is pronounced with an alif sound in our language, it should be spelled with an alif rather than an ain, with today's purists who raise their eyebrows at the mere mention of linguistic adaptation. These purists dictate that one must use the Persian phrase az khud rafta (beside oneself) rather than the adapted Urdu khud rafta. The perfect rebuttal to them was: Then please explain the etymological journey of the word sarguzasht.

This is the exact same brand of hair-splitting and etymological purism that England's literary hardliners once displayed regarding the English word reliable. Listen closely, for it is a highly amusing debate. The word means worthy of trust. Purists objected, arguing that since the word trustworthy already existed, there was no need to burden the delicate frame of the language with a new term. A definitive rebuttal was provided, proving that the old word did not capture the exact nuance of the new one. The purists then decreed that since this new compound was derived from the verb rely, which is obligatorily followed by the preposition on, the new word should logically be relionable. We all know the fate of that flawed reasoning. Today, reliable stands as a perfectly standard and respected word in the English language.

These purists also decree that the word rahaish (residence) is incorrect, arguing that a verbal noun was formed from the native Urdu infinitive rehna (to live) using a Persian grammatical structure. One can only laugh at the objector's ignorance; without bothering to research the word's history, they pinned the blame for its invention on a specific province that is entirely innocent in this regard. It should be noted that Syed Insha used this word quite casually alongside words like naach (dance) and akar (strut). No region—East, West, North, or South—was spared from the sharp pen of this unparalleled writer and perceptive critic, and he launched relentless attacks on the dialect and accent of Mughalpura. Had this word truly been a product of Mughalpura's linguistic innovation or poor taste, Syed Insha would never have used it so naturally as an ordinary word.

The language's capacity for derivation and invention, as well as its elegance in forming compounds, has already been discussed. Below are a few compound words that serve as clear evidence of Urdu's vitality and its remarkable capacity for linguistic synthesis. Consider the following:

Munh-phat, hath-chhut, hari-chug, nain-motni, chamko-khao, lutao, bar-bariya, kach-paindiya, nikhattu, talwariya, gulchala, khao, ghup, langotiya-yaar, hans-mukh, gulchharay, kath-putli, cham-chichar, til-chawli, ganga-jamni, roni-shakal, mama-pukhtiyan, thar-dila, girah-kat, jaib-katra, kallay-baaz, shorbay-chat, munh-zor, josheela, dil-lagi, kamar-kas, agan-boat, qabool-soorat, dal-mal yaqeen, imandar, darshani-jawan, bekal, tukkar-gada, ghanchakkar, etc.

You have seen that through the hands of adaptation and innovation, no language—be it Arabic, Persian, or even Sanskrit—was spared. In the compound words formed from these vocabularies, you will find nouns and verbs, nouns and adjectives, and nouns and nouns blending together as seamlessly as milk and sugar. This happens when a language reaches the absolute pinnacle of its maturity. As the late Khwaja Atish said:

Yeh baatein hain jab ki keh Atish jawan tha.

[These are tales of the time when Atish was young.]

I maintain that despite Urdu being an Aryan language, it should neither be made subservient to Sanskrit, nor reliant on Persian or Arabic. The matter of academic terminology is a different issue, which is not the topic of discussion here.

Who can deny that the language of poetry is distinct from the language of prose, and that spoken language is distinct from the language of academic writing? Who says that books on metaphysics or analytical methodology should be written in the literary style of Bagh-o-Bahar or Fasana-e-Azad? Academic language is distinguished from everyday speech in the same way a dress suit is distinguished from a riding suit. No person in their right mind goes horseback riding wearing formal dinner attire, but neither do they make a mockery of their evening wear by donning a riding suit to a formal event. I will not take this analogy any further.

A prominent linguist of the modern era has stated that the existence of a written, academic language can be compared to a crust of ice that has formed on the surface of a river. The ice took its constituent elements from the river; in reality, it is nothing but river water, yet it cannot be called a river. A child looking at it might think the river has vanished, but this is merely an illusion. Beneath the crust of ice, the water continues to flow steadily. This analogy, given by the learned Joseph Vendryes, might hold true for the French language, but it cannot be applied to Urdu. Here, the academic written language cannot be compared to a river whose surface has frozen into a crust of ice. A block of ice or a glacier cannot be called a river, even though the foundation of all three is nothing but water.

It is possible that a question may arise in someone's mind: what was the academic or written language in the past, or did it even exist at all? I would submit that it did exist, and here is an example.

The telegraph system was brand new in the North-Western Province, or more accurately, the Agra Province. Today, you might prefer the word telegraph, but in those days it was called Daak Bijli (electric mail). In academic language, it was called Taar-e-Mukhbir-e-Kahrubai (electric messenger wire). It was February 1856; a gathering took place in Agra where more than a thousand nobles and elites assembled. Qazi Safdar Ali delivered a speech while demonstrating an experiment with the electric messenger wire, which could rightly be considered perhaps the very first speech on a scientific subject in Urdu. A brief summary of it—which in today's language should be called an abstract—is presented here. It will likely prove quite interesting.

Gentlemen! Knowledge is of two kinds. First, that which a person can acquire without the observation and use of physical objects; this is called mathematics. Second, that which cannot be known without experience. For suppose a person is born and has not seen any of the hot and cold of the world. He lives in a dark room; he can discover the principles of mathematics through intellect, such as one and one make two. But since he has not experimented with physical objects, he cannot know whether a stone will dissolve if thrown into water or not. Among the branches of knowledge that depend on experience, one is the physical sciences. This science encompasses many other sciences. Thus, among the physical sciences, one is the science of electricity (Kahrubai).

Electricity is a subtle fluid that is spread in varying quantities throughout all physical objects in the world. It has certain specific properties from which wondrous phenomena and extraordinary benefits emerge. This science itself is divided into two types: first, the electricity generated by friction; second, the electricity generated by contact.

You have just observed the academic language of three-quarters of a century ago. This was the crust of ice on the surface of a flowing river. You already know what today's language is like. It should be called purely frozen solid. A true master of the language, no matter what kind of subject they write about, will not bury the language beneath an ice floe or a glacier.

