# Urdu: in Pakistan, highly Persianized?



## marrish

Greetings,

In various threads on this Forum several people have suggested that the Urdu of Pakistan, for example the kind which is spoken on Pakistan Television (PTV) is highly Persianised and in this respect it differs substantially from the speech of educated speakers there as well as from Urdu in India. 

This has been rebutted also on a number of occasions. The same topic has raised its head once again in the Indic F-words thread. There was a risk that the discussion might go too far off-topic and I requested to have the topic at hand in mind when discussing in that thread. I'm glad to note that my request has been readily accepted so I am starting this thread for the sake of continuation of the debate on the topic of *high Persianization of Urdu in Pakistan* with both points of view in mind, starting off with "actions" and "reactions". It would be better to discuss all this here.

For references, context and the quotes in answer to which the posts reproduced below were sent, you can click on the icon at the right side of the poster's name.




insouciantguru said:


> I agree that an Indian Urdu speaker would give you a more informed answer. Like you, I was only offering my opinion.
> 
> QP Sahab, my point is that just as the*Urdu in Pakistan has to some extent been Punjabi-ized and further Arabized compared to the version still spoken in India (I maybe wrong here),* the every-day spoken Urdu in India-as opposed to the formal higher register- has, in my opinion, probably been coloured, however slightly, by the various Hindustani versions spoken all around (in which the ph/f confusion does exist). Honestly, I don't really notice much difference between the two languages, in their everyday spoken forms as they are spoken here. The "speaking environment" as you said is more ambiguous regarding the ph/f confusion than it is in Pakistan going by your observations there, and this should have rubbed off onto colloquial, urban Indian Urdu speech.





QURESHPOR said:


> There is no doubt that a language is influenced by other languages spoken around it and Urdu is no exception. In Pakistan, say for example in the cosmopolitan city of Karachi, it is likely to be affected by Sindhi, Pashto and Punjabi amongst other languages. These languages in turn have been influenced by Urdu. I provided an example for the Punjabi word "raso'ii" for kitchen that has been replaced by "baavarchii-xaanah" in Punjabi households.If I were to use raso'ii" whist speaking Punjabi, my Punjabi listeners would think I've just got off H.G.Well's time machine after having been in company with Baba Farid, Bulleh Shah, Waris Shah and the like! Similarly Urdu in India would naturally be affected by languages spoken within its vicinity. But, I can not say with certainty that Urdu speakers would consequently lose the ph/f distinction, for the reasons I have already mentioned in previous posts.
> 
> Regarding Urdu being "further Arabized" in Pakistan, this is not the first time this idea has been brought to this forum and it won't be the last. However, this is not the reality and I have stated this over and over again. I have quoted an Urdu professor from London's School of African and Oriental Studies (Ralph Russell) and if you search under his name you will find the exact quote. If you (or others who say similar things) were able to read Ghalib, Iqbal, Faiz, Insha (for example), you will see that in fact the trend is downwards and not upwards. Urdu speakers lament at the quality of present day Urdu in the Pakistan media (Radio, TV and Newspapers). One of the reasons for this is that the modern generation hardly reads its top authors, whether in verse or prose and the result is that their range of vocabulary is somewhat limited.





insouciantguru said:


> QP Sahab, *that Pakistani Urdu is being further Arab-ized, Punjabi-ized, Persian-ised was my general perception and admittedly a totally uninformed one. I did not mean to insinuate anything. I can't read the script, nor can I understand a lot of the more formal words.* I remember watching some news-clips on PTV ages ago and when the newsreaders said 'welcome back nazreen". I genuinely thought nazreen was a woman's name.





QURESHPOR said:


> *It's all to do with the environment one is brought up in of course. Words themselves do not have ethnicity or faith attached to them.
> *
> Talking about "naaziriin" (viewers/spectators...there is also saami3iin..listeners), you would in turn be used to "darshak". In my childhood when we had our very first transistor radio, I remember tuning into Radio Jalandhar and when the news would begin the male announcer invariably said.." e aakaashvaaNRii e". I thought "aakaashvaaNRii" was a lady's name too! It's a small world!
> 
> *I know this might be off topic but someone who is able to read both Urdu and Hindi scripts would certainly be better placed to judge the way each language is being portrayed in the written and spoken media.* The way words are spelt also brings surprises. And if anyone wishes to be familiar with Urdu, just listen to "Bollywood" songs (especially those of Muhammad Rafi, Talat Mahmood, Mukesh, Lata Mangeshkar,Asha Bhosle era)! I was just listening on Youtube...type AE BAAD E SABA ZARA AHISTA CHAL and you will see what I mean.





