# Urdu, Hindi, Persian: Deoband देवबंद دیوبند‎



## urdustan

Hello,

What does deoband (as in the city name or deobandi Muslim) mean?  The Urdu explanation would be deo "monster" and band "bind, closed"; so one who binds a monster.  Is this the correct explanation behind the name or does it originate in another language? 

Thanks


----------



## arsham

urdustan said:


> Hello,
> 
> What does deoband (as in the city name or deobandi Muslim) mean?  The Urdu explanation would be deo "monster" and band "bind, closed"; so one who binds a monster.  Is this the correct explanation behind the name or does it originate in another language?
> 
> Thanks


In Shahnameh, dîv-band (dêw-band) is the epithet of King Tahmures, because he defeated the demons (dîv) and tied them. These are the verses:
az îshân do bahre be afsûn bebast
degarshân be gorz-e gerân kard past
keshîdandeshân xaste o baste xvâr
be jân xvâstand ân zamân zînhâr
(With sorcery, he tied two groups of them, he slew the others with a heavy mace; they were dragged injured and tied, at that point in time, they asked for protection of their lives.) Tahmures accepts not to kill them and the demons teach him writing .


----------



## tarkshya

urdustan said:


> ... The Urdu explanation would be deo "monster" and band "bind, closed"; ...
> 
> Thanks



Highly unlikely. The word "Deo" in Deoband is spoken as "dev" (rhymes with "wave"), not as "daiv" (rhyming with "have"). Daiv in Hindi means a monster, but Dev means a deity. So the origin of name must trace to some ancient temple or other sacred spot located in the area.


----------



## mundiya

tarkshya said:


> Highly unlikely. The word "Deo" in Deoband is spoken as "dev" (rhymes with "wave"), not as "daiv" (rhyming with "have"). Daiv in Hindi means a monster, but Dev means a deity. So the origin of name must trace to some ancient temple or other sacred spot located in the area.



I don't know where you got your information, but "daiv" in Hindi doesn't mean monster.  Maybe you're thinking of the word "daitya".  Rather, "daiv" means fate, destiny, divine, etc., and is connected with the word "dev" (pronounced as "deo" in some regions) meaning a deity.  On the other hand, Persian/Urdu "dev" (usually pronounced "deo" in Urdu and "diiv" in Modern Persian) means demon or a giant monster.  It's safe to conclude Deoband the town has a Persian etymology given the fact that "devband" is itself an attested word in Persian.  As far as why it was given this name (the OP states the meaning correctly), it is still open to conjecture.


----------



## tarkshya

mundiya said:


> I don't know where you got your information, but "daiv" in Hindi doesn't mean monster.  Maybe you're thinking of the word "daitya".  Rather, "daiv" means fate, destiny, divine, etc., and is connected with the word "dev" (pronounced as "deo" in some regions) meaning a deity.  On the other hand, Persian/Urdu "dev" (usually pronounced "deo" in Urdu and "diiv" in Modern Persian) means demon or a giant monster.  It's safe to conclude Deoband the town has a Persian etymology given the fact that "devband" is itself an attested word in Persian.  As far as why it was given this name (the OP states the meaning correctly), it is still open to conjecture.



There is certainly a word called daiv (दैव or دیو) in Hindi/Urdu, with the meaning of  a demon or a monster. I have seen it in print multiple times. The word is Persian in origin, and its modern Persian pronunciation has moved on to "diiv" as you mentioned. It is the same word which you are referring to.

I know there is another Hindi word दैव , originating from Sanskrit and having a meaning of fate or destiny. But it doesn't matter because that word is not the topic of discussion in this thread.

And finally, there is an interesting story about how daiv (दैव ) came to mean a monster and dev (देव ) came to mean a god in Modern Hindi. It is natural to wonder why these two words, which sound so close, have diagonally opposite meanings.

This goes back to the time before the Indo-Aryan speakers spread to Iran and India. Apparently, the two words are cognate, and the common root word "dev" was originally the name of an Indo-Aryan speaking tribe. These devas were hostile to another tribe called Asuras (असुर in modern Hindi). Naturally, both tribes described themselves as having a superior descent, i.e. divine, and the rival tribe as monsters.

Now it so happened that devas spread into India, with them carried the meaning of "dev" as a divine entity, and asura as a demonic entity in their language, i.e. Sankrit.

Exactly the opposite happened in Iran! Asuras went to Iran, and the word asura, in the modified form "ahura" became a divine entity in Old Persian. OTOH, those pesky devas, turned into demons in the form of "daiv".

It may sound wild speculation, but this is the most common hypothesis given by language historians. Check it out on google.

Modern Hindi has heritage both in Sanskrit and Persian. Therefore it retains both words dev and daiv, having opposite meanings as described above.


----------



## tarkshya

And I could also find many references in google books which indicate that the word "deoband" has its origin in Sanskrit "dev", instead of Persian "deo". Apparently, the most likely etymology is "devi ban", i.e. the forest of the goddess.


https://books.google.com/books?id=XBLv1MmmOxkC&pg=PT80&dq=deoband+name+origin&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBmoVChMIxsu30bbyxgIVyBw-Ch2gBA2u#v=onepage&q=deoband name origin&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=XCE_AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA915&dq=deoband+name+origin&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCoQ6AEwADgKahUKEwjB6Laft_LGAhWLWz4KHUqDBLQ#v=onepage&q=deoband name origin&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=M...TFk-Ch1-Tw4G#v=onepage&q=deoband town&f=false


----------



## mundiya

tarkshya said:


> There is certainly a word called daiv (दैव or دیو) in Hindi/Urdu, with the meaning of  a demon or a monster. I have seen it in print multiple times. The word is Persian in origin, and its modern Persian pronunciation has moved on to "diiv" as you mentioned. It is the same word which you are referring to.



I beg to differ, tarkshya jii.  As far as Hindi is concerned, there is no "daiv" meaning demon or monster.  If you feel otherwise, please present evidence that supports your view.  A dictionary entry would be a good start.  Even in Persian and Urdu, though "daiv", "dev", and "diiv" are spelled the same, it is the latter two that mean demon or monster.  As I indicated before, "dev" was the older pronunciation in Persian/Urdu, the modern one being "deo" (Urdu) and "diiv" (Persian).  You would have to go all the way back to Old Persian to find "daiva" meaning demon.  Granted, if a Hindi linguistics book is trying to represent the Old Persian word, then the spelling दैव might be used.  But that doesn't make it a Hindi word considering the context.

Your historical claims about "deva" and "asura" aren't completely correct either because both words originally denoted deities not tribes.  But I won't dwell on that since it isn't really relevant to the thread.


----------



## mundiya

tarkshya said:


> And I could also find many references in google books which indicate that the word "deoband" has its origin in Sanskrit "dev", instead of Persian "deo". Apparently, the most likely etymology is "devi ban", i.e. the forest of the goddess.
> 
> 
> https://books.google.com/books?id=XBLv1MmmOxkC&pg=PT80&dq=deoband+name+origin&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBmoVChMIxsu30bbyxgIVyBw-Ch2gBA2u#v=onepage&q=deoband name origin&f=false
> 
> https://books.google.com/books?id=XCE_AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA915&dq=deoband+name+origin&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCoQ6AEwADgKahUKEwjB6Laft_LGAhWLWz4KHUqDBLQ#v=onepage&q=deoband name origin&f=false
> 
> https://books.google.com/books?id=MUAKAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA242&dq=deoband+town&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAmoVChMItqXpj7nyxgIVTFk-Ch1-Tw4G#v=onepage&q=deoband town&f=false



They aren't reliable linguistic sources.  The problem with "devii ban" as an etymology is twofold: 1) the word "devii" refers to a female deity and it is improbable that it would change to "dev/deo" (male deity); 2) supposing that the word "ban" meaning forest would change to "band" doesn't make sense because there is no reason to add a "d" at the end.  Hence, Persian/Urdu etymology for the town's name is most likely.

Edit - This source supports the Persian/Urdu etymology: deoband


----------



## Wolverine9

I believe the etymology is either Persian_ dew-band _"binder of demons" or Sanskrit _deva-vanda_ "praising the gods".  Take your pick.

