Myths about Urdu by Dr Tariq Rahman
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- It presents the author's research about the social history of Urdu in India. The main purpose is to refute such myths as: Urdu is a mixed language like a pidgin, that it was created in military camps so it is a military language, that it was created in the late sixteenth century, that the British harmed it during colonial rule, that the Hindus harmed it, that it is an Islamic language. Some of these myths are totally refuted, others are modified and some are explained and nuances, often ignored, are added.
this is highly informative lecture
Very informative. Listened to the entire lecture from India.
Excellent analysis with a touch of history.
Jazakallah!
As a learner of Persian and Chaghatai (now Uzbek), I am shocked that a professor of Urdu gave an entire lecture about Urdu without mentioning Chaghtai while confusing modern Turkish for Chaghatai. Sad. Its hilarious that he does not even know that the Chaghatai word O'rdu was used in Baburnama many times to refer to military - "Boburiy o'rdusi tili"
Persian had already seeped into Hindi (Urdu) from the time of the first Turkic invasions (12th century). There is a big gap of 500 years or more between that and widespread purging of Sanskrit from Hind. It was already going down this direction of Persianization and so British rule just acted as a catalyst. It wasn’t done as vociferously before as Persian was perfectly fine to use for the ruling elite before the British imposed English onto India.
Sanskrit is a constructed religious language of Brahmins, and didn’t even form a major part of Khari Boli, it is also just one if many languages from which Urdu descends from. There were many others, too. Lots of other Prakrit origin and Sanskrit words were retained. The language the elite ruling class would use could not be a language mired with Hindu sacred religious texts as it would be a language that favoured one religious group, the Brahmins. It made sense that it was excluded otherwise there would not be a common lingua franca useful for India, which Urdu did try to be for a major part of its history unlike other regional languages like Bengali, Punjabi, Sindhi etc. It was simply the need of the time for the British.
The indigenisation of those Turco-Persians meant that they further mixed the language closest to them (Khari Boli) with Persian.
Excellent lecture sir, very illuminating. Learned a lot. And the clear and concise manner in which you explained things made it really easy to understand. Thank you.
Please do more of these if you can.
Using English language to explain Urdu language? What is this?? What is wrong with using Urdu language??
He’s presenting a very British or Western reading of history so he uses English. The truth is the British are certainly no neutral observers in this debate.
Highly educative. Great lecture.
This person is at least trying to clear out the confusion about the history of Hindi-Urdu.
It's the transformation of the world and its requirements of novels, short stories, newspapers and official documents that caused the split. This language existed in a infant or embryo form before the split and two socially acceptable forms emerged as a result of the pressures of the modern world.
I don't really think that blaming any party is of any use.
No , actually two got seperated by deliberate effort of British. And a sense was already there between Hindu muslims ABT them being seperate probably. After Partition both got oush to change vocab more and more.
The so-called professor has fabricated his story of Urdu language. He makes no points besides wishing to be counted as a 'researcher' who, I'm sure, will find no takers for his hypothesis. The speaker misses the fact that this is 21st century and the antecedents of the grand Urdu language of the Indian subcontinent are established since. The point is that Urdu in its origin was definitely a ' Lushkari boli' which was developed into a full-fledged language after it got its grammer and a part of its diction from archaic Khadiboli . It was promoted by the Muslim rulers mainly to establish amity and goodwill among the masses who followed different religions and ideologies. By ignoring this background, nobody is going to serve the real and desired cause of Urdu. The Arabised script of Urdu is its real identity. Any change of script into Roman or Devnagri is going to kill the language. Those among us who are votaries of this changeover are misleading, playing to the galleries who wish an early death to this great language.
@@syedjameel3359
Muslim rulers never patronized Urdu before the break-up of the Mughal Empire after 1707 death of Aurangzeb. It was limited to literary circles only and after 1707, 3 main centres of Urdu patronization arose - Delhi, Lucknow and Hyderabad, until 1857 war after which the whole society changed completely.
And Urdu won't survive because of precisely this reason - it is a language stuck in the past and is past-oriented, and that too only in this specific 150 year period 1707 - 1857. Before that, its history is close to Hindi than to Ghalib's or Zauq's Urdu.
@@GuzzarAwan
You might be right, but British in general promoted Urdu far more than they promoted (modern) Hindi. Urdu was not used for official or administrative purposes seriously before the British.
In fact giving absolutely "strict" names to languages, with well-defined grammar and a single script, was a concept introduced by the British because of which this split occured.
Mugh Bacha.Prof.Dr.Nasir Fazal Cambridge
I find students intellectually very poor. Probably they have not understood or not able to come out of biases .
The overall level of the intellect, at an average, is extremely poor in Pakistan. They consider themselves to be fighters/warriors.