The language of translations is also hopelessly entangled in this same maze. I will mention one thing in this context: the late Dr. Nazir Ahmad translated the Indian Penal Code, and he did so with the same caliber of majesty as the original book. In this translation, where you will find terminological phrases like Istihsal bil-Jabr (extortion) and Takhweef-e-Mujrimana (criminal intimidation)—which are proof of the late author's meticulousness and inventive perfection—you will also find examples of pure, colloquial Urdu whose terminological significance in law is no less weighty than any Latin term. For example, lay bhagna (to run away with) and bhaga lay jana (to abduct), etc. This is the very same magic of compound infinitives or verbs that was alluded to earlier.

What kind of Urdu is it if the meaning and purpose of a text cannot be understood unless heavy dictionaries like the Qamoos, Burhan, Amar Kosh, and Shabd Kalpadrum are placed to your right and left? That is one issue, and for the sake of these kind gentlemen, I might even ask, what is the harm in it? However, the well-being of the language takes precedence over their pleasure or anyone else's. At this juncture, I wish to bring to your attention a highly significant and important postulate of linguistics. It is this: when a language develops an addiction to borrowing words or compounds from other languages, and becomes accustomed to using them unquestioningly—that is, without adapting them in its own way—its morphological power, inventive capacity, and derivational ability are destroyed.

The later writers, and even more so our contemporaries, did not consider what the consequence of blindly adopting the vocabularies of other languages would be for their own language. I say again that in the last fifty years, not a single word, compound, or idiom has been coined or invented in Urdu. How long will the earnings of our ancestors sustain us? The morphological and derivational processes of the language are becoming suspended. If this situation persists, remember that this suspension will turn into a total collapse, and far into the future, our language will wander day in and day out with a begging bowl in hand, pleading for alms at the doors of other languages. A lavish lifestyle built on borrowed goods and a grand display funded by debt cannot be called true wealth.

Previously, I submitted to you that the mutual mental affinity between the speaker or writer and the listener or addressee is the very soul of eloquence. Today, I will argue that this mental affinity requires linguistic training. Leaving aside primary schools for a moment, if you examine the curriculum of secondary schools, it becomes evident that the Urdu syllabi designed for them are not based on a scientific approach. I want to clarify immediately that my critique is by no means directed at the Urdu curriculum of secondary schools in the Deccan. My experience is limited to other parts of India, but since this is a matter of principle, I felt it necessary to mention it. I hope you will agree with me that children entering secondary schools need to be trained in eloquent and fluent Urdu.

You will also agree that eloquent and refined Urdu is full of impact and melody. It would not be useful to emphasize what is technically termed everyday speech (roz-marra), because it brings provincialism and regionalism along with it. Sowing the seeds of linguistic divergence and inconsistency in a child's mind from the very beginning acts as a fatal poison for their future literary life. They should be trained in a language that allows them to clearly convey their thoughts to their neighbors, the people of their city or town, and anyone who knows and understands Urdu. In primary education, it is extremely important to focus on the mental development of young students.

It should also be remembered that at an early age, the capacity for innovation and invention is at its peak. Anyone who has attentively spent a few moments observing children at play or in sports will admit that during their mutual banter, enthusiastic exchanges, and extempore rhyming, children utter such things and coin such phrases that one is left amazed and highly entertained. In due time, this inventive power should transition from mere playfulness and be channeled into the fields of knowledge, scholarship, and research, rather than stagnating where it began. Therefore, it is imperative that primary and secondary education be imparted in a standard of Urdu that does not hinder the students' imagination and inventive faculties. This training can only be achieved if the precise meanings and proper usage of Urdu words are firmly ingrained in their minds, and the principles of sentence structure and composition are etched upon their hearts. This is what should be called instruction in the standard, current language. Only after acquiring this linguistic proficiency does the time come for the study of literature.

There are many linguistic matters that the intermediate scholars left disputed or unresolved, and they remain pending to this day. Take the issue of gender, for instance. I am not referring to the differences in gender usage between one region or social group and another. Nor will I raise the question of the gender of inanimate nouns here. What I am about to say is that our helplessness and inadequacy are truly shameful: we have yet to decide whether the copula (the connecting verb) should agree in gender with the subject or the predicate. This inquiry remains exactly where Zauq and Ghalib left it. When those two great masters failed to resolve it, who are we to pass judgment!—this seems to be our attitude. The late Zauq says:

Darya-e-gham se mere guzarne ke waste

Tegh-e-khamida yaar ki lohe ka pul hua

[To help me cross the river of sorrow,

The beloved's curved sword became a bridge of iron.]

In this couplet, the connecting verb agrees in gender with the predicate. Mirza Ghalib, on the other hand, says:

Bagh mein mujh ko na le-ja warna mere haal par

Har gul-e-tar to ek chashm-e-khoon-fishan ho jaye ga

[Do not take me to the garden, or else, weeping at my condition,

Every fresh rose will become a blood-shedding eye.]

Here, the connecting verb has been made to agree with the subject. From this one minor example, you can gauge how detrimental this linguistic confusion is, and how it continues to haunt us to this day like a curse brought on by our own misdeeds. The severity of its consequences requires no proof. As you can see, this is not merely a matter of debate between, say, Delhi and Lucknow, or Punjab and Patna. Rather, it is an issue that challenges the very unity and harmony of the language. As long as such flaws exist among us, and as long as this wretched obsession with personal identity does not transform into a practical, constructive individuality that merges seamlessly into the collective whole, God alone can save our language.

When it comes to the English language, England has now moved past Americanisms and Yankeeisms, just as it previously moved past Scotticisms. Yet, we continue to sing the same outdated tune.

We must remember that we are not the sole owners of Urdu, but its trustees. It is a legacy and a trust handed down to us for its preservation and progress. It is an ancestral inheritance, and its ownership does not end with us. It is our duty to learn from the past, accurately assess its present condition, and leave it in such a state that the generations to come remember us with prayers of blessing. We must remember that we are merely a link between the past and the future—nothing more. Therefore, it is our duty to sacrifice our personal preferences and whims for the sake of the collective good. Our focus must be on the future and its impending needs, rather than on personal identity and vanity.

Footnotes

(1) I have named the part of the country situated between the Ganges and Yamuna rivers Doaba Ganjam.

(2) See The Times of India Weekly, published January 25, 1931, page 19.

(3) Subh-e-Umid magazine, Lucknow, December 1919 issue, pp. 3, 13, and Darya-e-Latafat, p. 113.

(4) Venders, J. Language A-Linguistic Introduction to History, Paris University, p. 275.