Does anyone currently have access to the Oxford English dictionary?  I'm curious if there is an entry with an etymology for deoband/deobandi.


----------



## eskandar

Wolverine9 said:


> Does anyone currently have access to the Oxford English dictionary?  I'm curious if there is an entry with an etymology for deoband/deobandi.


Good idea, but unfortunately I just checked and there's no entry for either word.


----------



## James Bates

arsham said:


> In Shahnameh, dîv-band (dêw-band) is the epithet of King Tahmures, because he defeated the demons (dîv) and tied them. These are the verses:
> az îshân do bahre be afsûn bebast
> degarshân be gorz-e gerân kard past
> keshîdandeshân xaste o baste xvâr
> be jân xvâstand ân zamân zînhâr
> (With sorcery, he tied two groups of them, he slew the others with a heavy mace; they were dragged injured and tied, at that point in time, they asked for protection of their lives.) Tahmures accepts not to kill them and the demons teach him writing .



You forgot to translate خوار khâr (I believe the و is silent since it is preceded by a خ).


----------



## hindiurdu

Not to go ethnic here, but the Persian diiv and the Sanskrit dev have the same origin. Div/Dev/Deo is probably rooted in a proto-Indo-European word. As far as I know, in various forms it means "Deity or God" in pretty much every IE language (Deus/Latin, Theo/Greek, Dev/Sanskrit and so on). Ironically, the word Deity (and Divine and so on) itself comes from this word. It does not really have any particular relationship to any religion in India. Just generically means God/Deity of any kind. Egyptian Gods are called Misri Devta/Deota, for example. However, didn't Zoroaster very specifically overturn the religion of the devas? Demons, or at least a kind of monster, in Sanskrit were Asura (Ahura in Iranian languages, standard s>h), so the good/bad in that was flipped too. AFAIK, Iranian languages are the only ones where this word implies demon and (I could be wrong on this) I do not think diiv=demon as a concept ever made it to India. The first time I ever learnt that this ever had a meaning in Persian was when I learnt about Zoroastrianism.

India has a LOT (probably thousands) of Deo-xxx places. Deohara, Deolali, Deopur, Deokot, Deonagar, Deokhet, Deogam, Deoban. There are trees with this name (Deodar = Himalayan Cedar) I do not buy the idea that this town in question too was a Deoban that became Deoband. Why would it? There are probably dozens of Deobans. There is one close-by to Deoband itself (in Uttarakhand State). Band/Bandh means to tie or close-up, in all of Indo-Iranian afaik - this too is cognate with the English bond/bind/bundle. The name Deoband precedes the establishment of the institution there. As far as I know, there were no notable temples or mosques there. Nothing of note really before the Darul Uloom. I do not think this name has a Persian origin, but I can only be tenuous about this. It could very well have.

Sorry, an inconclusive, rambling post.


----------



## hindiurdu

Update. I went looking at Google Book references from before 1890 and found one. From "The Imperial Gazeteer of India" (1885) - "_The town originally bore the name of Deviban or the Sacred Grove, and a religious assembly still takes place yearly in a neighbouring wood, which contains a temple of Devi._" I guess I was wrong. It really is Deoban to start with.

BTW Devban > Deoban is related to the other thread where I was talking about v-w allophony. v at syllable beginnings, w or a glide elsewhere.


----------



## Wolverine9

hindiurdu said:


> Update. I went looking at Google Book references from before 1890 and found one. From "The Imperial Gazeteer of India" (1885) - "_The town originally bore the name of Deviban or the Sacred Grove, and a religious assembly still takes place yearly in a neighbouring wood, which contains a temple of Devi._" I guess I was wrong. It really is Deoban to start with.



Tarkshya already cited this source and Mundiya disputed its reliability.  See posts 6 and 8.


----------



## Wolverine9

hindiurdu said:


> AFAIK, Iranian languages are the only ones where this word implies demon and (I could be wrong on this) I do not think diiv=demon as a concept ever made it to India.



This meaning is listed in Platts and examples are provided, so it was used by some in India.

P ديو _dev_, _dīv_ (esp. in comp.), vulg. _deʼo_ [Pehl. _dev_; Zend _daêva_, fr. _dīv_; S. देव], s.m. An evil spirit, devil, demon, an evil _jinn_, a ghost, hobgoblin; a giant, a monster, a huge fellow or thing:—_dev-bād_, vulg. _deʼo-bād_, s.f. _lit_. 'A devil's wind,' a whirlwind, 'a devil':—_deʼo-zād_, adj. Demon-born or begotten:—_dev-stān_, vulg. _deʼo-stān_, s.m. The habitation of demons:—_deʼo-kā-deʼo_, s.m. A perfect giant, a veritable monster.


----------



## hindiurdu

mundiya said:


> They aren't reliable linguistic sources.  The problem with "devii ban" as an etymology is twofold: 1) the word "devii" refers to a female deity and it is improbable that it would change to "dev/deo" (male deity); 2) supposing that the word "ban" meaning forest would change to "band" doesn't make sense because there is no reason to add a "d" at the end.  Hence, Persian/Urdu etymology for the town's name is most likely.
> 
> Edit - This source supports the Persian/Urdu etymology: deoband



That source deals with Central Asia and not India, and even there it says the name might refer to that person having a connection to Deoband (i.e. being named after the city). Seems pretty irrelevant to me, your opinion might differ.


----------



## hindiurdu

Wolverine9 said:


> This meaning is listed in Platts and examples are provided, so it was used by some in India.



By who (in a place or person's name)? Show me an example. I am not saying this is incorrect but I find it very unconvincing. I have not seen a single example where Deo in India does not refer to God/Deity. I've shown you hordes of examples confirming this. This claim seems extraordinary.

In Uttar Pradesh alone, there are Deokola, Deogarh, Deogaon, Deochandpur, Deochali, Deoduttpur, Deodand, Deodaha, Deodaspur, Deodil, Deoha (3 of them), Deohana, Deoie, Deokali (3 of these), Deokola, Deoli, Deolariya, Deomi, Deomalpur, Deomaniya, Deonari, Deonagar, Deonathpur, Deoniyapur, Deopur, Deopura, Deopara, Deopar. Okay, I got tired of looking them up (I keep finding more and more). There are probably hundreds of places called Deo-something in this one state alone surrounding Deoband. And, on top of that, there are millions of Indians who have the word Deo in their name. Somehow, all of these mean God, but in this ONE place, it means demon? Seems extremely unlikely. Still possible. But very, very, very unlikely. Definitely violates Occam's Razor several times over.

I see the objection that Devii > Deo seems a stretch. Feels legit to me. That does not happen in India usually. Dev > Deo is the norm. But it could be vand > band or bandh > band. Band is a dam or an embankment (the British used to spell it bund). Dev-band seems pretty possible. Note that there are places called Deobandh in India. There's one in Orissa. There's a Devbandh in Maharashtra (I'd be shocked if this wasn't pronounced Deoband also - afaik Marathi never says 'v' in that position). Also, it turns out that I was mistaken about ban > band never happening. Actually, the peak in Uttarakhand apparently is or was pronounced both ways. Report on Meteorology of India (1885) talks about Deoband peak near Chakrata. Then, deoband also means "the mark/knot of God" and was considered to be good luck (I remember reading about this before too) - Wanderings of a Pilgrim, in Search of the Picturesque (1850) - _"The deoband is the feather on the chest: this mark is very rare and the best of all marks_." Also, from Edward Balfour's "The Cyclopædia of India and of Eastern and Southern Asia" - Deoban (from Deo-ban). Also talks about the 3000 year history. I also found other instances of *ban > *band. For example, Ramban (in Kashmir) was also called Ramband. Sundarban (of Sundarbans fame) also appears as Sundarband. Jharkhand has a place called Hariband.

As for Deoban, there are several of them in India. Deoban in Uttarakhand, of course. But Deoban (Haryana) also. There's even a mountain called Mount Deoban on Little Nicobar Island just a few degrees north of the Equator.

