# Urdu: ہندوستان یا ہندستان



## UrduMedium

On the title of an Urdu book I received recently, I noticed Hindustan spelled as ہندستان. The book is published in India, and consistently uses this spelling. Mostly in Pakistani press/books I am used to the spelling ہندوستان, with the additional و between the د and the س. Thinking about it, I noticed that ہندستان is closer to the pronunciation _hindustaan_. After all the vowel in question is a short one so technically the و should not be there. ہندوستان sounds more like _hindostaan_, a more poetic version of the name. 

Curious if what I noticed is a peculiar usage, or is it the preferred Indian Urdu spelling for _hindustaan_.


----------



## Qureshpor

UM jii, you might find this thread useful. Mind you, it only has one post but it is the quality that matters not the quantity!

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2283668&highlight=nah+kih+du

Interestingly, Platts spells it phonetically as "Hindustaan", without the vaa'o. The explanation given is that in Persian the word Hinduu is Hindu. The vaa'o therefore is a convention in Persian and Urdu to represent short vowels, as per the thread above.

Our Classical dictionaries give the word as ہندوستان which is not surprising. I believe, the pronunciation either way is "Hindustaan" with a pesh on the daal and not "Hindostaan " with a vaav-i-majhuul.

Here is something especially for you (bearing in mind your signing in emblem). taraanah-i-Hindi was originally called "hamaaraa des". Here it is in Iqbal's own handwriting. You will notice that he has written it as ہندوستان

http://www.chapatimystery.com/archives/univercity/examining_iqbal.html


----------



## UrduMedium

QURESHPOR said:


> UM jii, you might find this thread useful. Mind you, it only has one post but it is the quality that matters not the quantity!
> 
> http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2283668&highlight=nah+kih+du
> 
> Interestingly, Platts spells it phonetically as "Hindustaan", without the vaa'o. The explanation given is that in Persian the word Hinduu is Hindu. The vaa'o therefore is a convention in Persian and Urdu to represent short vowels, as per the thread above.
> 
> Our Classical dictionaries give the word as ہندوستان which is not surprising. I believe, the pronunciation either way is "Hindustaan" with a pesh on the daal and not "Hindostaan " with a vaav-i-majhuul.
> 
> Here is something especially for you (bearing in mind your signing in emblem). taraanah-i-Hindi was originally called "hamaaraa des". Here it is in Iqbal's own handwriting. You will notice that he has written it as ہندوستان
> 
> http://www.chapatimystery.com/archives/univercity/examining_iqbal.html



Thanks so much for both links. Very insightful. 

Per the logic you described, the ending _vaao of hinduu _should be dropped in _hindustaan _since it ceases to be the ending vowel in the composite name.

I agree that in Iqbal's poem it is written _hindostaaN_. But I believe that is also intentional as that's consistent with the meter, _hindostaaN _goes much better than _hindustaaN _will.


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> Thanks so much for both links. Very insightful.
> 
> Per the logic you described, the ending _vaao of hinduu _should be dropped in _hindustaan _since it ceases to be the ending vowel in the composite name.
> 
> I agree that in Iqbal's poem it is written _hindostaaN_. But I believe that is also intentional as that's consistent with the meter, _hindostaaN _goes much better than _hindustaaN _will.



No, you do not seem to have understood the logic. What I am saying is that in Classical Persian we seem to have short vowel endings, but as the script normally does not show final short vowels, the relevant semi-vowel (i.e vaa'o /ye) is used to denote this. As the word for "two" originally in Persian was "du" (daal pesh and still pronounced as such in Dari), it was not written as daal+pesh alone but with an added vaa'o. So, in this respect, Hind+pesh was also written Hind+ vaa'o. Vaa'o and ye were not the only letters used to represent the short u and i. For "a" and "i" the letter "h" was used too as in "nah", "bandah", "kih".

Regarding "Hindustaan" >> "Hindistaan", again this is not surprising. In Iranian Persian du >> do, rozu shab >> roz-o-shab, kih >> keh, so Hindu can go to Hindo in Urdu on the same principles. As I have said in the other thread, when these short vowels are not "bound" by a following consonant they tend to become elongated.