Wolverine9 said:


> *Though Urdu may not have added Perso-Arabic vocabulary to its lexicon in the 19th century the way Hindi did with Sanskrit vocabulary, wouldn't you say formal registers of Urdu emphasize or utilize more Perso-Arabic vocabaulary than what would be found in ordinary speech?* For example, I've noticed that in many of Alfaaz's posts, he gives examples that have a lot of Perso-Arabic vocabulary: a "Persianized" Urdu in other words. I believe you even pointed out his choice of vocabulary in one of your posts. There is of course nothing wrong with using such vocabulary and I'm not trying to offend Alfaaz in any way.  *Just attempting to explain why some Hindi speakers feel, whether correctly or mistakenly, that there is an Urdu equivalent (or near-equivalent) of "Sanskritized" Hindi.
> *
> EDIT: *I believe there are also some scholars who have mentioned that formal Urdu preferentially uses Persian vocabulary in certain contexts the way formal Hindi utilizes Sanskrit vocabulary. Their quotes should be listed somewhere on this forum. I remember reading them, but I'll need to do a search when I have more time.*





QURESHPOR said:


> "Entropy is the degree of randomness in a thermodynamic process and the change in Gibb's free energy is defined as: Delta G = Delta H minus TDelta S" where G is Gibb's free energy, S the entropy, H the enthalpy and T the absolute temperature on the Kelvin scale." Do you speak on a daily basis in this language? I know the answer and it is "No". *All languages have particular registers to cater for the topic in hand and Urdu would be no different in its specialized vocabulary. Please produce the scholars you have in mind with their quotes containing samples of Urdu of that particular style.* [...]It's best for Alfaaz SaaHib to respond himself if he so desires.





Wolverine9 said:


> *Shackle and Snell mention it on p. 18.*



In my opinion the time has come to discuss this issue in greater depth than we've done it before. I'd insist that the ones who wish to express their opinions are so kind as to contribute specimens of text, be it in Urdu script, in transliteration into any alphabet or references to audio or video links warn: attention! don't post the links themselves but only their titles or directions how to reach to them! ).


Thank you so much.


----------



## Alfaaz

marrish said:
			
		

> ^ Interesting and well formulated opinion but it is a pity the discussion about Persianization is being extended here instead of the new thread. The appropriate quotations are present there as well, would you mind to send a copy of your post there as well, please? Otherwise, I think it is very likely your post can get deleted from here and it would be nice to preserve it.





			
				Alfaaz said:
			
		

> Wolverine9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For example, I've noticed that in many of Alfaaz's posts, he gives examples that have a lot of Perso-Arabic vocabulary: a "Persianized" Urdu in other words. I believe you even pointed out his choice of vocabulary in one of your posts. There is of course nothing wrong with using such vocabulary and I'm not trying to offend Alfaaz in any way. Just attempting to explain why some Hindi speakers feel, whether correctly or mistakenly, that there is an Urdu equivalent (or near-equivalent) of "Sanskritized" Hindi.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not offended and the brief explanation would be (as has been given in those posts already in reply to marrish and QP SaaHibaan) that every language seems to use a certain higher/formal register for science or any other specialized field. In English, we often borrow from Latin and Greek (in addition to other languages) which it seems the early philosophers and scientists (even poets) used. In Urdu, it has mainly been Arabic and Persian, again two languages that the early philosophers, poets, scientists, specialists used for their own works or even to translate works from Greek. Let's look at an example:
> 
> _Solar power: شمسی توانائی shamsii tawaanaa'ii ; solar day: یوم شمسی yaum-e-shamsii ; solar apex: داس الشمس daas-ul-shams ; solar constant: شمسی مُستقل shamsii mustaqill ; solar spot : داغ آفتاب daagh-e-aaftaab
> _
> Even though _shams_ and _aaftaab_ are being used in all of the terms above, it doesn't necessarily mean that the common speaker would say something like:
> 
> _Aaj to aise lagta hai jaise shams/aaftaab ke aage aik bhi saHaab nah aayaa ho! Shadeed garmi hai!
> _for
> _Aaj to aise lagta hai jaise suraj ke aage aik bhi baadal nah aayaa ho! Shadeed garmi hai!
> 
> _Similarly, in English one would obviously choose different words depending on context: _cutting/chopping off vs. amputating ; holes/spaces vs. fenestare ; disorder vs. entropy ; jaw(bone) vs. mandible ; ears vs. pinaae ; etc._
> 
> 
> 
> Wolverine9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe it or not, the answer is actually yes. I am a student of science. But I may be an exception to this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Therefore, these words would probably seem common and comprehensible to you, while they might not to someone who isn't familiar with them. It seems the same would apply to Urdu or Hindi, in which the speakers of each language might not understand some of the specialized terminology of their language and/or not be familiar with that used in the other language. When they aren't familiar with terms being used in the other language, they might draw the conclusion that language is being Arabicised/Persianized or Sanskrtized. It might be that some consider Bollywood to be Arabicised/Persianized/Urduized with words like _i'shq, dil, maHabbat, a'zeez, junoon, bardaasht, himmat, HauSalah, aarzuu, tamannaa, salaam, etc._ , while others might understand these words (and even consider them part of colloquial Hindi). However, when the latter group sees an Urdu news bulletin with _wazeer-e-aa'zam, matla'a abr aaluud, or intixaabaat, etc._ that they don't understand or use in their speech, they might conclude (just like the first group) that there might be a conscious effort to use highly Arabicised/Persianized language, even though it is completely normal Urdu (just like song lyrics or film dialogues) to others.
> 
> Lastly, the topic of whether Urdu is currently being Arabicised/Persianized: as has been said in the posts above and elsewhere in the forum, if people were to read all the Urdu literature (not only poetry, but also scientific, philosophical, etc.) they would realize that there is no such "initiative" being made and Urdu has always included these terms/words in its lexicon. The terms/words mentioned in my posts could all probably be found in Platts (or any other Urdu dictionary) and it's not like they were taken from another language's dictionary. However, it is true that (commonly) people might not be familiar with them.
Click to expand...