Anything is always possible. But, in my opinion (you can differ), at this point you'd need some massive evidence to prove that Deoband was a Persian-origin name. Feels extremely unlikely.


----------



## Wolverine9

hindiurdu said:


> By who? Show me an example.



I meant the examples in Platts about the use of dev/deo to mean demon: _dev-bād_, vulg. _deʼo-bād_, —_deʼo-zād_, —_dev-stān_, vulg. _deʼo-stān_, —_deʼo-kā-deʼo_


----------



## hindiurdu

Wolverine9 said:


> I meant the examples in Platts about the use of dev/deo to mean demon: _dev-bād_, vulg. _deʼo-bād_, —_deʼo-zād_, —_dev-stān_, vulg. _deʼo-stān_, —_deʼo-kā-deʼo_



Sure, I know Platts has this listed but I think it's really far from any normal usage in India. Remember too what's literally going on at this time next door in Lucknow when Darul Uloom is established. Agha Amanat has composed Indersabha, which dramatizes in opera form the Dev's court. I do not have a copy but it is loaded with characters who are deities. He names quite a few characters for colours. So, you have Laaldeo, Safeddeo and so on. The deo thing is so ingrained in language as a positive thing for most Indo-European speakers, Iranian-branch excepted (and that seems a reversal in the original meaning that was made at a sharp point in time entirely related to the upheaval caused by Zoraoastrianism's establishment). It seems really hard that you'd put a place in Greece called Theopolis and have it mean Demon City. Even if that is what you intended, the entire population would think you meant "God City," which would sort-of defeat the whole point. It just seems so extremely unlikely. You can create a new town in the US called Divineville today and cry yourself hoarse that you mean Eviltown because Div means demon to you. The problem is that you'd have tens of millions of people who just won't listen to you. To them it would mean the exact opposite. Heck, even the Germans had it. That's where the Tue of Tuesday comes from.

Update: I stand corrected. Apparently, Iranians were already going off the devas by the time Zoroaster got to the scene, so the language usage begins to reflect the change in mood by then already. From Wikipedia: _"it was assumed that the daevas must have been the "national" gods of pre-Zoroastrian Iran, which Zoroaster had then rejected. In this scenario, the "rejection of the [daevas] is linked to Zoroaster's reform" ...cut...  Subsequent scholarship (so-called progressive hypothesis) has a more differentiated view of Zoroaster, and does not follow the unprovable assumption that prehistoric Iranian religion ever had "national" gods (and thus also that the daeva_s _could have represented such a group), nor does it involve hypothetical conjecture of whose gods the daevas might/might not have been. While the progressive hypothesis gives Zoroaster credit for giving Iranian religion a moral and ethical dimension, it does not (with one notable exception) give Zoroaster credit for the development of the daevas into demons. It assumes that the development was gradual"_


----------



## mundiya

hindiurdu said:


> That source deals with Central Asia and not India, and even there it says the name might refer to that person having a connection to Deoband (i.e. being named after the city). Seems pretty irrelevant to me, your opinion might differ.



I feel it's relevant because the following sentence states: "The name of that school enshrines a certain ambiguity, for the name of the place where the school was established implies that something about the place or someone buried there has the power to control deos."


----------



## hindiurdu

mundiya said:


> I feel it's relevant because the following sentence states: "The name of that school enshrines a certain ambiguity, for the name of the place where the school was established implies that something about the place or someone buried there has the power to control deos."



To echo your own previous sentiment - this is absolutely NOT a reliable linguistic source. Robert L. Canfield (who seems to have written this section) is a Sociologist. And he is a Sociologist who has no familiarity with India afaik. He's focused purely on Afghanistan and Central Asia. The Imperial Gazetteer is a far more reliable source on India than this person is. Also, btw, you are incorrect about the linguistic unreliability. In fact, the person who supervised the Gazetteer was WW Hunter, who got in deep into Indian languages and how they should be rendered in Roman lettering. The current system of rendering Hindi is called Hunterian Transliteration after him. He cared obsessively about these things.

The sentence in the Canfield book, though, totally reminds me of books focused on India that claim Caspian Sea is named for Sage Kashyap. I give the two claims about equal odds of being true. Here you go (1963, The Sphinx Speaks) - "_The Daityas are said to be the descendents of the sage Kashyap, and the Caspian Sea is called in Hindi Kashyap Sagar. These Kashyapi people could well be identified with the Kaspii of the Greeks_." After all, the Indo-Aryan imprint on the Mittani is pretty much proven, so why not? Just to be clear, I think this is so unlikely as to be unbelievable. But I'd give it the same possible finite odds. Close to zero, but not exactly zero.


----------



## mundiya

hindiurdu said:


> In Uttar Pradesh alone, there are Deokola, Deogarh, Deogaon, Deochandpur, Deochali, Deoduttpur, Deodand, Deodaha, Deodaspur, Deodil, Deoha (3 of them), Deohana, Deoie, Deokali (3 of these), Deokola, Deoli, Deolariya, Deomi, Deomalpur, Deomaniya, Deonari, Deonagar, Deonathpur, Deoniyapur, Deopur, Deopura, Deopara, Deopar. Okay, I got tired of looking them up (I keep finding more and more). There are probably hundreds of places called Deo-something in this one state alone surrounding Deoband. And, on top of that, there are millions of Indians who have the word Deo in their name. Somehow, all of these mean God, but in this ONE place, it means demon? Seems extremely unlikely. Still possible. But very, very, very unlikely. Definitely violates Occam's Razor several times over.



Your reasoning here is sound.



> I see the objection that Devii > Deo seems a stretch. Feels legit to me. That does not happen in India usually. Dev > Deo is the norm. But it could be vand > band or bandh > band. Band is a dam or an embankment (the British used to spell it bund). Dev-band seems pretty possible. Note that there are places called Deobandh in India. There's one in Orissa. There's a Devbandh in Maharashtra (I'd be shocked if this wasn't pronounced Deoband also - afaik Marathi never says 'v' in that position). Also, it turns out that I was mistaken about ban > band never happening. Actually, the peak in Uttarakhand apparently is or was pronounced both ways. Report on Meteorology of India (1885) talks about Deoband peak near Chakrata. Then, deoband also means "the mark/knot of God" and was considered to be good luck (I remember reading about this before too) - Wanderings of a Pilgrim, in Search of the Picturesque (1850) - _"The deoband is the feather on the chest: this mark is very rare and the best of all marks_." Also, from Edward Balfour's "The Cyclopædia of India and of Eastern and Southern Asia" - Deoban (from Deo-ban). Also talks about the 3000 year history. I also found other instances of *ban > *band. For example, Ramban (in Kashmir) was also called Ramband. Sundarban (of Sundarbans fame) also appears as Sundarband. Jharkhand has a place called Hariband.



Etymologically, devbandh > deoban (and other similar changes in city names from -bandh to -ban) is plausible, but the opposite scenario devban > deoband seems dubious.  Practically speaking, devband (< devbandh) the "mark of God" was used on horses for good luck.  I don't see why a good luck charm on a horse would result in a town's name.

Are all of the sources that interchangeably list -band and -ban in city names from the British era?  If so, that is probably just carelessness on the part of the writers since they weren't that familiar with the correct pronunciation.  If there is modern scholarly analysis that supports the British era works then maybe I would change my view on it.

Also, I believe the towns in Maharashtra and Odisha have -baandh and not -bandh in their spelling.


