Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’
That's a poor argument Med.
Bangladeshis did not want Hindi to be official language anyway. And if there was to be any national language it had to be Urdu or Hindi as these were most widely understood language in subcontinent, even though these are not mother languages of majority. Even today for Bengalis, Indians, Pakistanis, Iranians expats the common language of communication is urdu/hindi.
There is no doubt in it also that urdu was adopted by muslims and hindi by hindus. Urdu due to its arabic writing style and words taken from persian and arabic, differsfrom Hindi. Though both languages have same basic structure.
Yes, and in reality, Hindi is not even a separate language. It is Urdu with few sansikrit words included. Hindi still has all the rest of words like Urdu in it.
(Off topic issue)
Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’
Urdu/Hindi are kind of twins but main difference is alphabets which make them two different languages. If both had same "rasmul khat", these wont be different languages.
Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’
That's a poor argument Med.
Bangladeshis did not want Hindi to be official language anyway. And if there was to be any national language it had to be Urdu or Hindi as these were most widely understood language in subcontinent, even though these are not mother languages of majority. Even today for Bengalis, Indians, Pakistanis, Iranians expats the common language of communication is urdu/hindi.
There is no doubt in it also that urdu was adopted by muslims and hindi by hindus. Urdu due to its arabic writing style and words taken from persian and arabic, differsfrom Hindi. Though both languages have same basic structure.
Banglais did not want Hindi, because one, they speak Bengali, and two, Hindi is essentially the same as Urdu.
I agree with you over the issue of the national language that everyone can speak, but Benglis obviously didn't see it that way. The imposition of Urdu as a national language can be due to many things, not least of which being that it was and is associated with Muslims, and so we can chalk this up next to other policies that were meant to strengthen state ideology of Islam, at the expense of ethnicity and local culture. So religion may not have been the sole reason for making Urdu the National language, but I don't think there is any doubt that Urdus association with Indian Muslims wasn't at least a contributing factor.
Urdu and Hindi may be language of communication for some, but i have met Indians from South India and even some Bengalis who can barely construct a simple sentence in Urdu, let alone communicate in it.
There is a fascinating book that is a very good read on the issue, its very well researched. Its called from Hindi to Urdu. In the book its understood that Hindi and Urdu were one language up to at least early 1800. Its around this time that certain segments of the Muslim intelligentsia who began replacing Sanskrit origin words with Farsi and Arabic to distinguish themselves. Hindus followed suit and replaced existing Arabic and Persian words with Sanskrit. The fact that we can understand Hindi speakers and they can understand us, attest to the fact that these are not to separate languages.
Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’
Urdu/Hindi are kind of twins but main difference is alphabets which make them two different languages. If both had same "rasmul khat", these wont be different languages.
So if I write Roman Urdu, that would be another 'language'? What defines language is something more than rasmul khat that is what I am saying here.
Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’
Med
What is the parameter on which u judge "size" of the problem?
Lets layout these parameters and then decide what comes out on top.
As far as I'm concerned, if even one member of a minority is harmed, its enough for us all to be concerned. I live by the notion that we should hold the defense of certain segments of society at higher standard. The religious ethnic minorities, women, elderly, children, mentally and physically disabled, animals. Not necessarily in that order but you get my point.
Point being, a society that does not defend its weakest members is not a society worthy of the name.
The Majority are members of the stronger community, they can defend themselves. But those who require assistance and support are th weaker members. Currently its the religious minorities who are suffering in Pakistan, and its incumbent upon us to speak for them or defend them in whatever way possible.
Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’
Banglais did not want Hindi, because one, they speak Bengali, and two, Hindi is essentially the same as Urdu.
I agree with you over the issue of the national language that everyone can speak, but Benglis obviously didn't see it that way. The imposition of Urdu as a national language can be due to many things, not least of which being that it was and is associated with Muslims, and so we can chalk this up next to other policies that were meant to strengthen state ideology of Islam, at the expense of ethnicity and local culture. So religion may not have been the sole reason for making Urdu the National language, but I don't think there is any doubt that Urdus association with Indian Muslims wasn't at least a contributing factor.
Urdu and Hindi may be language of communication for some, but i have met Indians from South India and even some Bengalis who can barely construct a simple sentence in Urdu, let alone communicate in it.
There is a fascinating book that is a very good read on the issue, its very well researched. Its called from Hindi to Urdu. In the book its understood that Hindi and Urdu were one language up to at least early 1800. Its around this time that certain segments of the Muslim intelligentsia who began replacing Sanskrit origin words with Farsi and Arabic to distinguish themselves. Hindus followed suit and replaced existing Arabic and Persian words with Sanskrit. The fact that we can understand Hindi speakers and they can understand us, attest to the fact that these are not to separate languages.
Med, my dear, would you make up ur mind reading one book on the subject. There has been an assault on the history by the right wing and now there is a counter assault on history by the left wing. In a country where 80% of population was illiterate its absurd to think that language could be changed by muslim intelligensia in a 100 years from 1800-1900.
And there is no denying, no denying, no denying the fact that arabic and persian had deep impact on urdu/hindi centuries before 1800. Read Kalaam of Baba Fareed,** he was born in 1173**, his punjabi poetry is filled with arabic and persian words. It won't be any surprise if muslims used more arabic/persian words than hindus who used sansikrat words due to the religious books they read. You dont have to construct a conspiracy theory to explain something simple as this.
Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’
As far as I'm concerned, if even one member of a minority is harmed, its enough for us all to be concerned. I live by the notion that we should hold the defense of certain segments of society at higher standard. The religious ethnic minorities, women, elderly, children, mentally and physically disabled, animals. Not necessarily in that order but you get my point.