----------



## tonyspeed

As an initial thought I think Persianisation has less to do with introduction of new words as it does with word preference.
In Hindi, the general word for tree is peR. In Urdu, the leaning is toward daraxt.
In Hindi, the common word for bird is panCHii (in non-scientific contexts). In Urdu, the leaning is toward parindaa/paranda.

I was once told by a Karachi Urdu speaker that words like peR sound rustic to her ears.


Hence, I suspect the drift is in preference and word choice, not in total vocabulary.


On the otherhand, I find these words by Gopi Chand Narang interesting:



> *Would you agree that an enforced, almost cosmetic, Persianisation has  done it harm rather than good? Has accessibility not become a casualty  as language, especially of literary discourse, has become dense and  opaque?
> 
> [box5]*Persianisation of Urdu has always co-existed  with the process of indigenization of the nation. Technically, for  different disciplines any language has to have a particular register.  But if it has to serve the needs of the grassroots it has to be simple  and close to the everyday speech of the people._ The present problem is  not only Persianisation but enforced Arabicisation for political  reasons._ Language is a social entity; whenever vested political  interests try to interfere, things get distorted.  It is not a service  but disservice to language*.*



http://hindustaniawaaz-rakhshanda.blogspot.com/2012_11_01_archive.html


----------



## marrish

Thank you for your post, TS, especially for the reference of your friend and the words of Gopi Chand Narang. A question: is it possible to provide a link to the source or otherwise tell us whether he was speaking about Urdu in Pakistan _in concreto_?


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> Thank you for your post, TS, especially for the reference of your friend and the words of Gopi Chand Narang. A question: is it possible to provide a link to the source or otherwise tell us whether he was speaking about Urdu in Pakistan _in concreto_?


I would like to see the actual document from which this quote has been accredited to Gopi Chand Narang.

"Would you agree that an enforced, almost cosmetic, Persianisation has done it harm rather than good? Has accessibility not become a casualty as language, especially of literary discourse, has become dense and opaque?

Persianisation of Urdu has always co-existed with the process of indigenization of the nation. Technically, for different disciplines any language has to have a particular register. But if it has to serve the needs of the grassroots it has to be simple and close to the everyday speech of the people. The present problem is not only Persianisation but enforced Arabicisation for political reasons. Language is a social entity; whenever vested political interests try to interfere, things get distorted. It is not a service but disservice to language."


----------



## tonyspeed

I have added the link.


I have also found an intriguing theory on the beginning of Persianisation in Urdu (claimed to have begun in the 1700s) in:

*A History of Indian Literature 1911-1956: Struggle for Freedom
*

 By Sisir Kumar Das

http://books.google.com/books?id=sqBjpV9OzcsC&pg=PA36#v=onepage&q&f=false


----------



## greatbear

Well, if even Bangla (Bengali) was tried to be Persianized/Arabicized by Pakistan, one of the major reasons for Bangladesh's need to assert its independent identity, then there is no question what fate Urdu has been suffering. One needs to only hear PTV: certainly, at least in India, people (Urdu speakers) don't speak like in that PTV language (unless on a very formal occasion, say a conference of Urdu speakers or something religious). The question is not that the words have existed or not; the question is of what words are preferred to be used, in say PTV bulletins, even though people don't speak like that: which is how a language is sought to be transformed by the State.


----------



## Alfaaz

greatbear said:
			
		

> One needs to only hear PTV: certainly, at least in India, people (Urdu speakers) don't speak like in that PTV language (unless on a very formal occasion, say a conference of Urdu speakers or something religious). The question is not that the words have existed or not; the question is of what words are preferred to be used, in say PTV bulletins, even though people don't speak like that: which is how a language is sought to be transformed by the State.


I might be wrong, but if you listen to the news bulletins of Indian Urdu channels (whether from Kashmir or elsewhere), they use a similar style/words of Urdu. They don't seem to use pardhaan mantri, desh, etc. Could you perhaps give an example of what you mean by "preferred words"? Also, another question arises: have the people commenting that PTV Urdu is somehow different from Indian Urdu ever watched the classic drama serials like TanhaaiyaaN, ParchaaiyaaN, Un-kahi, Dhoop Kinarey, Uncle Urfi, Waris, etc. etc. ? If there have been the "high register Urdu" ghazals, there have also been many geets and ghazals leaning toward the Hindi side (one famous one of Meraji comes instantly to mind, a poet also mentioned in the link by tonyspeed), not to mention the regional language programs from various centers. Have people claiming that PTV Urdu is highly Persianized ever heard these? (These questions are based on the observation that most Indians have never really had much exposure, for one reason or another, to Pakistani media...whereas Pakistanis generally are informed of both industries.) Lastly, context also matters. A president's speech is obviously going to be very different from that of a regular conversation. If you even quickly search old clips of Doordarshan on YT with people like Kaifi Azimi, Dilip Kumar and Noor Jahan, you find them speaking similar Urdu (and with great articulation of their qaafs as well). So would one assert that Doordarshan was also highly Persianized based on just those clips? 