----------



## UrduMedium

QURESHPOR said:


> No, you do not seem to have understood the logic. What I am saying is that in Classical Persian we seem to have short vowel endings, but as the script normally does not show final short vowels, the relevant semi-vowel (i.e vaa'o /ye) is used to denote this. As the word for "two" originally in Persian was "du" (daal pesh and still pronounced as such in Dari), it was not written as daal+pesh alone but with an added vaa'o. So, in this respect, Hind+pesh was also written Hind+ vaa'o. Vaa'o and ye were not the only letters used to represent the short u and i. For "a" and "i" the letter "h" was used too as in "nah", "bandah", "kih".
> 
> Regarding "Hindustaan" >> "Hindistaan", again this is not surprising. In Iranian Persian du >> do, rozu shab >> roz-o-shab, kih >> keh, so Hindu can go to Hindo in Urdu on the same principles. As I have said in the other thread, when these short vowels are not "bound" by a following consonant they tend to become elongated.



I think I understood already what you say in the first para above. So the script is leading the pronunciation. I think that is bound to happen over time.

By _Hindistaan_, I assume you meant _Hindostaan_? If not, please clarify what you mean by it. 

The other part I am still not getting, it seems. So in _hindustaan_, is it not true that the short vowel following d is already _bound _by d? So the need for the additional _vaao _goes away?


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> I think I understood already what you say in the first para above. So the script is leading the pronunciation. I think that is bound to happen over time.
> 
> By _Hindistaan_, I assume you meant _Hindostaan_? If not, please clarify what you mean by it.
> 
> The other part I am still not getting, it seems. So in _hindustaan_, is it not true that the short vowel following d is already _bound _by d? So the need for the additional _vaao _goes away?



Yes, I meant to write "Hindostaan".

No. the short vowel following d is u (pesh) in Hindu. This word (Hindu) when written in Persian script would have been he+nuun+daal+pesh. But, as a final short vowel is not normally shown, a vaa'o was added to indicate this. I feel I am repeating myself and we are going round and round! Apart from Platts, I have never seen ہندوستان written as ہندستان​.

By the way, Steingass gives the word as هندوستان hindūstān.

Post number 12 might also be of interest to you in the following thread.

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2187529&highlight=eskandar+hunch


----------



## UrduMedium

QURESHPOR said:


> Yes, I meant to write "Hindostaan".
> 
> No. the short vowel following d is u (pesh) in Hindu. This word (Hindu) when written in Persian script would have been he+nuun+daal+pesh. But, as a final short vowel is not normally shown, a vaa'o was added to indicate this. I feel I am repeating myself and we are going round and round! Apart from Platts, I have never seen ہندوستان written as ہندستان​.



Let me try one last time ... I agree that in _hindu _the last vowel is short. However when this becomes part of _hindustaan_, it *ceases to be the last vowel*. Hence my _iSraar _that the _vaao _is extraneous. Short u and the following _seen _in _hindustaan_ merge fine and do not need the _vaao _prop.


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> Let me try one last time ... I agree that in _hindu _the last vowel is short. However when this becomes part of _hindustaan_, it *ceases to be the last vowel*. Hence my _iSraar _that the _vaao _is extraneous. Short u and the following _seen _in _hindustaan_ merge fine and do not need the _vaao _prop.



Agreed with the first part. But this word has always been written as ہندوستان. So "vaa'o" is not "extraneous" based on the original scheme of logic.


----------



## marrish

UrduMedium said:


> On the title of an Urdu book I received recently, I noticed Hindustan spelled as ہندستان. The book is published in India, and consistently uses this spelling. Mostly in Pakistani press/books I am used to the spelling ہندوستان, with the additional و between the د and the س. Thinking about it, I noticed that ہندستان is closer to the pronunciation _hindustaan_. After all the vowel in question is a short one so technically the و should not be there. ہندوستان sounds more like _hindostaan_, a more poetic version of the name.
> 
> Curious if what I noticed is a peculiar usage, or is it the preferred Indian Urdu spelling for _hindustaan_.



I have done some net research for the word under discussion using Arabic (Urdu) and Nagari as well.

hinduustaan - 1510000
hindustaan - 41200
hinduustaaN - 12800
hindustaaN - 342

Indeed, the sites containing Urdu text where the word ہندستان has been used, are overwhelmingly provenient from the country in question. Here a couple of examples:

http://www.zindgienau.com/Issues/2012/january2012/unicode_article5.asp
http://www.khwajaekramonline.com/blog/?tag=ہندستان-،-بنگلہ-دیش
http://www.aicc.org.in/new/ur/home-nuclear-urdu.php

I've tried hard to think of each and every possible spelling alternative in Nagari, and here is the result of my findings:

1. hind*u*staan - 990000 hits
2. hiNd*u*staan - 948000 hits
3. hind*o*staan - 32700 hits
4. hiNd*uu*staan - 27700 hits
5. hind*o*staaN - 12000 hits
6. hiNd*o*staaN - 5460+5220 hits
7. hind*uu*staan - 8610 hits
8. hiNd*o*staan - 4940 hits

As a general note, the sites that employ the long -uu- sound are texts in Urdu written in Nagari, for the most part from siasat.com - newsportal from Hyderabad Deccan. The ones with hiNdostaan are also frequently Urdu in Nagari.