----------



## mundiya

hindiurdu said:


> Sure, I know Platts has this listed but I think it's really far from any normal usage in India. Remember too what's literally going on at this time next door in Lucknow when Darul Uloom is established. Agha Amanat has composed Indersabha, which dramatizes in opera form the Dev's court. I do not have a copy but it is loaded with characters who are deities. He names quite a few characters for colours. So, you have Laaldeo, Safeddeo and so on. The deo thing is so ingrained in language as a positive thing for most Indo-European speakers, Iranian-branch excepted (and that seems a reversal in the original meaning that was made at a sharp point in time entirely related to the upheaval caused by Zoraoastrianism's establishment). It seems really hard that you'd put a place in Greece called Theopolis and have it mean Demon City. Even if that is what you intended, the entire population would think you meant "God City," which would sort-of defeat the whole point. It just seems so extremely unlikely. You can create a new town in the US called Divineville today and cry yourself hoarse that you mean Eviltown because Div means demon to you. The problem is that you'd have tens of millions of people who just won't listen to you. To them it would mean the exact opposite. Heck, even the Germans had it. That's where the Tue of Tuesday comes from.



deo "demon" doesn't have to be normal usage in India.  It would've been Persian speakers that gave it the name.  There was probably a good reason why the town of Deoband was chosen for Darul Uloom.  Most likely there was a very strong Muslim presence and influence there from early times.  Hence, a Persian origin for the town's name doesn't seem that unlikely.  From your analysis, you are interpreting the town's name to be a negative if in fact the first word means demon.  But it's not a negative when you analyze it as a compound.  As Arsham indicated, deoband was the title or nickname given to a Persian hero.  Therefore, anyone strongly influenced by Persian culture or with a belief in demons could conceivably use it.


----------



## eskandar

hindiurdu said:


> (I could be wrong on this) I do not think diiv=demon as a concept ever made it to India.


I think you are indeed wrong on this point. The _Shahnama_, which is absolutely full of references to _dev_s or _diiv_s as demons, was one of the most widely-read, commissioned, and (later) printed books in India from the Ghaznavid period through the British colonial period


----------



## hindiurdu

mundiya said:


> deo "demon" doesn't have to be normal usage in India.  It would've been Persian speakers that gave it the name.  There was probably a good reason why the town of Deoband was chosen for Darul Uloom.  Most likely there was a very strong Muslim presence and influence there from early times.  Hence, a Persian origin for the town's name doesn't seem that unlikely.  From your analysis, you are interpreting the town's name to be a negative if in fact the first word means demon.  But it's not a negative when you analyze it as a compound.  As Arsham indicated, deoband was the title or nickname given to a Persian hero.  Therefore, anyone strongly influenced by Persian culture or with a belief in demons could conceivably use it.



This is pure conjecture on your part, contradicted heavily by prevailing usage. It has zero references. And, the Darul Uloom was founded during a period where the place was rife with Nawabs who had already seeped into Ras Leela and such things. On top of that it was under British control with published works preceding this founding discussing the place and listing it, clearly, as having Sanskrit name-root. This seems like very wishful thinking on your part. If you have something that specifically grounds this town's name in this way, I invite you to produce it. Otherwise, this is firmly in the "Caspian Sea is named for Kashyap Rishi" category. Do you believe that to be true as well? If not, can you prove that to be untrue? If you cannot, do you accept it? See? Your line of argument is not very productive. You can't just state opinion as fact.


----------



## mundiya

hindiurdu said:


> Also, btw, you are incorrect about the linguistic unreliability. In fact, the person who supervised the Gazetteer was WW Hunter, who got in deep into Indian languages and how they should be rendered in Roman lettering. The current system of rendering Hindi is called Hunterian Transliteration after him. He cared obsessively about these things.
> 
> The sentence in the Canfield book, though, totally reminds me of books focused on India that claim Caspian Sea is named for Sage Kashyap. I give the two claims about equal odds of being true. Here you go (1963, The Sphinx Speaks) - "_The Daityas are said to be the descendents of the sage Kashyap, and the Caspian Sea is called in Hindi Kashyap Sagar. These Kashyapi people could well be identified with the Kaspii of the Greeks_." After all, the Indo-Aryan imprint on the Mittani is pretty much proven, so why not? Just to be clear, I think this is so unlikely as to be unbelievable. But I'd give it the same possible finite odds. Close to zero, but not exactly zero.



By linguistic unreliability, I am not doubting the credibility or knowledge of Hunter or Balfour.  What I am doubting is their etymological claims.  A lot has progressed in the field of etymology since the 1800s.  Platts too has a similar issue.  His dictionary is good, but the etymologies he provides are not always reliable.

I don't see how Canfield's claim is similar to the one you quoted about the Caspian Sea.  There is nothing fanciful in Canfield's book, and he is a respected scholar so far as I can tell.  People believe in superstitions, and I don't see why a superstitious belief in demons couldn't lead to a town's name.  It has nothing to do with "wishful thinking" but practicality.  As I mentioned before, there is in fact a word already extant in Persian that exactly corresponds to the town's name.  And that too, an appellation of a famous hero.  So, I don't get why you're so readily dismissing it as a possibility.



hindiurdu said:


> Also talks about the 3000 year history.


That really isn't critical to our discussion.  What would help is knowing when the town got its current name.  If the town was named Deoband before the arrival of Persian speakers, then a Sanskrit etymology is likely.  If it got its name after the arrival, then a Persian etymology is plausible considering it would've been an early area of Persian cultural influence due to its proximity to Delhi.



hindiurdu said:


> If you have something that specifically grounds this town's name in this way, I invite you to produce it.



If there were a truly irrefutable source regarding the etymology of "deoband" this discussion would've ended long ago.


----------



## hindiurdu

eskandar said:


> I think you are indeed wrong on this point. The _Shahnama_, which is absolutely full of references to _dev_s or _diiv_s as demons, was one of the most widely-read, commissioned, and (later) printed books in India from the Ghaznavid period through the British colonial period



Ummm .... this seems like a real stretch. How many people have read Shahnama in India? The only character known popularly in India from the Shahnama is Rustom but I do not think there is any knowledge that he's from something called the Shahnama. Otherwise, pretty much no one has heard of Simurgh or any other aspects of it. I am not saying this is a good thing. It is not a good thing. The Shahnama SHOULD be read in India. But you're giving me an Iranian source when I asked for an Indian one. Like I said, there are thousands of places called DeoXYZ in India. All of them mean God-something. I gave you the name of 32 such places in close proximity of Deoband - I left out probably 70 more. You're telling me that somehow this one place, for which there are references already that predate the founding of Darul Uloom describing why it is called Deoband, is somehow named for something for which there are zero Indian references. It makes just no sense. I think you're missing out on just how pervasive the word Deo is in India. It is absolutely everywhere. Trees, grasses, cities, towns, people, lakes, rivers, forests, buildings, bugs - every category has things named for it. Even the script used for Hindi and Nepali (Devnagri). It is just absolutely everywhere. There is just no way that someone would come to a country like that and say "hey, I will call this Deoband and it will mean Demon Bound" and somehow that will make sense even though there are 200 villages and towns around me called Deo-something and that means God. It just ain't gonna to happen. It's like saying you will go to America and henceforth the word 'Town' will mean 'Mountain'. No, it won't. It is too deep-seated for that.

I am still open to being convinced, of course. I'd be perfectly happy if this name had a Persian origin. Certainly, so many other Indian locations do. Hyderabad. Even Delhi, I believe (Dehliiz). Just seems impossible, however.


----------



## hindiurdu

mundiya said:


> I don't see how Canfield's claim is similar to the one you quoted about the Caspian Sea.  There is nothing fanciful in Canfield's book, and he is a respected scholar so far as I can tell.  People believe in superstitions, and I don't see why a superstitious belief in demons couldn't lead to a town's name.  It has nothing to do with "wishful thinking" but practicality.  As I mentioned before, there is in fact a word already extant in Persian that exactly corresponds to the town's name.  And that too, an appellation of a famous hero.  So, I don't get why you're so readily dismissing it as a possibility.



This cuts both ways though. Kashyap is an appellation of a famous person too. So, I don't get why you're so readily dismissing it as a possibility for the original source of the name of the Caspian.



mundiya said:


> That really isn't critical to our discussion.  What would help is knowing when the town got its current name.  If the town was named Deoband before the arrival of Persian speakers, then a Sanskrit etymology is likely.  If it got its name after the arrival, then a Persian etymology is plausible considering it would've been an early area of Persian cultural influence due to its proximity to Delhi.