(Note: The questions above are asked out of genuine interest and nothing else. I wouldn't have replied to the original thread (Urdu, Hindi: Indic F-words) had my name not been mentioned as such threads usually lead to endless discussions. I posted my post from that thread here after the request by marrish SaaHib, as seen above.)


----------



## Qureshpor

There are hundreds of PTV videos on Youtube. Anyone wishing to talk about the language in any of them, just provide the title and we can all watch it and see for ourselves what kind of language is being broadcast on Pakistan TV. It's Urdu broadcasts are naturally meant for Urdu speakers and I don't ever recall any hue and cry from them because they are unable to comprehend the Urdu being used there and have been forced to listen to DD.

As a matter of interest I randomly selected two short News bulletin PTV videos and one DD Urdu News video. Believe you me, apart from the style of delivery, there was no difference whatsoever. I shall save the DD link in case someone wishes to watch it.


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> I have added the link.
> 
> I have also found an intriguing theory on the beginning of Persianisation in Urdu (claimed to have begun in the 1700s) in:
> 
> *A History of Indian Literature 1911-1956: Struggle for Freedom
> *
> By Sisir Kumar Das
> 
> http://books.google.com/books?id=sqBjpV9OzcsC&pg=PA36#v=onepage&q&f=false



This books talks more than just about "Persianisation" . It also talk about "Sanskritization" in Hindi and "Persianisation" being a reaction to it. But the thread is about Urdu being "Highly Persianised" in Pakistan and Pakistan came into being in 1947!


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> On the otherhand, I find these words by Gopi Chand Narang interesting:
> http://hindustaniawaaz-rakhshanda.blogspot.com/2012_11_01_archive.html


Thank you for the link. I have carefully read the whole of the interview. Unfortunately, neither the interviewer nor the interviewee provides any context for the time period or the geographical location behind these remarks. For this reasons it is difficult to comment on this portion of the interview.

I have a lot of respect for Professor Gopi Chand Narang. If he were against a particular variety of Urdu, then he himself would refrain from its usage. Just type in Last Tv Mushaira of Faiz Ahmed Faiz. This video is around 40 minutes long and the person in charge of this poetry symposium is Professor Gopi Chand Narang himself. Interested parties can of course listen to the whole video but in one section, he introduces the main guest (the poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz) from 17:58 -21:20. See what you make of his Urdu. How does it differ from "PTV Urdu"? This was recorded around 1980, I believe.

Jawahar Lal Nehru found his speeches in their Hindi garb difficult to follow. This was post independence India. "Nehru frequently complained that he could not understand the increasingly Sanskritised Hindi language promulgated by All India Radio. He commented on this in his letters, and at least on one occasion he rose in the Lok Sabha, lower house of the Indian Parliament, to complain that he could not understand Hindi broadcasts of his own speeches". (On Youtube type "RAIS SIDDIQUI on DD Urdu /Nehru ji-1, and listen to Nehru speaking from 1:30-2:45)


----------



## marrish

^ All India Nehru? (for technical reasons I haven't yet listened to it).

Edit: exchanging views of persons who are not members of this forum has no sense for this thread. It's all about the perception our friends have. Tha is why i repeat, let us not pay lip service but really discuss texts and spoken parts.


----------



## Wolverine9

QURESHPOR said:


> This books talks more than just about "Persianisation" . It also talk about "Sanskritization" in Hindi and "Persianisation" being a reaction to it. But the thread is about Urdu being "Highly Persianised" in Pakistan and Pakistan came into being in 1947!



I think TS is just providing a historical perspective.  In essence the Persianization of Urdu began in the 18th century according to Das, and likely accelerated after Hindi started becoming Sanskritized in the 19th century.  The Persianization of Urdu in Pakistan is apparently continuing today as mentioned by Narang.  It may not be noticeable to some of you because, as was alluded to earlier, it often depends on perception.  If one grows up with a particular style of speech, it may not seem "Persianized" or a person may get used to it and not notice the increased emphasis on Persian vocabulary.  But when linguists and other scholars study it objectively from a historical viewpoint and categorically state Persianization has occurred, it becomes tough to dispute.


----------



## Qureshpor

Wolverine9 said:


> I think TS is just providing a historical perspective.  In essence the Persianization of Urdu began in the 18th century according to Das, and likely accelerated after Hindi started becoming Sanskritized in the 19th century.  The Persianization of Urdu in Pakistan is apparently continuing today as mentioned by Narang.


I must have missed this. Where did he say this?


----------



## Wolverine9

In the interview he said "The present problem is not only Persianisation but enforced Arabicisation for political reasons."

Also, in the Das book, it's implicit that it's still ongoing.