Other occurences that include -o- and final nasals are predominantly transcriptions of Iqbal's Urdu anthem - _saare jahaaN se achchhaa_, and other poetry.

UM SaaHib, I don't believe there is any point in pointing out to 'Indian Urdu'. It may be misinterpreted as indicating a divide, which is not the point. After all, Urdu has always _been_ an Indian language (let us watch how long it is going to survive on Indian soil, which doesn't seem too fertile for it).


----------



## UrduMedium

^ marrish saahab- thank you for your most helpful and timely research! My interest was mainly in the Urdu script spelling. So there also, it seems that the ہندستان spelling is a viable one. And yes, by "Indian Urdu" I meant Urdu spellings in Indian published material (geographically) and nothing else.


----------



## marrish

You are very welcome, UM SaaHib!

If we take the quantitative approach, it is plausible that the publishers or authors of those publications in the Republic of India are probably equally conversant with Hindi, project the most popular spelling convention onto Urdu. Of course this doesn't collide with the learned contributions of our QP SaaHib.

For your information, the word Hindu is spelled in Nagari as _hinduu/hiNduu_ - more than six millions hits as opposed to _hindu/hiNdu_ -a bit more than one million results (very frequently as a member of compounds or transcription of the English name of the newspaper).


----------



## Qureshpor

So, what is your learned conclusion UM jii?


----------



## UrduMedium

Interestingly, today I came across the ہندستان version in _kulliyaat-i-iqbaal_ in the poem labeled _Hiamala _(Himalayas). Published Lahore, Pakistan.

See attached the picture below:


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> Interestingly, today I came across the ہندستان version in _kulliyaat-i-iqbaal_ in the poem labeled _Hiamala _(Himalayas). Published Lahore, Pakistan.
> 
> See attached the picture below:
> 
> View attachment 10691



It would be interesting to know Faylasoof SaaHib's views on the orthography of this word. I don't think I have ever heard it pronounced "Hinduustaan" in the Urdu context. I have certainly heard both "Hindustaan" and "Hindostaan".


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> Interestingly, today I came across the ہندستان version in _kulliyaat-i-iqbaal_ in the poem labeled _Hiamala _(Himalayas). Published Lahore, Pakistan.
> 
> See attached the picture below:
> 
> View attachment 10691



As you are no doubt aware, the opening line of "Himaalah" has the word with "vaa'o". In taviir-i-dard, once again the word is with a vaa'o.(nah samjho ge to miT jaa'o ge ai vaalo ہندوستاں vaalo. Same again in "saare jahaaN se achchhaa..". Could this be due to "3uruuz"?


----------



## Faylasoof

QURESHPOR said:


> It would be interesting to know Faylasoof SaaHib's views on the orthography of this word. I don't think I have ever heard it pronounced "Hinduustaan" in the Urdu context. I have certainly heard both "Hindustaan" and "Hindostaan".


 QP SaaHib, I've seen both forms - with and without the _waa'o_. All my elders spell the word _with it_ and so do I. Iqbal's choice to use it without the _waa'o_ here may be ascribed to its use in this verse where the shorter form fits & sounds better, I feel.
... and the standard pronunciations are as you say: _hind*u*staan_ and _hind*o*staan_.


----------



## UrduMedium

QURESHPOR said:


> As you are no doubt aware, the opening line of "Himaalah" has the word with "vaa'o". In taviir-i-dard, once again the word is with a vaa'o.(nah samjho ge to miT jaa'o ge ai vaalo ہندوستاں vaalo. Same again in "saare jahaaN se achchhaa..". Could this be due to "3uruuz"?



I agree with your observations, QP saahab. I had to look up _3aruuz_  Yes, I think this is the demand of the meter. But that also means it is an acceptable spelling for the word.


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> I agree with your observations, QP saahab. I had to look up _3aruuz_  Yes, I think this is the demand of the meter. But that also means it is an acceptable spelling for the word.



Thank you for pointing the spelling error.

I would say that your statment would carry more weight if you found this spelling in Urdu prose. By the way, there are plenty of instances of "Hindustaan" in Classical Persian poetry, amongst the masters. Here is another proposition.