The onus of proof is on you. You're making an extraordinary claim that (a) all references that actually describe the source of the name be dismissed (b) the name be treated as especially divergent from similar names of a hundred places in proximity of it (note many of the Deo-s are closer to Delhi than Deoband, in fact there is village right inside Delhi State called Deoli Gaon). This is an extraordinary claim. Either produce extraordinary evidence or similarly accept that Caspian and Nishapur are Indian-origin names. They sound pretty Sanskrit, you have to admit.


----------



## mundiya

hindiurdu said:


> Ummm .... this seems like a real stretch. How many people have read Shahnama in India? The only character known popularly in India from the Shahnama is Rustom but I do not think there is any knowledge that he's from something called the Shahnama. Otherwise, pretty much no one has heard of Simurgh or any other aspects of it.



You're confusing modern India with medieval India.  When Persian influence was stronger a few centuries ago, a lot more people would've been aware of Shahnama and its characters.



hindiurdu said:


> I am still open to being convinced, of course. I'd be perfectly happy if this name had a Persian origin. Certainly, so many other Indian locations do. Hyderabad. Even Delhi, I believe (Dehliiz). Just seems impossible, however.



You're wrong about Delhi.  It has a Prakrit/Apabhramsha origin.


----------



## mundiya

hindiurdu said:


> This cuts both ways though. Kashyap is an appellation of a famous person too. So, I don't get why you're so readily dismissing it as a possibility for the original source of the name of the Caspian.



Needless to say, it's common sense.  There isn't an Indian cultural presence in northwestern Iran, nor is Kashyap viable as an etymon for Caspian.  That's in sharp contrast to Persian cultural influence in India and a plausible etymon for deoband in Persian.



hindiurdu said:


> The onus of proof is on you.



Actually, I feel the onus of proof is on you to provide a modern scholarly source before stating a Sanskrit etymology for the town as fact.


----------



## hindiurdu

mundiya said:


> You're confusing modern India with medieval India.  When Persian influence was stronger a few centuries ago, a lot more people would've been aware of Shahnama and its characters.





mundiya said:


> Needless to say, it's common sense.  There isn't an Indian cultural presence in northwestern Iran, nor is Kashyap viable as an etymon for Caspian.  That's in sharp contrast to Persian cultural influence in India and a plausible etymon for deoband in Persian.



Cuts both ways, again. I already cited the Indo-Aryan presence among the Mittani. And then, clearly many more Persians read the Panchtantra than Indians read the Shahnama. Then, we know for a fact that Mani studied Indian philosophy in India or India-proximate locations. You're confusing Modern and Medieval Iran with Ancient Iran and Modern Iran with Medieval Iran. This kind of stuff goes nowhere usually. Just conjectures piled on conjectures.



mundiya said:


> Actually, I feel the onus of proof is on you to provide a modern scholarly source before stating a Sanskrit etymology for the town as fact.



Already did. Official government documents. Compiled by a linguistically-competent senior bureaucrat, who wrote dictionaries and provided the basis of transliterating Indian languages. Did you look at it? There are many other Deo-s right next to Deoband. Why is Deoband all of a sudden different from all those?

BTW I don't want to get into this too much as it is an aside, but I'm not sure how much you know about the Deobandi philosophy. Apologies for being blunt but it has always stood in some opposition to Iranian Shia thinking. It is extremely unlikely that they would somehow look positively on some reference from the Shahnama. It would be quite the opposite.



mundiya said:


> You're wrong about Delhi.  It has a Prakrit/Apabhramsha origin.



It's disputed, true, but you're just as likely to be wrong. I find it convincing. Delhi is called Dehli in Hindi. Dehali and Dehleez are both still-prevalent words. Regardless, my core point still stands: many places in India have Persian-origin names.


----------



## mundiya

hindiurdu said:


> Already did. Official government documents. Compiled by a linguistically-competent senior bureaucrat, who wrote dictionaries and provided the basis of transliterating Indian languages. Did you look at it? There are many other Deo-s right next to Deoband. Why is Deoband all of a sudden different from all those?



Please note I said *modern *scholarly sources. From what I can see, everything you provided a link to regarding Deoband was from the 1800s.  That doesn't qualify as *modern*. 



> It's disputed, true, but you're just as likely to be wrong. I find it convincing. Delhi is called Dehli in Hindi. Dehali and Dehleez are both still-prevalent words. Regardless, my core point still stands: many places in India have Persian-origin names.



No, I'm not wrong.  It was disputed in the past, but not anymore.  See below.  There are other sources too that confirm it.  By the way, "dillii" is far more common in Hindi than "dehlii".



mundiya said:


> Delhi originates from "Dhillii", which was the name of the city during the Rajput era as recently analysed Apabhramsha documents indicate.
> 
> In 1132 AD, Vibudha Shriidhara writes in his _PaasaNaahachariu_:
> 
> हरियाणए देसे असंखगाम, गामियण जणि अणवरथ काम|
> परचक्क विहट्टणु सिरिसंघट्टणु, जो सुरव इणा परिगणियं|
> रिउ रुहिरावट्टणु बिउलु पवट्टणु, *ढिल्ली *नामेण जि भणियं|
> 
> "There are countless villages in Haryana  country. The villagers there work hard. They don't accept domination of  others, and are experts in making the blood of their enemies flow.  Indra himself praises this country. The capital of this country is  Dhilli."
> 
> This also shows that use of the name Haryana is quite  ancient.  So, it seems "Dhillii" was modified to "dillii" and "dehlii"  because Persian doesn't have Dh, with the latter form preferred in  Persianised contexts.  I won't rule out Dhillii -> dillii/dehlii  occurring through a natural evolution, but I don't know if there is a  precedent for a Dh -> d in Indic languages.  There is an interesting  parallel to this in Dhol -> (Persian) dohol.


----------



## hindiurdu

mundiya said:


> Please note I said *modern *scholarly sources. From what I can see, everything you provided a link to regarding Deoband was from the 1800s.  That doesn't qualify as *modern*.



That's a bit rich considering you've produced zero India-related sources, modern or not, for your theory. 1885 is not modern? Anyway: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Volume 125; Franz Steiner, 1975 - _"The author, son of Hitaharivamsha and Rukmini and grandson of Vyasamishra and Taravati was born at Devavana (modern Deoband in the Saharanpur district of Uttar Pradesh) in 1531". _1975 modern enough for you?



mundiya said:


> No, I'm not wrong.  It was disputed in the past, but not anymore.  See below.  There are other sources too that confirm it.  By the way, "dillii" is far more common in Hindi than "dehlii".



Untrue. Dilli became more prevalent with the Punjabis who flooded-in post-partition. Most older people from Delhi, from UP and from Haryana used to call it Dehlii. Most books from the pre-independence period also print it as देहली / دہلی. And how do you know your source from 1132 is talking about the same Delhi?


----------



## mundiya

hindiurdu said:


> Untrue. Dilli became more prevalent with the Punjabis who flooded-in post-partition. Most older people from Delhi, from UP and from Haryana used to call it Dehlii. Most books from the pre-independence period also print it as देहली / دہلی. And how do you know your source from 1132 is talking about the same Delhi?



I've read the article from which it was extracted so I know he's talking about the same Delhi.  Besides, using a bit of logic, which other city would he be talking about in "Haryana country"?  It's meant to be a rhetorical question if it wasn't obvious.

I don't think your claims about "dehlii" being more common pre-independence are accurate for Hindi, nor the prevalence of "dillii" due to Punjabis moving in to the city.  For Urdu, yes I agree "dehlii" was (and perhaps still is) more common.  If you wish to continue the discussion on Delhi, you can respond on the Delhi thread.  Otherwise, it's off-topic here.



hindiurdu said:


> That's a bit rich considering you've produced zero India-related sources, modern or not, for your theory. 1885 is not modern? Anyway: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Volume 125; Franz Steiner, 1975 - _"The author, son of Hitaharivamsha and Rukmini and grandson of Vyasamishra and Taravati was born at Devavana (modern Deoband in the Saharanpur district of Uttar Pradesh) in 1531". _1975 modern enough for you?



Thank you.  1975 is much better than 1885.  However, according to Wikipedia, Franz Steiner died in 1952, so this 1975 edition is probably just a reprint from an early 20th century work.  In any case, even if "devavana" is the original name, the shift from devavana > deoband may represent a Persianization.  I think you will at least concede that much.