----------



## Qureshpor

Wolverine9 said:


> In the interview he said "The present problem is not only Persianisation but enforced Arabicisation for political reasons."
> 
> Also, in the Das book, it's implicit that it's still ongoing


I have already responded to this in reply to TS. Did you read the Urdu title of his book on, is it "Structuralism and Post Structurlism"? Was it the Pakistani authorities who forced him to employ such language? Again, a blanket statement without any examples comparing how the language was before 1947 and how it became after this watershed. Now, if you or anyone else can come up with such comparitive evidence, then we are cooking on gas!


----------



## Wolverine9

I think he's pretty clear about the time period and geography.  "Present" means it's still occurring as of 2012, the year of the interview.  The geography of course has to be Pakistan.  As for examples, you may have to email him yourself!   I don't know if anyone on this forum would be able to provide you with the concrete examples that you're looking for.


----------



## Qureshpor

Wolverine9 said:


> I think he's pretty clear about the time period and geography. "Present" means it's still occurring as of 2012, the year of the interview. The geography of course has to be Pakistan. As for examples, you may have to email him yourself!  I don't know if anyone on this forum would be able to provide you with the concrete examples that you're looking for.


Well, frankly, it is upto the "prosecution" to provide the evidence and not the "defence". And one must not go down the "assumption" route. Besides, did you get the chance to listen to the three or four minutes of his introduction of Faiz in the mushaa3irah video that I mentioned? Did the Pakistani authorities write his script? There are plenty of other examples of his Urdu speaking style on Youtube. How did he come up with his book title "saaxtiyaat pas-saaxtiyaat", let alone titles of his other books. An Indian citizen speaking in PTV style? Who is behind all this?


----------



## Wolverine9

QURESHPOR said:


> Well, frankly, it is upto the "prosecution" to provide the evidence and not the "defence". And one must not go down the "assumption" route.



This line of reasoning is reminiscent of those who dispute FWC and whether particular words are shuddh Hindi (No offense intended to either of you).



QURESHPOR said:


> Besides, did you get the chance to listen to the three or four minutes of his introduction of Faiz in the mushaa3irah video that I mentioned? Did the Pakistani authorities write his script? There are plenty of other examples of his Urdu speaking style on Youtube. How did he come up with his book title "saaxtiyaat pas-saaxtiyaat", let alone titles of his other books. An Indian citizen speaking in PTV style? Who is behind all this?



No, I haven't gotten a chance to listen to those clips.  Either way, they wouldn't prove anything.  One can't rely on anecdotal evidence to dispute whether there has been Persianization of the language.  The comments and viewpoints of scholars who have studied the situation are far more convincing.


----------



## Qureshpor

Wolverine9 said:


> This line of reasoning is reminscent of those who dispute FWC and whether particular words are shuddh Hindi (No offense intended to either of you).
> 
> No, I haven't gotten a chance to listen to those clips. Either way, they wouldn't prove anything. One can't rely on anecdotal evidence to dispute whether there has been Persianization of the language. The comments and viewpoints of scholars who have studied the situation are far more convincing.



Re: The first, it was not just one or two individuals making this assertion but at least a dozen if not more scholars! For the second, the "anecdotal evidence" refers back to the person who has allegedly said that there is enforced "arabicisation" taking place. Surely a person making this claim would not fall into his own trap?

 When you get the chance to listen to Professor Gopi Chand Narang's Urdu, also take a little dip into DD's Urdu News bulletins. Spot the difference if you can! I await for some comparitive evidence, as I have stated earlier.


----------



## Wolverine9

QURESHPOR said:


> Re: The first, it was not just one or two  individuals making this assertion but at least a dozen if not more  scholars! For the second, the "anecdotal evidence" refers back to the  person who has allegedly said that there is enforced "arabicisation"  taking place. Surely a person making this claim would not fall into his  own trap?



Keep in mind, though, that FWC was more than  200 years ago and during de facto British rule, so there has been much  more scholarly interest in that situation than the Persianization of  Urdu in Pakistan.



QURESHPOR said:


> When you get the chance to listen to Professor Gopi Chand Narang's Urdu, also take a little dip into DD's Urdu News bulletins. Spot the difference if you can! I await for some comparitive evidence, as I have stated earlier.



Fair enough.  I can understand you wanting Narang or other scholars to elaborate on their viewpoints.


----------



## Qureshpor

Wolverine9 said:


> This line of reasoning is reminscent of those who dispute FWC and whether particular words are shuddh Hindi (No offense intended to either of you).


Sorry I missed this point the first time. Your above response is given below my quote. Am I two persons rolled into one?


----------



## Wolverine9

Yes, you are! LOL.  I think you know what I meant.  That statement was simultaneously directed towards you and someone else.


----------



## marrish

Wolverine9 said:


> I think he's pretty clear about the time period and geography.  "Present" means it's still occurring as of 2012, the year of the interview.  The geography of course has to be Pakistan.  As for examples, you may have to email him yourself!   I don't know if anyone on this forum would be able to provide you with the concrete examples that you're looking for.


It appears my expectations about this forum were too high if no one is able to back his or her bare statements with textual references! I thought a genuine analysis of some text was possible but it requires of course the knowledge of Urdu and perhaps of Persian! It appears I have set the bar too high... I would not be so sure about pointing out to Pakistan - as a matter of fact, I have heard comments from Pakistanis about some Urdu audio files (courtesy of Faylasoof SaaHib) ''oh, it's Indian Urdu!''.