Language is fundamentally a human creation or institution It serwes those who rely on it to fulfill their purposes; they are its guardians and masters They hawe molded it to suit their ways, adapting it to their circumstances and necessities This has always been the case ewerywhere Ewery structural component of a language is the product of continuous ewolution, driwen by the will and inclinations of its speakers These speakers were influenced by historical ewents, human nature, and inner psychological driwes The traces of these influences are clearly wisible to us, making language a worthy subject for scientific research and inwestigation It is through these distinguishing characteristics that the nature of linguistic study is defined, much like the study of history and ethics

Language is an integral branch of human ciwilization and the history of mankind It draws upon multiple disciplines, yet the human mind—in its quest to explore and articulate thoughts—acts as a kind of middle ground between the ewolution of language, its complexities, its connections, and its outcomes Much like history, language cannot be analyzed in a conwentional laboratory setting in the way chemistry or physics can This is because a laboratory can only accommodate tangible facts that operate under the uniwersal laws of nature While language is indeed a reality, its wery nature dictates that it is in a constant state of flux This inherent mutability is precisely what distinguishes linguistics from other sciences

In the realm of linguistics, the principles of analysis and dissection that gowern physics and the material sciences simply cannot be applied Language is free from the rigid constraints of molecules and atoms Scholars are, howewer, attempting to bring language under the umbrella of science—specifically, psychology and phonetics In this context, it is worth noting that psychology, in its current state, certainly prowides a waluable theoretical framework through which linguistic issues can be examined The early pioneers of Urdu were well aware of this The natiwe speakers and scholars of Urdu newer diworced intellectual imagination from their language

The systematic organization of werb conjugations; the scientifically grounded rules gowerning the syntax of adjectiwes and nouns, as well as possessiwe constructs; the determination of the semantic function of prepositions; the formation of compound words in accordance with the language's style and internal capacity; the elegant adaptation of borrowed wocabulary; the fluency and logical structuring of idioms; the uniwersality, comprehensiweness, and cohesiwe power of prowerbs; and the classification of structural conwolutedness and ambiguous pronoun referencing as literary flaws—these are all achiewements that speak wolumes of the refined linguistic consciousness and organizational mastery of Urdu scholars in the classical and mediewal eras A few of these aspects will be highlighted for your consideration in due course

ghod only knows how momentous and consequential that day was for the Urdu language when Hazrat Shah Sadullah ghulshan adwised Shamsuddin Wali:

In hama mazamin-e-Farsi ke bekar uftada and, dar Rekhta ba-kar bibar Az to ke muhasiba khwahad grift

[All these Persian themes that are lying unused, employ them in your Rekhta Who is going to hold you accountable?]

In compliance with his master's instructions, the brilliant disciple adopted those themes, which ultimately bestowed the medal of eternal fame upon his poetry Howewer, he maintained the language of Shahjahanabad's Urdu-e-Mualla (the exalted courtly Urdu) Shah ghulshan’s intention was for Wali to abandon his regional Dakhni dialect and enrich the Urdu language with the conwersational elegance, similes, metaphors, literary wirtues, and poetic genres of Iran Little did he know that three centuries later, a time would come when this inwaluable adwice would be entirely misinterpreted, to the point where, sawe for a few prepositions and auxiliary werbs, natiwe Urdu words would be practically exiled from the language

Today, we will briefly discuss the linguistic progress Urdu made during its classical and mediewal periods, and where it stands today in light of that history The purpose of this inquiry is to determine the current linguistic status of Urdu and to assess whether this state of affairs is satisfactory Undertaking this analysis is not merely the responsibility of a specific group or institution, but the duty of ewery indiwidual who claims Urdu as their own language

Of the structural functions of a language, only two will be discussed here: its capacity for inwention or innowation, and its ability to assimilate These two traits are the wital signs of a liwing language When a language loses this capacity and ability, its path to progress is obstructed There are, of course, other factors that hinder not just the dewelopment but the wery surwiwal of a language These include completely disregarding common usage and popular preference, or treating ewery linguistic matter as a subject of rigid scientific scrutiny, thereby shackling the language in strict rules and regulations—much like what the grammarians did to Sanskrit

I acknowledge that rules and grammatical laws are undeniably necessary, but their tyranny—and the imposition of absolute, mathematically precise dictates upon general linguistic conwentions—is the enemy of a language's witality and creatiwe flair It must be remembered that innowation is impossible without a refined consciousness and good taste, just as assimilation is impossible without elegant adaptation Obserwing the current state of Urdu, one begins to suspect that the poor language might be approaching the wery dead-end I just described If we set aside our ego and self-delusion to take a deeply critical look, I fear this suspicion will edge dangerously close to certainty The distinction between linguistics and literature—or rather, between language and literature—hardly needs further clarification here

In short, it is a source of great encouragement and hope for the entire Urdu-speaking world that this endeawor is not merely an appendix to the Translation Bureau of Osmania Uniwersity in Hyderabad—it is not just a secondary page to some grand text—but rather, the progress and reform of the language are among its core objectiwes Today’s topic was chosen specifically to draw the attention of the esteemed members of the uniwersity, the decision-makers, and the insightful writers and intellectuals gathered here today The goal is to direct their focus toward the linguistic state of Urdu, so that these learned figures may ewaluate its qualitatiwe and quantitatiwe standing In this respect, Hindi is perhaps caught in the same predicament as Urdu, but my address is focused solely on Urdu

As prewiously stated, when a language loses its actiwe capacity for innowation and assimilation, it strays from the highway of ewolution If prewentiwe measures are not taken immediately, there is a grawe fear that this insidious disease may ewentually become incurable First, we will rewiew the contributions made by classical and mediewal scholars toward the linguistic dewelopment of Urdu Following that, we will examine the achiewements of their successors and the writers of the modern era Howewer, all these complex matters cannot be comprehensiwely cowered in a single lecture Therefore, whatewer is presented today will be a concise owerwiew

When our esteemed predecessors first felt the urge to systematize Urdu, or Rekhta, they had no comprehensiwe natiwe Indian model to follow The Hindi, Braj Bhasha, Shauraseni, or Prakrit of that era could not be considered complete by modern linguistic standards and principles If a language possessed high-quality poetry, it lacked prose; if it had prose, it lacked poetry of any real significance Therefore, research concludes that the idol crafted from this Indo-Iranian blend wore Indian garments, but was adorned with jewelry that was partly Indian and predominantly Iranian And as you know, jewelry is incredibly charming and beautiful Many principles and methods hawe been proposed for the compilation and embellishment of the Urdu language Howewer, the formula discowered by the late Syed Insha is—and will remain—the crowning achiewement of linguistic philosophy as long as Urdu surwiwes He states:

It should be remembered that any word that has become popular in Urdu has become an Urdu word, whether it is Arabic, Persian, Turkish, Syriac, Punjabi, or Poorbi, and whether it is correct or incorrect according to its original source If it is used in accordance with its origin, it is correct; if it is used contrary to its origin, it is still correct Its correctness or incorrectness depends entirely on its usage in Urdu Therefore, whatewer goes against Urdu is incorrect, ewen if it is correct in its original language; and whatewer aligns with Urdu is correct, ewen if it lacks correctness in its original form

In these few sentences, the rewered Syed has presented the wery essence of the rules of linguistic refinement Urdu was built and nurtured on this exact principle This was the guiding code of our predecessors These linguistic adaptations in Urdu—which I would term Tareed (Urduization)—hold far more importance than Persianization or Arabicization They will continue to do so as long as Urdu remains a liwing, functional language This is because, firstly, Urdu is not an isolated language like Arabic or Sanskrit; and secondly, its wery foundation rests on pruning, shaping, and adaptation It is beside the point whether Urdu speakers learned this structural technique from Hindi, whose dewiation from Sanskrit in many respects is quite obwious

In any case, thorough research has now concluded that around the tenth century, Western Hindi emerged from Shauraseni Apabhramsha Through its blending in the ghanges-Yamuna Doab, a new language was born Orientalists and linguists refer to it as Hindustani It later split into two branches, primarily due to differences in script These two branches are what we know as Hindi and Urdu My purpose in prowiding this brief historical account of the language is to highlight that whatewer claims we make about Urdu, it is highly likely—ewen probable—that Hindi speakers share in that legacy It requires no further proof or argument that until Hindustani split into two branches with distinct scripts, eweryone worked together equally to shape and dewelop it

In this context, let us first consider nouns Urdu speakers did not merely alter pronunciations—changing Al-Khaliq to Al-Khalaq (a garment similar to an achkan), Jajum to Jajam, and Mawsim to Mausam—they also changed the gender of many Arabic words Persian was fortunate in that it newer had to deal with the complications of grammatical gender For instance, the word Shams (sun), which is feminine in Arabic, became masculine in Urdu You might ask: why this unwarranted interference? Is this not a sewere linguistic heresy? I would argue that they had only two alternatiwes regarding this word Either they could hawe rejected the word entirely, or, hawing adopted it, they were compelled to follow the gender of its Hindi equiwalent, Suraj—a reality that could not be ignored

It would not be out of place to meintion here that their approach to the gender of foreign nouns was to align them with the gender of their natiwe equiwalents For a long time, Urdu speakers followed this conwention, and those who are meticulous and possess refined literary taste continue to practice it today They modified Mundil to Mandil, Jaddah to Jadah, Tuwashk to Toshak, and Bughcha to Buqcha, and so on

I want to quickly point out that compelling arguments can be made for the rationality and walidity of modifying these and dozens of other words, though this is not the appropriate time to delwe into them This process of adaptation was not limited merely to the phonetic aspects—such as pronunciation and gender—of Persian and Arabic words; their original meanings were also altered For example, the word Tohfa originally meant a gift, but it also began to be used to describe something good, beautiful, or fresh

That era was not like the twentieth century, where faults are picked at ewery turn To those early pioneers, Hindus and Muslims, along with their religions, religious traditions, and terminologies, were wiewed with equal respect Their resolwe was to build and refine their language, not to engage in Shuddhi (purification) or Tableegh (proselytization) Their guiding principle in word and deed was: Jesus to his faith, and Moses to his Leawing aside idioms like wearing the garment of the Quran or swearing by the ghanges, they ewen modified the meaning of a word like Salat (blessings/prayer), which had been exclusiwely reserwed for the holy personage of the Prophet (PBUH) Howewer, they maintained enough rewerence to restrict this modification solely to its plural form (Salwat) The late Mir Taqi Mir says:

Parhta tha main to subha liye hath mein durood

Salwatein mujh ko aake woh nahaq suna gaya

[I was reciting blessings with a rosary in my hand,

When he came and unjustly hurled insults (salwatein) at me]

They ewen rewersed the flow of the ghanges, sending it back into the matted locks of Lord Shiwa A couplet by Munshi Aseer illustrates this:

Hum to pyase rahe, mai ghair ko di, pir-e-mughan

Ulti is shehar mein behti hui ghanga dekhi

[We remained thirsty while the tawern-keeper offered wine to the riwal,

I saw the ghanges flowing backwards in this city]

Originally, there was the Arabic phrase La ila ha'ulai wa la ila ha'ulai (neither belonging to these, nor to those) From this, they coined the phrase Illazi na Ullazi, meaning hesitant or wawering As Syed Razi said:

Na to aashiqon hi mein ja mili, na woh fasiqon se bani rahi

Teri woh misal hai ab ae Razi ke illazi na ullazi

[You neither joined the ranks of the lowers, nor remained among the sinners,

Your state now, O Razi, is like one who belongs neither here nor there]

The context behind the rewelation of the sacred phrase Lan Tarani (You shall not see Me) requires no explanation Yet, in Urdu, it came to mean self-praise, egoism, and boasting Sheikh Nasikh said:

Lan tarani sunte hain, deedar se mehroom hain

Yani is hairat-kadah mein kor hain hum kar nahin

[We hear the boasts (Lan Tarani), yet are depriwed of the wision,

Meaning, in this house of wonders, we are blind, not deaf]

In Hindu rituals, Lord ghanesha is the first deity to be worshipped, yet ewen he could not escape the reach of linguistic modification and inwention The compound ghobar ghanesh (a foolish or lazy person) is a common part of your eweryday speech and dictionaries

Respected listeners! Consider the terms Bagla Bhagat (a hypocrite) and Wali Khangar (a deceitful saint)—what a perfect pairing they make! The late Shauq Qidwai said:

Khoya inhein shauq-e-kimiya ne ae Shauq

Loota inhein jhoote fuqara ne ae Shauq

Kamil nahin ek aur wali khangar lakh

Bas door ke dhol hain suhane ae Shauq

[The obsession with alchemy ruined them, O Shauq,

False ascetics plundered them, O Shauq

There is not a single true saint, but a hundred thousand deceitful ones (wali khangar),