In addition, the Persian origin for the name isn't just my theory.  It was first proposed by two Urdu speaking forum members.  



Qureshpor said:


> I am intrigued how "deoband" came into being. Could it be linked to the fictitious "deo" which can be tied up by using a "deoband"?





BP. said:


> I wondered about that too, and came up with the hypothesis that the place might have been the site of a lore in which a deeoo was trapped and imprisoned,  i.e. deo-band may not be a tool (like kamar band) but the verbal reduction of a phrase such as yahaan deeoo band hai. I figured it might follow the pattern of ilaah aabaad - god resides [here].





Qureshpor said:


> Looking at a few examples within Classical Persian poetry  دیوبند appears to imply the agent, that is to say "dev ko jakaRne vaalaa", "dev baaNdne vaalaa". Here is Firdausi.
> 
> چنین گفت کز این بارگاه بلند
> برفتم سوی رستم دیوبند
> 
> Thus he spoke, "From this grand palace
> I headed for Rustam, the giant-fetterer"


----------



## eskandar

hindiurdu said:


> Ummm .... this seems like a real stretch. How many people have read Shahnama in India?


A great many - perhaps the majority - of Indians literate in Persian during the time when Persian literacy was widespread would have read at least part of the Shahnama. It was one of the most widely read texts in the courts and illustrated manuscripts were commissioned by most courts large and small from the Delhi Sultanate through the Mughals. The Shahnama was also translated into vernacular languages, including Kashmiri and Telugu. Kashmir Pandits taught the Shahnama in the schools they ran. Mundiya jii put it well: "You're confusing modern India with medieval India.  When Persian influence was stronger a few centuries ago, a lot more people would've been aware of Shahnama and its characters."



> But you're giving me an Iranian source when I asked for an Indian one.


I don't mean to be rude, but this utter anachronism is indicative of the overall anachronism of your argument here. The Shahnama was written under the Ghaznavids, whose empire included parts of what are Pakistan and India today. Pre-modern Indians did not think of the Shahnama as "Iranian" any more than they considered the Qur'an to be the exclusive property of the Arabs. But the most anachronistic and inaccurate of your comments may be this one:



hindiurdu said:


> I'm not sure how much you know about the Deobandi philosophy. Apologies for being blunt but it has always stood in some opposition to Iranian Shia thinking. It is extremely unlikely that they would somehow look positively on some reference from the Shahnama. It would be quite the opposite.


I don't disagree at all about Deobandi's anti-Shi'ism. But no one, past or present, thinks of the Shahnama as a Shi'a text, and it is only in the last couple of decades following the Islamic revolution in Iran and the rise of sectarianism that Persian has become in any way associated with Shi'ism in the subcontinent. Even today Persian language and literature are taught in most Sunni madrasas in India and Pakistan, including Darul Uloom Deoband. The contemporary entrance exam for Darul Uloom Deoband includes testing the students' knowledge of Persian and their understanding of the Gulistan of Sa'di (who was Iranian... _na3udhu billah minhu _). Shibli Nu'mani, founder of Darul Uloom Nadwatul Ulama (today a sister institution to Darul Uloom Deoband), a staunch Sunni, loved the Shahnama and praised it at great length in his famous work _Shi'r al-'ajam_.

Anyway, all the focus on the Shahnama (which, I maintain, was very widely known in Persianate India) is misplaced because the word _devband_ is not only found in the Shahnama. Doing a quick search just now I also found it in the works of Mas'ud Sa'd Salman (described as "the first Indo-Persian poet"), Asadi Tusi, Khaqani (hugely influential on Indian poets - the Urdu poet Zauq was called _Khaqani-e-Hind_ by Bahadur Shah Zafar), and Sa'di (whose importance for Indian Muslims I've highlighted above). It seems reasonable to concur that someone versed in Persian literature--which accounts for a great many or most literate Indians for some centuries--would have been familiar with this term.



hindiurdu said:


> I think you're missing out on just how pervasive the word Deo is in India. It is absolutely everywhere. ... There is just no way that someone would come to a country like that and say "hey, I will call this Deoband and it will mean Demon Bound" and somehow that will make sense even though there are 200 villages and towns around me called Deo-something and that means God.


By this same logic one could insist that "deo" must be the origin of an item called "deodorant" which is found in Indian stores. "You're telling me that somehow this one thing is somehow named for something for which there are zero Indian references. It makes just no sense." Yes, in spite of the fact that there are dozens or hundreds of Indian things called deo-whatever, this one particular thing's name comes from English, a language that is perceived by some to be foreign even though millions of Indians use it daily. The same goes for "dev-elopment". Today Indians who know English look at the words "deodorant" and "development" and most likely the word "dev/deo" does not come to mind even for a second. Is it so far-fetched that centuries ago when Persian occupied the same role that English does today, "devband/deoband" (a name most likely borrowed in its entirety rather than coined from separate parts) was understood, at the very least by the sort of elites who were in the business of naming towns?

All things considered, I'm not convinced one way or the other about the etymology of the town's name, and I'm not committed to a Persian etymology. But I had to refute some of the inaccurate and ahistorical claims you used in your argument against the possibility of a Persian etymology.


----------



## Wolverine9

hindiurdu said:


> Cuts both ways, again. I already cited the Indo-Aryan presence among the Mittani. And then, clearly many more Persians read the Panchtantra than Indians read the Shahnama. Then, we know for a fact that Mani studied Indian philosophy in India or India-proximate locations. You're confusing Modern and Medieval Iran with Ancient Iran and Modern Iran with Medieval Iran. This kind of stuff goes nowhere usually. Just conjectures piled on conjectures.



I understand your view is that a Persian etymology is impossible, but the analogy you used to illustrate your view is objectionable.  To mention the supposed Indo-Aryan influence on ancient Iran, for which there is no conclusive evidence and no lasting influence that's known, in order to dismiss the very real and more recent Persian influence on India does nothing to refute the notion of a Persian etymology for the town.  I'm not saying there is a Persian etymology, but using such arguments doesn't advance your point in any way. Furthermore, your mention of the Mitanni is irrelevant because they are attested in northern Syria, not in Iran or anywhere near the Caspian Sea.



hindiurdu said:


> Anyway: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Volume 125; Franz Steiner, 1975 - _"The author, son of Hitaharivamsha and Rukmini and grandson of Vyasamishra and Taravati was born at Devavana (modern Deoband in the Saharanpur district of Uttar Pradesh) in 1531"._



I can see Franz Steiner was knowledgeable in many languages, but he was not an etymologist.  Thus, his statement about _devavana _is not conclusive proof in any way.  He doesn't cite his source for the etymology, so far all we know he could be relying on Balfour or making his own guess.  I'm not saying his proposal is wrong, but it can't be taken as fact either.  You have provided a lot of sources to support your view on the etymology, but you haven't provided sources of high quality that would stand the test of modern linguistics.  To be fair, neither have there been sources provided, save one, that support a Persian etymology.  Therefore, the origin of _deoband_ is still an open question like eskandar hinted at.  Personally, I like my assessment in post 9.


----------



## hindiurdu

BTW I am find hordes of references that actually imply the change was Dvaitavana > Deoband. Dvaita still means God obviously, it's just another form.


eskandar said:


> A great many - perhaps the majority - of Indians literate in Persian during the time when Persian literacy was widespread would have read at least part of the Shahnama. It was one of the most widely read texts in the courts and illustrated manuscripts were commissioned by most courts large and small from the Delhi Sultanate through the Mughals. The Shahnama was also translated into vernacular languages, including Kashmiri and Telugu. Kashmir Pandits taught the Shahnama in the schools they ran. Mundiya jii put it well: "You're confusing modern India with medieval India.  When Persian influence was stronger a few centuries ago, a lot more people would've been aware of Shahnama and its characters."