----------



## tonyspeed

marrish said:


> It appears my expectations about this forum were too high if no one is able to back his or her bare statements with textual references! I thought a genuine analysis of some text was possible but it requires of course the knowledge of Urdu and perhaps of Persian! It appears I have set the bar too high... I would not be so sure about pointing out to Pakistan - as a matter of fact, I have heard comments from Pakistanis about some Urdu audio files (courtesy of Faylasoof SaaHib) ''oh, it's Indian Urdu!''.



Yes, it is too high. For everyone also beleives they know more than the many scholars who do these things for a living, and have no bias towards Hindi or Urdu, for some of whom it is their mother-tongue. There are "umpteen" scholars that already attest to this fact. The books are freely available. Some of this scholars know Persian and other languages and have access to the full range of source materials (more than you or I, I would imagine). But it would seem we know more than the scholars who write these books we refer to daily because of our gut feelings and the one or two sources we have read.


I agree with QP; I think we must also differentiate between the Persianisation of Urdu and the Persianisation and Arabisation of Urdu in Pakistan. They are two different topics.


----------



## tonyspeed

Wolverine9 said:


> In the interview he said "The present problem is not only Persianisation but enforced Arabicisation for political reasons."
> 
> Also, in the Das book, it's implicit that it's still ongoing.




Although he did not give examples, I think an example that many will be familiar with is Allah Hafiz. Allah Haafiz is a Pakistani construct. The original term as you will know is Xudaa Haafiz.


The idea is that Allah is more proper than a Persian word Xudaa. I think people that say such things are ignorant of Arabic however, but that is another topic.


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> Although he did not give examples, I think an example that many will be familiar with is Allah Hafiz. Allah Haafiz is a Pakistani construct. The original term as you will know is Xudaa Haafiz.
> 
> The idea is that Allah is more proper than a Persian word Xudaa. I think people that say such things are ignorant of Arabic however, but that is another topic.


And people who say the above things are not only ignorant of Arabic (which is a minor detail) but also are most ignorant about Urdu and its idiom. xudaa-Haafiz can be located on page 129,Volume 1 of Farhang-i-Asifiyyah, published in *1908*. Logic dictates that its compiler was NOT a Pakistani

pahantaa hai vuh gul phuuloN kaa gajraa
kalaa'ii kaa bas ab *Allaah Haafiz
*
HaziiN

This couplet is quoted in Nur-ul-LuGhaat, another well known Urdu-Urdu dictionary published in 1917. I would suggest, HaziiN came before the dictionary. One should do one's homework before making such ridiculous comments.

I'll tell you what is a "Pakistani construct" and I am sure you and Chhaatr Jii will appreciate this. It is called the "duusraa"!


----------



## marrish

tonyspeed said:


> Yes, it is too high. For everyone also beleives they know more than the many scholars who do these things for a living, and have no bias towards Hindi or Urdu, for some of whom it is their mother-tongue. There are "umpteen" scholars that already attest to this fact. The books are freely available. Some of this scholars know Persian and other languages and have access to the full range of source materials (more than you or I, I would imagine). But it would seem we know more than the scholars who write these books we refer to daily because of our gut feelings and the one or two sources we have read.
> 
> 
> I agree with QP; I think we must also differentiate between the Persianisation of Urdu and the Persianisation and Arabisation of Urdu in Pakistan. They are two different topics.


Are you suggesting that for example, not to search too far, I, don't fulfill any of these criteria, tonyspeed?

And yes, the OP is quite clear about the topic at hand. If anyone still has doubts, one can always refer back to the title. I hope the title doesn't offer much room for interpretations.


----------



## tonyspeed

QURESHPOR said:


> And people who say the above things are not only ignorant of Arabic (which is a minor detail) but also are most ignorant about Urdu and its idiom. xudaa-Haafiz can be located on page 129,Volume 1 of Farhang-i-Asifiyyah, published in 1908[/B]. Logic dictates that its compiler was NOT a Pakistani  pahantaa hai vuh gul phuuloN kaa gajraa kalaa'ii kaa bas ab Allaah HaafizHaziiN  This couplet is quoted in Nur-ul-LuGhaat, another well known Urdu-Urdu dictionary published in 1917. I would suggest, HaziiN came before the dictionary. One should do one's homework before *making such ridiculous comments.*  I'll tell you what is a "Pakistani construct" and I am sure you and Chhaatr Jii will appreciate this. It is called the "duusraa"!


  You think I invented the idea? There are quite a few other rediculous people online as well. Just because you find an instance of it does not mean it was wide-spread. There were radicals in every time period...particularly beginning in the 1900s. 

 By the way, show some more respect if you would like some in return.


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> You think I invented the idea? There are quite a few other rediculous people online as well. Just because you find an instance of it means it had validity or was wide-spread. There were radicals in every time period...particlarly beginning in the 1900s. By the way, show some more respect if you would like some in return.


I assure you, TS, there is nothing radical in what I quoted. As for respect, it is earned not given. I meant no disrespect to you individually. I still have your Matthew 7:6 post. Were you showing me respect there?