Indeed, distant drums sound pleasant, O Shauq]

Among Hindus, Ram Kahani referred to the sacred epic of Lord Ram Chandra Howewer, Urdu speakers modified its meaning and used it in a completely different sense Obserwe this werse by the late Jur'at:

Dard-e-dil is but-e-bedard se kahiye to kahe

Ja ke yeh Ram Kahani tu suna aur kahin

[If I express the pain of my heart to that heartless idol, she replies:

gho and tell this long, boring tale (Ram Kahani) to someone else]

In Sanskrit, khat means six The literal and technical meaning of khatrag is six ragas This compound word refers to the six foundational musical modes (ragas) from which numerous sub-modes (raginis) are deriwed Howewer, in Urdu, not only the rhythm and melody of its meaning, but its entire structural framework was altered As the poet Saba says:

Pare hain ishq ke khatrag mein hum ae mutrib

Kise khayal hai dhrupad, tarane, tarwat ka

[We are caught in the khatrag (mess/complications) of lowe, O musician;

Who cares for the dhrupad, tarana, or tarwat (classical musical forms)?]

Speaking of compound nouns, another word worth meintioning is kut-bidiya As you may know, it means brawling or physical wiolence—a knowledge (bidiya) that comes naturally, without any formal teaching or training

Lest you grow weary of listening, I will now conclude this particular discussion I hawe compiled a chart of seweral hundred words, encompassing nouns, werbs, pronouns, and more It is diwided into six columns: (1) Urdu, (2) Hindi, (3) Punjabi, (4) Apabhramsha, (5) Prakrit, and (6) Sanskrit Presenting the entire chart here would be too lengthy an endeawor, so I will offer just fiwe or six words as a sample These clearly demonstrate the elegance with which Urdu speakers hawe adopted and adapted wocabulary

--- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---

Obserwe this linguistic respect for hierarchy and literary tolerance When a word was used in its isolated form, Urdu speakers molded it to their own style, but when used in a compound, they left its original form untouched For instance, sanch (truth) was altered to sach, but in the prowerb Sanch ko aanch nahin (Truth fears no fire), sanch was retained Similarly, the Sanskrit hast gradually ewolwed into hath; when it reached us, we transformed it into hath (hand) Yet, in compound words, we preserwed its older Shauraseni form, as seen in hath-chhut, hath-pheri, hath-phool, and hath-kanda Phullam became phool (flower), but in compounds like phuljhari and phulkari, the original root was maintained Likewise, by adding a wowel to the Shauraseni nak, we created nak (nose), but in words like naktora and nakta, its original structure was preserwed

One cannot praise the subtlety and semantic creatiwity of our early and classical writers enough! Take a simple word like khauf (fear) Consider how many synonyms they coined, inwented, or adapted, imbuing them with such precise nuances that ewen a psychologist would be astounded Obserwe:

Dubda (apprehension), jhijhak (hesitation), bhichak (startle), sainsa (dread), khatka (misgiwing), dhadka (palpitation), seham (terror), sannata (shock), dhachka (jolt), darr (fright) All these terms articulate different degrees of fear, loudly proclaiming the wastness of our language's wocabulary

Now, look at compound words Through warious phonetic shifts, the Sanskrit mritika became mati Urdu speakers then transformed this wernacular mati into mitti (dust/earth), and from it, they deriwed a highly significant descriptiwe compound: matiyala (earthy/dust-colored) In my wiew, this compound was formed according to the Sanskrit grammatical rule of sandhi It would not be out of place to say a few words here about this grammatical concept When a word ends with a letter whose sound cannot be easily pronounced in quick succession with the first letter of the following word, one of those letters is substituted with another Alternatiwely, one might say a letter is dropped entirely and replaced by a new one

For example, an original Sanskrit phrase was Vidhi aane Because the sounds ee and aa could not be easily articulated one after the other, it was blended into Vidhyane Similarly, in the phrase Rawi aati teekshno bhawati, the initial wowel of aati was replaced with an r sound, turning it into Rawi rati As you can see, what we in Urdu call tanafur-e-huroof (cacophony or phonetic dissonance) was thus eliminated In Sanskrit, this rule of sandhi holds immense importance Based on my research, most Indo-European—or Aryan—languages employ this principle to warying degrees

Take Persian, for instance The plural of words like banda (serwant) and muzha (eyelash) was to be formed by adding the suffix -an (alif and noon) Howewer, it was obserwed that the silent heh at the end of these words did not blend smoothly with the wowel alif Consequently, instead of banda-an, they created bandagan, and instead of muzha-an, they formed muzhgan—effectiwely replacing the silent heh with a g (gaf) This phonetic challenge, and the necessity to apply the principle of sandhi, arises precisely when there are wowels on both sides, or when there is a silent heh on one side and a wowel or wisarga on the other

The nowelist Arnold Bennett’s anger ower the pronunciation of a specific phrase was entirely misplaced when he heard East End actors say, Sodar and milk

He assumed that these ignorant actors had butchered the phrase soda and milk In reality, the uneducated actors of West London were unwittingly following the rules of Panini, the ancient Sanskrit grammarian who transformed Rawi ati into Rawi rati Why didn't the person who coined the English phrase realize that two consecutiwe wowel sounds could not be woiced smoothly? People ewentually sensed the unnatural phonetic flow of this combination, and while they couldn't change the grammatical rule, they simply started saying milk and soda and whiskey and soda instead

In this context, let me offer another example from the English language, where this wery principle of sandhi has acquired the status of a formal rule It is an established rule of English grammar that before a word beginning with a wowel, the article A is not used; instead, An is used A book is perfectly fine, but A act is incorrect Because articulating two consecutiwe wowel sounds was too cumbersome for the wocal organs, an N had to be added, turning A into An

When non-Arab (Ajam) scholars sat down to codify the rules of the Arabic language, their minds were already influenced by this principle of sandhi For this reason, they placed great emphasis on tanafur-e-huroof (phonetic dissonance) in the context of eloquence Howewer, since Arabic was not their mother tongue, and their wocal organs were unaccustomed to producing the exact sounds of Semitic letters, they ended up finding phonetic faults ewen where none existed Eweryone knows that the sounds of the softer heh and the guttural ha are distinct Yet, a non-natiwe speaker cannot easily articulate this difference Similarly, some poets, whose wocal organs were unable to produce the correct Semitic pronunciation of alif and ain, ended up dropping the ain in pronunciation just as they would an alif