How is this not multiple times more true of Panchatantra? The first Persian rendition was pre-Islamic, in 570AD by Borzuya who knew Sanskrit (granted that Sanskrit and Persian were a lot closer then than today). Then there were repeats every couple of hundred years. Layer on the Indo-Aryan elite presence among the Mittani. Add Mani's extensive exposure to Indian culture. Why couldn't the Caspian be a derivative of Kashyap? Seems just as likely (which is to say, very unlikely). First of all, a miniscule number of Indians probably knew Persian. Second of all, even fewer of them would have read the Shahnameh. There is virtually zero use of any of the references that Afghans and Iranians have from the Shahnameh in Indian culture. I think you would be hard-pressed to find very many who can even describe the narrative. Note that Alladin, Ali Baba, Alf Laila (called Alif Laila in common language) more generally and Hatim Tai are known to everybody.




eskandar said:


> I don't mean to be rude, but this utter anachronism is indicative of the overall anachronism of your argument here. The Shahnama was written under the Ghaznavids, whose empire included parts of what are Pakistan and India today. Pre-modern Indians did not think of the Shahnama as "Iranian" any more than they considered the Qur'an to be the exclusive property of the Arabs.



Ghazni's rule over modern-day India was very limited. Note that you and Mundiya are in direct contradiction. You argue that this had influence on India and his contention is that Delhi cannot be a Persian word because he has a source from 1132. The Ghaznavids ran from 977 to 1186. In the UP region, they were mostly raiders who were almost always chased away.



eskandar said:


> I don't disagree at all about Deobandi's anti-Shi'ism. But no one, past or present, thinks of the Shahnama as a Shi'ia text, and it is only in the last couple of decades following the Islamic revolution in Iran and the rise of sectarianism that Persian has become in any way associated with Shi'ism in the subcontinent.



But this is not mere Persian. It is the Shahnama. It is Iranian culture itself. There is a lot of hostility for these things among the orthodox.



eskandar said:


> By this same logic one could insist that "deo" must be the origin of an item called "deodorant" which is found in Indian stores. "You're telling me that somehow this one thing is somehow named for something for which there are zero Indian references. It makes just no sense." Yes, in spite of the fact that there are dozens or hundreds of Indian things called deo-whatever, this one particular thing's name comes from English, a language that is perceived by some to be foreign even though millions of Indians use it daily. The same goes for "dev-elopment". Today Indians who know English look at the words "deodorant" and "development" and most likely the word "dev/deo" does not come to mind even for a second. Is it so far-fetched that centuries ago when Persian occupied the same role that English does today, "devband/deoband" (a name most likely borrowed in its entirety rather than coined from separate parts) was understood, at the very least by the sort of elites who were in the business of naming towns?
> 
> All things considered, I'm not convinced one way or the other about the etymology of the town's name, and I'm not committed to a Persian etymology. But I had to refute some of the inaccurate and ahistorical claims you used in your argument against the possibility of a Persian etymology.



So, I started with a pretty weak affiliation to one theory, which has become stronger with time. I am finding more and more evidence for it. First, there are lots of references to Deva-vana or Dvaita-vana (means the precise same thing) where the Pandavas mythically sought shelter during exile ([1], [2], [3], [4]). Second, there are historical references for the place and this story is echoed by British and non-British sources. Third, hundreds of other places in the region have the same or similar provenance. Fourth, if Deoband is Persian for "Bind the Deo", then what is Khudaband (Pakistan), "Bind the God"? Or do you think over here in Balochistan, this name has a Sanskrit origin instead? Concede that the Caspian is an Indian name and I will understand your contention better because the leap of faith required to believe the two things is pretty similar.


----------



## arsham

James Bates said:


> You forgot to translate خوار khâr (I believe the و is silent since it is preceded by a خ).


You're right. Here is the complete translation:
With sorcery, he tied two groups of them, he slew the others with a heavy mace; they were dragged injured, humiliated and tied, at that point in time, they asked for protection of their lives.


----------



## eskandar

hindiurdu said:


> How is this not multiple times more true of Panchatantra? The first Persian rendition was pre-Islamic, in 570AD by Borzuya who knew Sanskrit (granted that Sanskrit and Persian were a lot closer then than today). Then there were repeats every couple of hundred years. Layer on the Indo-Aryan elite presence among the Mittani. Add Mani's extensive exposure to Indian culture. Why couldn't the Caspian be a derivative of Kashyap? Seems just as likely (which is to say, very unlikely).


These are really apples and oranges you're comparing here. Refer to where Wolverine9 has addressed this in post #36.



> First of all, a miniscule number of Indians probably knew Persian.


An even more miniscule number of Indians named towns. I don't deny that Persian belonged to a small literate elite, but it is that literate elite that was in the business of naming things like towns, which is why it's relevant here. You are contradicting yourself here by saying that very few Indians knew Persian so they wouldn't have named a town after a Persian reference, when earlier you said "I'd be perfectly happy if this name had a Persian origin. Certainly, so many other Indian locations do."



> Second of all, even fewer of them would have read the Shahnameh. There is virtually zero use of any of the references that Afghans and Iranians have from the Shahnameh in Indian culture. I think you would be hard-pressed to find very many who can even describe the narrative. Note that Alladin, Ali Baba, Alf Laila (called Alif Laila in common language) more generally and Hatim Tai are known to everybody.


This is why I am calling your argument anachronistic. I don't doubt that today most Indians haven't read the Shahnama and don't know its stories. What I am saying is that was not always the case and certainly wasn't the case in centuries past. Most Pakistanis today don't know much about the great Sanskrit epics. Most Pakistani Muslims haven't read the Mahabharata or Ramayana and you would be hard-pressed to find very many who can even describe the narrative. Does that tell us anything about what the lands encompassed by Pakistan were like two thousand, or even two hundred years ago? Should we therefore conclude that at no previous point in time did these texts have any influence over the people living in those lands?



> But this is not mere Persian. It is the Shahnama. It is Iranian culture itself. There is a lot of hostility for these things among the orthodox.


Again I don't mean to be so blunt but I really think you don't know what you're talking about here. As I said in my previous post "the orthodox" only started to associate these things with Shi'ism, and therefore develop hostility to them, in the past two or three decades. This was not the case over a century ago when Darul Uloom Deoband was founded. I spent time in India with "orthodox" Sunni scholars at Darul Uloom Nadwatul Ulama, Lucknow, and with their equivalents in Hyderabad. Many stressed to me the importance of Persian adab on Indo-Muslim culture as a gesture towards our commonality, though certainly they had major theological differences with Iranian Shi'a. I have given you a specific reference to one of the most influential Indian orthodox Sunni thinkers who praised the Shahnama. Can you find a reference to one of them expressing hostility towards it?



> Fourth, if Deoband is Persian for "Bind the Deo", then what is Khudaband (Pakistan), "Bind the God"? Or do you think over here in Balochistan, this name has a Sanskrit origin instead?


This is of course a red herring, but I'll bite anyway: _khudaband_ here is clearly derived from _khudavand_, b/v being among the most common sound changes, cf. Baroda/Vadodara.


----------



## hindiurdu

eskandar said:


> These are really apples and oranges you're comparing here. Refer to where Wolverine9 has addressed this in post #36.





eskandar said:


> An even more miniscule number of Indians named towns.



His argument makes no geographic sense. So, somehow, the Indo-Aryans jumped over Iran and landed-up in Syria? Second, using your own logic, the people that name things are very few. And there is conclusive evidence that a lot of influential Persians over the centuries - especially pre-Islamic period - had exposure to Sanskrit and Indian culture, to the extent that they translated large works or claimed legitimacy based on this exposure. The threads are all there. So, do you concede that the Caspian is an Indian name? It's apples and oranges only in the sense that afaik Kashyap > Caspian does not contradict any established and widespread usage in Iran whereas Deo-band from Persian would strongly do so in India.



eskandar said:


> You are contradicting yourself here by saying that very few Indians knew Persian so they wouldn't have named a town after a Persian reference, when earlier you said "I'd be perfectly happy if this name had a Persian origin. Certainly, so many other Indian locations do."