----------



## tonyspeed

QURESHPOR said:


> I assure you, TS, there is nothing radical in what I quoted. As for respect, it is earned not given. I meant no disrespect to you individually. I still have your Matthew 7:6 post. Were you showing me respect there?



If I reply to this it will be off-topic.

Radical meaning: feeling the need to correct one's language based on a hyper-religious standard - language superiority. Urdu is probably much less guilty of this than Hindi was; so  there is no need to feel attacked.

But viewed from a certain angle, it can be seen as radical. Search the internet and you will see discussion after discussion with people opining that the (at the time) new "Allah Hafiz" phrase is quite unnecessary (many of which are Pakistanis).


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> If I reply to this it will be off-topic.
> 
> Radical meaning: feeling the need to correct one's language based on a hyper-religious standard - language superiority. Urdu is probably much less guilty of this than Hindi was; so  there is no need to feel attacked.
> 
> But viewed from a certain angle, it can be seen as radical. Search the internet and you will see discussion after discussion with people opining that the (at the time) new "Allah Hafiz" phrase is quite unnecessary (many of which are Pakistanis).


TS, my response to your post is purely from the perspective that "Allah Hafiz is a Pakistani construct". I have demonstrated that "Allah Haafiz" is not a Pakistani invention but it has been part of Urdu speakers' usage prior to Pakistan's existence, i.e part of United India's Urdu. The rest of your argument is then irrelevant, including what is radical and what is n't.


----------



## tonyspeed

QURESHPOR said:


> TS, my response to your post is purely from the perspective that "Allah Hafiz is a Pakistani construct". I have demonstrated that "Allah Haafiz" is not a Pakistani invention but it has been part of Urdu speakers' usage prior to Pakistan's existence, i.e part of United India's Urdu. *The rest of your argument is then irrelevant, including what is radical and what is n't.*




The relevant question is not was it ever written, but was it ever used in practice? If something is in a book but no one says it, of what use is it to anyone? In practice, you will still find Indian Urdu speakers still do not say it, but Pakistanis do.


For some context:



> *The first time Allah Hafiz was used in public was in 1985  when a famous TV host, a frequent sight on PTV during the Zia era,  signed off her otherwise secular show with a firm `Allah Hafiz.`*
> 
> 
> As most Pakistanis over the ages of six and seven would remember, before the now ubiquitous `Allah Hafiz` came `Khuda Hafiz`.
> 
> 
> The immediate history of the demise of Khuda  Hafiz can be traced back to a mere six to seven years in the past. It  was in Karachi some time in 2002 when a series of banners started  appearing across Sharea Faisal. Each banner had two messages. The first  one advised Pakistani Muslims to stop addressing God by the informal  `Tu` and instead address him as `Aap` (the respectful way of saying  `you` in Urdu). The second message advised Pakistanis to replace the  term Khuda Hafiz with Allah Hafiz.
> 
> 
> The banners were produced and installed by  Islamic organisations associated with a famous mosque in Karachi. Ever  since the 1980s, this institution had been a bastion of leading  puritanical doctrines of Islam. Many of the institution`s scholars were,  in one way or the other, also related to the Islamic intelligentsia  sympathetic to the Taliban version of political Islam and of other  similar fundamentalist outfits.
> 
> .....
> 
> The first time Allah Hafiz was used in public was in 1985 when a famous  TV host, a frequent sight on PTV during the Zia era, signed off her  otherwise secular show with a firm `Allah Hafiz.` However, even though  some Islamic preachers continued the trend in the 1990s, it did not  trickle down to the mainstream until the early 2000s. As society  continued to collapse inwards — especially the urban middle class — the  term Allah Hafiz started being used as if Pakistanis had always said  Allah Hafiz.
> 
> So much so that today, if you are to bid farewell by saying Khuda Hafiz,  you will either generate curious facial responses, or worse, get a  short lecture on why you should always say Allah Hafiz instead — a clear  case of glorified cultural isolationism to `protect` one`s comfort zone  of myopia from the influential and uncontrollable trends of universal  pluralism?



Nadeem F. Paracha
Pakistani Journalist


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> The relevant question is not was it ever written, but was it ever used in practice? If something is in a book but no one says it, of what use is it to anyone? In practice, you will still find Indian Urdu speakers still do not say it, but Pakistanis do.
> 
> For some context:
> 
> Nadeem F. Paracha
> Pakistani Journalist


Well, I don't know if you know anything about what a Ghazal is, but if you don't I can tell you that it is one form of Urdu poetry in which poets have openly attacked the clergy, rituals within religion and been quite, what would be considered blasphemous to God. Here are a couple of examples from the top of my head.

ham ko ma3luum hai jannat kii Haqiiqat lekin
dil ke xush rakhne ko Ghalib yih xayaal achchhaa hai

Ghalib

Here is Iqbal, addressing God

roz-i-Hisaab pesh ho jab miraa daftar-i-3amal
aap bhii sharmsaar ho mujh ko bhii sharmsaar kar

I hope I don't need to translate these for you into English.