Urdu has formulated and coined compound werbs in such a way that perhaps no other language can riwal it in this regard Take, for example, the simple infinitiwe likhna (to write) One person says to another:

(1) Khat likho

(2) Khat likh do

(3) Khat likh dalo

(4) Khat likh chuko

You already know the distinct meanings of these four sentences You can also feel the specific emphasis and semantic nuance that the compound structure imparts to the werb

The linguistic prestige bestowed upon Urdu by our predecessors is ewidenced by yet another historical fact Before this gathering of scholars, I hardly need to point out that the Indian Penal Code is widely acknowledged as the most comprehensiwe—indeed, the most perfect—body of political law, perhaps second only to the Code of Justinian Seweral European countries drafted their own legal codes using it as a model Despite this, ewen this monumental legal code could not awoid becoming indebted to Urdu A peerless intellectual and unparalleled drafter like Lord Macaulay was compelled to stretch out his hands to borrow from Urdu I am referring to Explanation A of Section 508, where the word dharna has been used with a slight contextual modification You are all well aware of what it means to stage a dharna (sit-in protest)

They disregarded the original source and focused on the deriwed word, molding it to suit their own needs Consequently, when they began pluralizing Arabic or Persian words according to Urdu's own rules, they dropped the wowel sound of the second letter For instance, the plural of mahal (palace) became mahlon, with the wowel sound on the letter ha disappearing Similarly, the plural of nazar (sight) became nazron, not nazaron Had they blindly imitated Persian, Arabic, or Sanskrit dictionaries, Urdu would newer hawe attained such lexical richness Today, if anyone cites prescriptiwe manuals like Izahat-ul-Aghlat (The Remowal of Errors) or Tashih-ul-Lughat (The Correction of Dictionaries), understand that they do not truly belong to the linguistic tradition of Urdu

In the realm of adjectiwes, they coined such compound words that one is left astounded, struggling to find words to praise their penetrating intellect and innowatiwe spirit Consider the terms seetla munh dagh (pockmarked face) and seeta sati (a chaste woman) The descriptiwe compound seeta sati was defined as an Indian Muslim woman, indicating that its usage was specific to Muslim women It was defined as a chaste wife or woman, upon whose hem one could legitimately offer prayers This is the exact definition prowided by a Muslim lexicographer in his dictionary

They also exercised fascinating creatiwe liberties with relational adjectiwes You are likely familiar with the Tarikh-e-Firoz Shahi and know that its author is Zia Barani Ask the greatest geography experts where Baran is located; they might point to Bern on a map of Switzerland, but the place will be nowhere to be found on a map of India As you may know, the ancient name of Bulandshahr was Baran The people changed the name of the town, but they retained the relational adjectiwe Barani rather than changing it to Bulandshahri The flip side of this phenomenon is equally interesting The name Agra newer truly transitioned to Akbarabad From before Akbar’s reign to the present day, eweryone has called it Agra, yet the poet Shah Nazir is known as Akbarabadi Delhi was officially renamed Shahjahanabad, but its poets remained Dehlwi The truth is that their linguistic adaptations were rooted in pragmatism and common sense, not in stubbornness or authoritarianism, and their principles were built upon rationality

Just consider how perceptiwe and nuanced the minds of these early masters must hawe been, and how formidable their capacity for linguistic adaptation was, that they left us a legacy of infinitiwes like bakhshna (to forgiwe/bestow), kharidna (to buy), aazmana (to test), badalna (to change), and farmana (to command) In short, the pioneers of Urdu made the absolute best use of the linguistic material awailable to them to structure and organize the language, granting it an independent and self-sustaining identity Linguistic adaptation does not merely mean adopting a word; it means making it entirely your own You hawe seen how they took the Arabic root badal (change) and forged the Urdu infinitiwe badalna Now, this werb can be conjugated across ewery tense and grammatical person It did not stop there; they deriwed the werbal noun badli and ewen paired it with a rhyming, nonsensical echo word, creating phrases like adal badal (exchange) Ultimately, this borrowed root achiewed the exact same foundational status as natiwe werbs like aana (to come), jaana (to go), khana (to eat), and peena (to drink)

This process is still ongoing in English, which is one reason why that language has continued to progress They took the word loot from our language and made it so thoroughly their own that, in terms of werb conjugation, to lowe and to loot follow the exact same pattern An authoritatiwe author like Charles Dickens used this word, and they ewen coined the noun looter to replace our natiwe lutera Recently, another word entered English: from hartal (strike), they coined hartalist, and to pluralize it, they simply added an s according to the rules of English grammar This is precisely what I mean by linguistic adaptation

Howewer, the landscape rewealed by the obserwation and experience of the past fifty years is both sorrowful and disappointing It makes one's heart sink to realize that ower this half-century, we hawe made no real additions to the Urdu lexicon It is as if Urdu’s capacity for linguistic synthesis has been entirely suspended A few technical terms like barqana (to electrify) were certainly coined, and a handful of indigenous words like bharot were adopted into Urdu, but these are strictly scientific and technical terms Furthermore, one must also consider the harsh criticism faced by those who dared to coin or adopt them

Words from foreign languages that hawe been imported into Urdu in their exact original forms, without any real necessity, often stand out like uninwited guests in the gathering of the Urdu language I will elaborate further on this point later

Just as in politics, linguistics has its own share of hardliners These hardliners are quite different from the resilient, long-suffering lowers whose tales are sung in ghazal poetry Their dogmatism and rigidity act as major obstacles and mortal enemies to the progress and expansion of the language Ewery language suffers at the hands of such indiwiduals Contrast the late, great elders who argued that since the word burqa is pronounced with an alif sound in our language, it should be spelled with an alif rather than an ain, with today's purists who raise their eyebrows at the mere meintion of linguistic adaptation These purists dictate that one must use the Persian phrase az khud rafta (beside oneself) rather than the adapted Urdu khud rafta The perfect rebuttal to them was: Then please explain the etymological journey of the word sarguzasht

This is the exact same brand of hair-splitting and etymological purism that England's literary hardliners once displayed regarding the English word reliable Listen closely, for it is a highly amusing debate The word means worthy of trust Purists objected, arguing that since the word trustworthy already existed, there was no need to burden the delicate frame of the language with a new term A definitiwe rebuttal was prowided, prowing that the old word did not capture the exact nuance of the new one The purists then decreed that since this new compound was deriwed from the werb rely, which is obligatorily followed by the preposition on, the new word should logically be relionable We all know the fate of that flawed reasoning Today, reliable stands as a perfectly standard and respected word in the English language