In Classical Persian, it has always been Hind*u*staan. This was probably how it came into Urdu. Over time the *u *vowel began to be pronounced as an *o *in Urdu. The spelling was modified to Hind*o*staan to reflect this change. Though Hind*u*staan is still heard, its frquency is probably a lot lower. This is all guesswork, by the way!


----------



## UrduMedium

^ This thread started when I noticed this spelling in Urdu prose. Specifically a book called _Hindustan meN zaat paat aur musalmaan_ by Masood Alam Falahi.

See an image below of the part of the cover. The book seems to consistently use this spelling throughout.


----------



## Qureshpor

UrduMedium said:


> ^ This thread started when I noticed this spelling in Urdu prose. Specifically a book called _Hindustan meN zaat paat aur musalmaan_ by Masood Alam Falahi.
> 
> See an image below of the part of the cover. The book seems to consistently use this spelling throughout.
> 
> View attachment 10708



That is fair enough, UM SaaHib. The point I was making was whether one is able to find examples of Hindustan in Urdu prose with some sort of regularity or whether this book is a novelty.


----------



## UrduMedium

QURESHPOR said:


> That is fair enough, UM SaaHib. The point I was making was whether one is able to find examples of Hindustan in Urdu prose with some sort of regularity or whether this book is a novelty.


 This is the first time I saw it which is why I brought it up. However, in post #16 above Faylasoof saahab seems to have vouched for the prevalence of this spelling.

Also in post #9 marrish saahab shared some stats on each spelling's usage from the internet.


----------



## Faylasoof

UrduMedium said:


> This is the first time I saw it which is why I brought it up. However, in post #16 above Faylasoof saahab seems to have vouched for the prevalence of this spelling.
> 
> Also in post #9 marrish saahab shared some stats on each spelling's usage from the internet.


 UM SaaHIb, perhaps I need to clarify this. What I said in post # 16 was about the pronunciation being either _hind*u*staan_ or _hind*o*staan_ but I wouldn't say that هندُستان hindustaan as a spelling is prevalent. Sorry if I gave that impression though I must say I have seen it written like this, mostly in poetry and less so in prose so your example above is quite interesting. An entire book with this variant spelling! 

The usual spelling, as you know for prose at least, is  هندوستان (_hind*uu*staan_), _but pronounced as if we are writing_ هندُستان _hind*u*staan_ (short 'u' as in the book you mentioned) rather than هندوستان _hind*uu*staan_ (longer 'uu' sound). The alternative pronunciation of هندوستان (_hinduustaan_) is _hind*o*staan_ where the _waa'o_ sounds just the way we pronounce it in _d*o*st_ (= friend), i.e _waa'o majhuul_.


----------



## UrduMedium

^ Sorry I misunderstood. Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## marrish

Recently I had the pleasure to read a book in Urdu published from Aligarh, where Hindustan is spelt sometimes without the _waa'o_ and sometimes with it.


----------



## Faylasoof

marrish said:


> Recently I had the pleasure to read a book in Urdu published from Aligarh, where Hindustan is spelt sometimes without the _waa'o_ and sometimes with it.


 This is even more interesting! BTW, marrish SaaHib, do you happen to remember who the author was? 

I was searching, amongst others, Muhammad Husain Azad's _qasas-e-hind_ and _darbaar-e-akbarii_. He (_aazaad_) is as good as it gets as far as Urdu prose goes and he always spells it _with the waa'o_. He was good at narrative history and both these make for great reading!

Intizar Husain also spells it with the _with the waa'o_. Just looked up his novel, _bastii_.


----------



## marrish

Faylasoof said:


> This is even more interesting! BTW, marrish SaaHib, do you happen to remember who the author was?


Yes, of course, as I've been reading the book for the past few days. Prof. Mirza Khalil Ahmad Beg.


----------



## Faylasoof

marrish said:


> Yes, of course, as I've been reading the book for the past few days. Prof. Mirza Khalil Ahmad Beg.


 Thank you! I shall try to get hold of his work(s). So it is clear that he doesn't worry too much about the middle waa'o. Fair enough!


----------



## Sheikh_14

In other words as Platts suggests both Hinduustaan and Hindustaan are correct. Platts seems to suggest that the long u sound derives not from Classical Persian, but the local vernacular. In any case it is apparent that all pronunciations are accepted in Urdu be it Hindostaan, Hindustaan or Hinduustaan. The only qualification is that the latter is most likely to be heard for poetic metre. Yet from a linguistic purist point of view Hinduustaan is the one most compatible with how Hinduu is pronounced in Urdu by way of the vernacular, whereas in Classical Persian it was pronounced as Hindu. I would assume the elongated u is paradoxically what appears most frequently in modern day Farsi.


----------