The couplet that I quoted with "Allah Haafiz" in it, is part of a Ghazal. HaziiN was no fundamentalist! if you want to see if it occurs more than just this one shi3r, then I suggest you learn to read Urdu and find this out for yourself. All I will say is that jo yih baat nahiiN maantaa to "us kaa Allah hii Haafiz hai". We would n't use "xudaa" here.

With regard to "xudaa Haafiz vs Allah Haafiz". There are quite a few Indian Muslims. Have you had the pleasure of listening to every single one of them when they are saying goodbye in Urdu? Even if not a single Indian Muslim says "Allah Hafiz", they will say "Allah belii", "Allah Allah xair salla", "Allah nigehbaan", "Allah miyaaN", "Allah maaraa" and so on. So, they are not divorced from "Allah" in any way. On the contrary, most of them would use the word on a daily basis, several times a day.

Coming to xudaa. Pakistanis use Allah Haafiz and xudaa haafiz. I would suggest more the latter than the former. I have always used xudaa Haafiz and no one has ever told me that I should be using something else. But supposing xudaa Haafiz becomes totally extinct from Urdu speakers of Pakistan, the usage of "xudaa" would still be there. Here are just a few examples where xudaa is part of the idiom and therefore will remain part of the language.

xudaa-taras (God fearing)

xudaa-parast (pious/faithful)

kufr TuuTaa xudaa xudaa kar ke

xudaa-daad (God-given)

xudaa detaa hai to chhappar phaaR ke detaa hai

xudaa-rasiidah (Godly, pious)

xudaa se lau lagaanaa

xudaa-naxvaastah

xudaa ganje ko naaxun nah de

xudaa kii maar

And many more.

If "xudaa" in "xudaa-Haafiz" was being replaced by "Allah", we could call this "Arabicization" (or de-Persianization!). But surely that would only be true if "Allah" was n't there already in the vocabulary! If from tomorrow everyone in Pakistan was ordered to drop the word "hoNT" and use "shafah" instead, THAT would be "Arabicization"! (But, "Arabicization" has no bearing on the thread title! The topic is "Persianisation".). Finally what greeting Urdu speakers in Pakistan chose to employ is their choice and their business and no one else's.


----------



## marrish

Alfaaz said:


> I might be wrong, but if you listen to the news bulletins of Indian Urdu channels (whether from Kashmir or elsewhere), they use a similar style/words of Urdu. They don't seem to use pardhaan mantri, desh, etc. Could you perhaps give an example of what you mean by "preferred words"? Also, another question arises: have the people commenting that PTV Urdu is somehow different from Indian Urdu ever watched the classic drama serials like TanhaaiyaaN, ParchaaiyaaN, Un-kahi, Dhoop Kinarey, Uncle Urfi, Waris, etc. etc. ? If there have been the "high register Urdu" ghazals, there have also been many geets and ghazals leaning toward the Hindi side (one famous one of Meraji comes instantly to mind, a poet also mentioned in the link by tonyspeed), not to mention the regional language programs from various centers. Have people claiming that PTV Urdu is highly Persianized ever heard these? (These questions are based on the observation that most Indians have never really had much exposure, for one reason or another, to Pakistani media...whereas Pakistanis generally are informed of both industries.) Lastly, context also matters. A president's speech is obviously going to be very different from that of a regular conversation. If you even quickly search old clips of Doordarshan on YT with people like Kaifi Azimi, Dilip Kumar and Noor Jahan, you find them speaking similar Urdu (and with great articulation of their qaafs as well). So would one assert that Doordarshan was also highly Persianized based on just those clips?
> 
> (Note: The questions above are asked out of genuine interest and nothing else. I wouldn't have replied to the original thread (Urdu, Hindi: Indic F-words) had my name not been mentioned as such threads usually lead to endless discussions. I posted my post from that thread here after the request by marrish SaaHib, as seen above.)


Alfaaz SaaHib. You have asked many questions but I am afraid that the person who you addressed would be unable or unwilling to go to such lengths as to respond to them because it would require making acquaintance with the subject matter and it is of course easier to make unbacked statements.

I agree that Pakistanis are generally familiar with both industries.

I would not risk a statement that Doordarshan was Persianized, however I can risk saying that Hindi which is the language of this broadcaster, is generally Persianized (because no matter how hard the creators of Modern High Hindi tried their best to eradicate the Persian element from this language, they have failed to accomplish this task fully).

The rest of your questions doesn't really require an answer as I consider them rhetoric questions.

I reiterate and am seconding your request for specimens of preferred words and expressions in order to give substance to the claim of particulars (within the forum and without - the _pundits_) saying that Urdu in Pakistan has been undergoing Persianization process. Let me add at the same time that if those theses are confirmed in this thread I am ready to accept them. My personal opinion is that in case it were true it would be nothing wrong altogether. A language lives and in the modern times it happens that Urdu has been divided by a national border (well, the broadcasts and internet know those borders not). It is normal that the language has to live up to the needs of the people who use it.


----------



## cherine

Can't you guys have a serious discussion without attacking each other?!

One more closed thread. 

P.S. I left the insulting/attacking posts as they are so that you can all understand why this thread was closed.


----------