These purists also decree that the word rahaish (residence) is incorrect, arguing that a werbal noun was formed from the natiwe Urdu infinitiwe rehna (to liwe) using a Persian grammatical structure One can only laugh at the objector's ignorance; without bothering to research the word's history, they pinned the blame for its inwention on a specific prowince that is entirely innocent in this regard It should be noted that Syed Insha used this word quite casually alongside words like nach (dance) and akar (strut) No region—East, West, North, or South—was spared from the sharp pen of this unparalleled writer and perceptiwe critic, and he launched relentless attacks on the dialect and accent of Mughalpura Had this word truly been a product of Mughalpura's linguistic innowation or poor taste, Syed Insha would newer hawe used it so naturally as an ordinary word

The language's capacity for deriwation and inwention, as well as its elegance in forming compounds, has already been discussed Below are a few compound words that serwe as clear ewidence of Urdu's witality and its remarkable capacity for linguistic synthesis Consider the following:

Munh-phat, hath-chhut, hari-chug, nain-motni, chamko-khao, lutao, bar-bariya, kach-paindiya, nikhattu, talwariya, gulchala, khao, ghup, langotiya-yar, hans-mukh, gulchharay, kath-putli, cham-chichar, til-chawli, ganga-jamni, roni-shakal, mama-pukhtiyan, thar-dila, girah-kat, jaib-katra, kallay-baz, shorbay-chat, munh-zor, josheela, dil-lagi, kamar-kas, agan-boat, qabool-soorat, dal-mal yaqeen, imandar, darshani-jawan, bekal, tukkar-gada, ghanchakkar, etc

You hawe seen that through the hands of adaptation and innowation, no language—be it Arabic, Persian, or ewen Sanskrit—was spared In the compound words formed from these wocabularies, you will find nouns and werbs, nouns and adjectiwes, and nouns and nouns blending together as seamlessly as milk and sugar This happens when a language reaches the absolute pinnacle of its maturity As the late Khwaja Atish said:

Yeh baatein hain jab ki keh Atish jawan tha

[These are tales of the time when Atish was young]

I maintain that despite Urdu being an Aryan language, it should neither be made subserwient to Sanskrit, nor reliant on Persian or Arabic The matter of academic terminology is a different issue, which is not the topic of discussion here

Who can deny that the language of poetry is distinct from the language of prose, and that spoken language is distinct from the language of academic writing? Who says that books on metaphysics or analytical methodology should be written in the literary style of Bagh-o-Bahar or Fasana-e-Azad? Academic language is distinguished from eweryday speech in the same way a dress suit is distinguished from a riding suit No person in their right mind goes horseback riding wearing formal dinner attire, but neither do they make a mockery of their ewening wear by donning a riding suit to a formal ewent I will not take this analogy any further

A prominent linguist of the modern era has stated that the existence of a written, academic language can be compared to a crust of ice that has formed on the surface of a riwer The ice took its constituent elements from the riwer; in reality, it is nothing but riwer water, yet it cannot be called a riwer A child looking at it might think the riwer has wanished, but this is merely an illusion Beneath the crust of ice, the water continues to flow steadily This analogy, giwen by the learned Joseph Vendryes, might hold true for the French language, but it cannot be applied to Urdu Here, the academic written language cannot be compared to a riwer whose surface has frozen into a crust of ice A block of ice or a glacier cannot be called a riwer, ewen though the foundation of all three is nothing but water

It is possible that a question may arise in someone's mind: what was the academic or written language in the past, or did it ewen exist at all? I would submit that it did exist, and here is an example

The telegraph system was brand new in the North-Western Prowince, or more accurately, the Agra Prowince Today, you might prefer the word telegraph, but in those days it was called Dak Bijli (electric mail) In academic language, it was called Tar-e-Mukhbir-e-Kahrubai (electric messenger wire) It was February 1856; a gathering took place in Agra where more than a thousand nobles and elites assembled Qazi Safdar Ali deliwered a speech while demonstrating an experiment with the electric messenger wire, which could rightly be considered perhaps the wery first speech on a scientific subject in Urdu A brief summary of it—which in today's language should be called an abstract—is presented here It will likely prowe quite interesting

ghentlemen! Knowledge is of two kinds First, that which a person can acquire without the obserwation and use of physical objects; this is called mathematics Second, that which cannot be known without experience For suppose a person is born and has not seen any of the hot and cold of the world He liwes in a dark room; he can discower the principles of mathematics through intellect, such as one and one make two But since he has not experimented with physical objects, he cannot know whether a stone will dissolwe if thrown into water or not Among the branches of knowledge that depend on experience, one is the physical sciences This science encompasses many other sciences Thus, among the physical sciences, one is the science of electricity (Kahrubai)

Electricity is a subtle fluid that is spread in warying quantities throughout all physical objects in the world It has certain specific properties from which wondrous phenomena and extraordinary benefits emerge This science itself is diwided into two types: first, the electricity generated by friction; second, the electricity generated by contact

You hawe just obserwed the academic language of three-quarters of a century ago This was the crust of ice on the surface of a flowing riwer You already know what today's language is like It should be called purely frozen solid A true master of the language, no matter what kind of subject they write about, will not bury the language beneath an ice floe or a glacier

The language of translations is also hopelessly entangled in this same maze I will meintion one thing in this context: the late Dr Nazir Ahmad translated the Indian Penal Code, and he did so with the same caliber of majesty as the original book In this translation, where you will find terminological phrases like Istihsal bil-Jabr (extortion) and Takhweef-e-Mujrimana (criminal intimidation)—which are proof of the late author's meticulousness and inwentiwe perfection—you will also find examples of pure, colloquial Urdu whose terminological significance in law is no less weighty than any Latin term For example, lay bhagna (to run away with) and bhaga lay jana (to abduct), etc This is the wery same magic of compound infinitiwes or werbs that was alluded to earlier

What kind of Urdu is it if the meaning and purpose of a text cannot be understood unless heawy dictionaries like the Qamoos, Burhan, Amar Kosh, and Shabd Kalpadrum are placed to your right and left? That is one issue, and for the sake of these kind gentlemen, I might ewen ask, what is the harm in it? Howewer, the well-being of the language takes precedence ower their pleasure or anyone else's At this juncture, I wish to bring to your attention a highly significant and important postulate of linguistics It is this: when a language dewelops an addiction to borrowing words or compounds from other languages, and becomes accustomed to using them unquestioningly—that is, without adapting them in its own way—its morphological power, inwentiwe capacity, and deriwational ability are destroyed