Point being, a society that does not defend its weakest members is not a society worthy of the name.
The Majority are members of the stronger community, they can defend themselves. But those who require assistance and support are th weaker members. Currently its the religious minorities who are suffering in Pakistan, and its incumbent upon us to speak for them or defend them in whatever way possible.
I agree with you on this, but i don't agree that this is the only reason or even the biggest reason for the problems Pakistan is facing. India had seen rapid rise of right wing extremist ideology but has progresses inspite of that. Now don't take this as condoning oppression of minorities.
Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’
Med, my dear, would you make up ur mind reading one book on the subject. There has been an assault on the history by the right wing and now there is a counter assault on history by the left wing. In a country where 80% of population was illiterate its absurd to think that language could be changed by muslim intelligensia in a 100 years from 1800-1900.
And there is no denying, no denying, no denying the fact that arabic and persian had deep impact on urdu/hindi centuries before 1800. Read Kalaam of Baba Fareed,** he was born in 1173**, his punjabi poetry is filled with arabic and persian words. It won't be any surprise if muslims used more arabic/persian words than hindus who used sansikrat words due to the religious books they read. You dont have to construct a conspiracy theory to explain something simple as this.
The definition of the word intelligentsia is those that are intelligent... :)
I read 1 book, but still 1 more then you perhaps? Tell me how many books have you written on the subject?
There was a common language among Hindus and Muslims that incorporated Sanskrit, Farsi and Arabic. The Muslim intelligentsia began systematically removing sanskrit from the language while the Hindus began removing Farsi and Arabic.
This isn't a conspiracy theory, this history. Your can't criticize something you haven't even researched. Everything you said is your own assumption, and isn't based on any actual facts. Go read.
Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’
Read what? assumptions of a biased person. I have given u the fact, poetry of Baba Farid from 1200. Show me the proof of this conspiracy theory and i will beleive, bcoz apparently still there are thousands of sanksikrat wrods in urdu language. Pick up an urdu dictionary and its littered with words of sansikrat origin. Did the intelligensia not know of the origin of these words or did they have a change of heart.
Start to view the things objectively instead of Zaid Hamid style.
Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’
I agree with you on this, but i don't agree that this is the only reason or even the biggest reason for the problems Pakistan is facing. India had seen rapid rise of right wing extremist ideology but has progresses inspite of that. Now don't take this as condoning oppression of minorities.
I used to think India was also equally bigoted as many in Pakistan, but the consistency of such things in Pakistan is far more worrying. There is much evidence, both direct and circumstantial, that tells us that the length and depth of bigotry and intolerance in Pakistan is far far worse then in India.
India is growing because the minorities live in relative peace. I have never heard any Indian Christian or Muslim complain that they are being mistreated in India, save for the occasional violence that erupts. Contrast this to Pakistan. The only ones who have ever told me there is nothing but justice and tolerance and peace for minorities have been members of the majority.
One can only live in denial so long. But when you have 20 plus people systematically killed for being Shia just the other day, well then there is something wrong. And if it was only concentrated in one area, one could make excuses, but we see this level of intolerance across the country.
Argue with the facts, why debate me?
“The first steps were perhaps taken by the Urdu elite, during the 18th and early 19th century, to purge Hindustani of its Sanskrit and Prakrit expressions, replacing them with stylised borrowings from Persian and Arabic. It was inevitable that this would draw a political reaction from the Hindus who pull the same language in the direction of extreme Sanskritisation. “These language-planning processes led to the splitting of a language (Hindi-Urdu) into modern Persianised and Arabicised Urdu at one extreme and modern Sanskritised Hindi at the other. Between the two ends is a continuum which veers towards one end or the other according to the speaker, the occasion and the environment” (p. 99). Rahman shows the emergence of elitist Urdu with an exaggerated focus on a certain idiom and pronunciation. Azad, in his history of Urdu, completely ignored Hindu writers and for Acharya Ramchandra Shukla (1883–1941) “Hindi and Urdu are two very different languages. The Hindus of this country speak Hindi, while Muslims and those Hindus who have studied Persian speak Urdu.” Languages flourish in each other’s company; they suffocate in isolation. Politically motivated language-engineering alienates native speakers and, as Alok Rai tells us, makes the idiom incapable of engaging in any serious discourse.
The tolerant sufi religious and cultural traditions shared by Hindus and Muslims also suffered a major setback. The Deobandi interpretation of Islam, which is strict and puritanical, goes against the tolerant and folk Islam of ordinary Indian Muslims. Urdu soon became the dominant language of Islam and started playing a central role in religious education. It was deliberately taken away from the mainstream Indian life, including education and the mass media.”
Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’
but icono, that is punjabi, which is a much older language than urdu, and in all likelihood even older than hindi; and has been the buffer between central asia and the gangetic plains of hindustan. its vocab holds words from ancient and middle persian that don't exist in modern persian, as well as words from modern persian and turkic.
secondly, baba fareed was well travelled in the persian-speaking world. amir khusro who lived after baba fareed, in what is considered the heartland of urdu, and was muslim and turkic - wrote in two languages - farsi, and hindavi (there was no urdu then) - his hindavi poetry is pretty damn sanskritized.
the urdu-hindi official divergence in common people didn't happen until the mughals were dismantled and the brits started divide and rule by institutionalizing the script and educational division to further their hold.
Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’
Did u write it or diwana has hacked ur ID.
By the way, make sure not to read the article I posted. God hates people who read. Better you make sh1t up and let our deewna friend spin it with his inane bs.