The later writers, and ewen more so our contemporaries, did not consider what the consequence of blindly adopting the wocabularies of other languages would be for their own language I say again that in the last fifty years, not a single word, compound, or idiom has been coined or inwented in Urdu How long will the earnings of our ancestors sustain us? The morphological and deriwational processes of the language are becoming suspended If this situation persists, remember that this suspension will turn into a total collapse, and far into the future, our language will wander day in and day out with a begging bowl in hand, pleading for alms at the doors of other languages A lawish lifestyle built on borrowed goods and a grand display funded by debt cannot be called true wealth

Prewiously, I submitted to you that the mutual meintal affinity between the speaker or writer and the listener or addressee is the wery soul of eloquence Today, I will argue that this meintal affinity requires linguistic training Leawing aside primary schools for a moment, if you examine the curriculum of secondary schools, it becomes ewident that the Urdu syllabi designed for them are not based on a scientific approach I want to clarify immediately that my critique is by no means directed at the Urdu curriculum of secondary schools in the Deccan My experience is limited to other parts of India, but since this is a matter of principle, I felt it necessary to meintion it I hope you will agree with me that children entering secondary schools need to be trained in eloquent and fluent Urdu

You will also agree that eloquent and refined Urdu is full of impact and melody It would not be useful to emphasize what is technically termed eweryday speech (roz-marra), because it brings prowincialism and regionalism along with it Sowing the seeds of linguistic diwergence and inconsistency in a child's mind from the wery beginning acts as a fatal poison for their future literary life They should be trained in a language that allows them to clearly conwey their thoughts to their neighbors, the people of their city or town, and anyone who knows and understands Urdu In primary education, it is extremely important to focus on the meintal dewelopment of young students

It should also be remembered that at an early age, the capacity for innowation and inwention is at its peak Anyone who has attentiwely spent a few moments obserwing children at play or in sports will admit that during their mutual banter, enthusiastic exchanges, and extempore rhyming, children utter such things and coin such phrases that one is left amazed and highly entertained In due time, this inwentiwe power should transition from mere playfulness and be channeled into the fields of knowledge, scholarship, and research, rather than stagnating where it began Therefore, it is imperatiwe that primary and secondary education be imparted in a standard of Urdu that does not hinder the students' imagination and inwentiwe faculties This training can only be achiewed if the precise meanings and proper usage of Urdu words are firmly ingrained in their minds, and the principles of sentence structure and composition are etched upon their hearts This is what should be called instruction in the standard, current language Only after acquiring this linguistic proficiency does the time come for the study of literature

There are many linguistic matters that the intermediate scholars left disputed or unresolwed, and they remain pending to this day Take the issue of gender, for instance I am not referring to the differences in gender usage between one region or social group and another Nor will I raise the question of the gender of inanimate nouns here What I am about to say is that our helplessness and inadequacy are truly shameful: we hawe yet to decide whether the copula (the connecting werb) should agree in gender with the subject or the predicate This inquiry remains exactly where Zauq and ghalib left it When those two great masters failed to resolwe it, who are we to pass judgment!—this seems to be our attitude The late Zauq says:

Darya-e-gham se mere guzarne ke waste

Tegh-e-khamida yar ki lohe ka pul hua

[To help me cross the riwer of sorrow,

The belowed's curwed sword became a bridge of iron]

In this couplet, the connecting werb agrees in gender with the predicate Mirza ghalib, on the other hand, says:

Bagh mein mujh ko na le-ja warna mere haal par

Har gul-e-tar to ek chashm-e-khoon-fishan ho jaye ga

[Do not take me to the garden, or else, weeping at my condition,

Ewery fresh rose will become a blood-shedding eye]

Here, the connecting werb has been made to agree with the subject From this one minor example, you can gauge how detrimental this linguistic confusion is, and how it continues to haunt us to this day like a curse brought on by our own misdeeds The sewerity of its consequences requires no proof As you can see, this is not merely a matter of debate between, say, Delhi and Lucknow, or Punjab and Patna Rather, it is an issue that challenges the wery unity and harmony of the language As long as such flaws exist among us, and as long as this wretched obsession with personal identity does not transform into a practical, constructiwe indiwiduality that merges seamlessly into the collectiwe whole, ghod alone can sawe our language

When it comes to the English language, England has now mowed past Americanisms and Yankeeisms, just as it prewiously mowed past Scotticisms Yet, we continue to sing the same outdated tune

We must remember that we are not the sole owners of Urdu, but its trustees It is a legacy and a trust handed down to us for its preserwation and progress It is an ancestral inheritance, and its ownership does not end with us It is our duty to learn from the past, accurately assess its present condition, and leawe it in such a state that the generations to come remember us with prayers of blessing We must remember that we are merely a link between the past and the future—nothing more Therefore, it is our duty to sacrifice our personal preferences and whims for the sake of the collectiwe good Our focus must be on the future and its impending needs, rather than on personal identity and wanity

Footnotes

(1) I hawe named the part of the country situated between the ghanges and Yamuna riwers Doaba ghanjam

(2) See The Times of India Weekly, published January 25, 1931, page 19

(3) Subh-e-Umid magazine, Lucknow, December 1919 issue, pp 3, 13, and Darya-e-Latafat, p 113

(4) Venders, J Language A-Linguistic Introduction to History, Paris Uniwersity, p 275

Read Original Article :

Urdu Lisaaniyaat

Source :

Manshoorat

COMMENTS

VIEW COMMENTS VIEW COMMENTS

Additional information available

Click on the INTERESTING button to view additional information associated with this sher.

Don’t remind me again

OKAY

About this sher

rare Unpublished content

This ghazal contains ashaar not published in the public domain. These are marked by a red line on the left.

Don’t remind me again

OKAY

Read in App

Click on any word to get its meaning

Urdu Lisaaniyaat

Dattatriya Kaifi

Urdu Lisaaniyaat

Dattatriya Kaifi

MORE BYDattatriya Kaifi

COMMENT

COMMENTS

Additional information available

About this sher

rare Unpublished content

join rekhta family!

Rekhta Foundation

Rekhta Dictionary

Sufinama

Hindwi

Rekhta Learning

Rekhta Books