Serious out-of-context quote. The point is % of Indians who knew Persian > % of Indians who read Shahnameh > % of Indians who'd even latch on to the name Deoband which has only one reference in there. Do you see any references in India to Simurgh? Siyavash? KeyKaavush? Zahaak? Kaveh? Even Jamshed (outside of the Parsis)? Zip afaik. But pulling this one word out which occurs one time in the entire Shahnameh and trotting it out as an explanation for a place that is rife with Deo- names doesn't seem contrived to you? It's bizarre.



eskandar said:


> This is why I am calling your argument anachronistic. I don't doubt that today most Indians haven't read the Shahnama and don't know its stories. What I am saying is that was not always the case and certainly wasn't the case in centuries past. Most Pakistanis today don't know much about the great Sanskrit epics. Most Pakistani Muslims haven't read the Mahabharata or Ramayana and you would be hard-pressed to find very many who can even describe the narrative. Does that tell us anything about what the lands encompassed by Pakistan were like two thousand, or even two hundred years ago? Should we therefore conclude that at no previous point in time did these texts have any influence over the people living in those lands?



Is this you conceding that Khudabad is of Sanskrit origin? If not, why not?



eskandar said:


> Again I don't mean to be so blunt but I really think you don't know what you're talking about here. As I said in my previous post "the orthodox" only started to associate these things with Shi'ism, and therefore develop hostility to them, in the past two or three decades. This was not the case over a century ago when Darul Uloom Deoband was founded. I spent time in India with "orthodox" Sunni scholars at Darul Uloom Nadwatul Ulama, Lucknow, and with their equivalents in Hyderabad. Many stressed to me the importance of Persian adab on Indo-Muslim culture as a gesture towards our commonality, though certainly they had major theological differences with Iranian Shi'a. I have given you a specific reference to one of the most influential Indian orthodox Sunni thinkers who praised the Shahnama. Can you find a reference to one of them expressing hostility towards it?



In order for them to express hostility, they would need to know it first. The Shahnama is not known that widely in India and I don't think you can argue it ever was. Allusions to it are just missing almost completely in the culture, with the exception of Rustam, who is vaguely known as a great hero (cf Gama Pehlwan). Shirin-Farhad, yes, of course - Indians love that. But not this one. Again, look at the unlikeliness of this very contrived scenario. First, find a text not that well known. Then find a name obscure even in that text. Then pick that name in a land where it somehow coincidentally sounds like thousands of other prevailing names, maybe a hundred of which are in its vicinity, where it will immediately get drowned-out. Leave zero historical evidence that this ever happened. Somehow get Hindus and the British to believe that it was a Sanskrit name. Then - even though the British are printing it for ~50 years prior that this is a Sanskrit name - somehow get it liked by a Wahabi-oriented group who magically believe something different about the name-origin from the surrounding people as well as the Imperial power, even though they also advocate demolishing old Islamic monuments in Arabia itself, let alone have affinity for a doubly removed (Shia > Zoroastrian) saga. It stretches credulity like few other things. If you believe this, you should believe anything else I tell you, really.



eskandar said:


> This is of course a red herring, but I'll bite anyway: _khudaband_ here is clearly derived from _khudavand_, b/v being among the most common sound changes, cf. Baroda/Vadodara.



This is entirely self-serving. There are plenty of places in Balochistan with -v- and -w-. Be consistent. You cannot switch explanations when it suits you. If Deoband is "tie Deo", Khudaband is "tie Khuda". It is hardly a red-herring. This place is closer to Iran, so your theory should apply twice as strictly to it. Or do you feel Balochistan has less Persian influence than Uttar Pradesh?


----------



## Wolverine9

hindiurdu said:


> His argument makes no geographic sense. So, somehow, the Indo-Aryans jumped over Iran and landed-up in Syria?



It makes perfect sense.  You're making the assumption that the Indo-Aryans in Mitanni came from east of Iran to Syria.  You have no proof of that.  What we know is that were present in Syria and Punjab at roughly the same time.  Whether they were there all along or came from the north, south, east or west, by land or sea, etc. is pure conjecture.  There's no sound reason for you to even bring Mitanni into the discussion.  It may be an interesting topic, but it's irrelevant to the thread.



> And there is conclusive evidence that a lot of influential Persians over the centuries - especially pre-Islamic period - had exposure to Sanskrit and Indian culture, to the extent that they translated large works or claimed legitimacy based on this exposure.



You're missing the point.  The degree of influence was totally different.  Sanskrit speakers weren't ruling Iran.  Conversely, Persian speakers ruled India for centuries.  You can't honestly think Sanskrit had a similar influence in Iran that Persian had in India.  Indian languages have thousands of loanwords from Persian, while Persian has a small number of loanwords from Sanskrit.



> Do you see any references in India to Simurgh? Siyavash? KeyKaavush? Zahaak? Kaveh? Even Jamshed (outside of the Parsis)? Zip afaik.



Jamshed is used as a name by Muslims of the subcontinent.



> If Deoband is "tie Deo", Khudaband is "tie Khuda".



No, there was a sound shift for Khudavand > Khudaband but not necessarily for Deoband, so your line of reasoning falls flat.


----------



## eskandar

hindiurdu said:


> And there is conclusive evidence that a lot of influential Persians over the centuries - especially pre-Islamic period - had exposure to Sanskrit and Indian culture, to the extent that they translated large works or claimed legitimacy based on this exposure. The threads are all there. So, do you concede that the Caspian is an Indian name?


If you cannot admit that the impact of Persian on India, especially in the realm of naming things, is incomparably greater than the impact of Sanskrit on Iran in the same, then there's no point continuing this discussion. By your own admission there are a great many Indian places that were given indisputably Persian names, but no Iranian places which were given Sanskrit names. While you are trying to argue that "if you believe in the possibility of a Persian etymology for Deoband then you must accept this absurd Sanskrit etymology for Caspian or else reject both" no one here is buying your reductio ad absurdum because the two are simply not comparable.



> But pulling this one word out which occurs one time in the entire Shahnameh and trotting it out as an explanation for a place that is rife with Deo- names doesn't seem contrived to you? It's bizarre.


It appears several times in the Shahnama as well as elsewhere in Persian literature. Another place (among many) that it appears is in the Bustan of Sa'di. Given that knowledge of the Gulistan of Sa'di is required for entry-level students in Darul Uloom Deoband, you cannot reasonably argue that Deobandis would be unfamiliar with Sa'di.



> ... somehow get it liked by a Wahabi-oriented group who magically believe something different about the name-origin from the surrounding people as well as the Imperial power, even though they also advocate demolishing old Islamic monuments in Arabia itself, let alone have affinity for a doubly removed (Shia > Zoroastrian) saga.


Your reading comprehension skills have really failed you here. I have written above about why it's anachronistic to assume that Indo-Muslims of centuries past would have associated Persian literature with Shi'ism or Zoroastrianism. It was part of their canon and part of Indo-Muslim civilization and they saw no contradiction between it and their Sunni puritarianism. Shibli Nu'mani's _Shi'r al-'ajam_ which is still widely taught in India makes this argument; it's available online so you can read it for yourself. Otherwise why would this same Wahhabi-oriented group "magically" reject the Shahnama yet make Sa'di's Gulistan (a Persian, Iranian text riddled with references to wine and drunkenness) an important part of their curriculum?



> Is this you conceding that Khudabad is of Sanskrit origin? If not, why not?


Let me simplify that comment for you since you failed to understand. You said that today most Indians haven't read the Shahnama, arguing that this suggests that the Shahnama was never influential in that area. I replied that today most Pakistanis haven't read Sanskrit epics but that doesn't mean that Sanskrit was never influential in that area.



> There are plenty of places in Balochistan with -v- and -w-. Be consistent. You cannot switch explanations when it suits you. If Deoband is "tie Deo", Khudaband is "tie Khuda".


You clearly don't know the first thing about historical linguistics if you are saying this. A v>b shift does not mean every instance of v would have to become b. I gave the example of Vadodara>Baroda, yet you can still find places in Gujarat with v as well as b. Your argument is akin to those who refute evolution by asking "if man evolved from apes then why are there still apes?" In fact we have examples of shifting between this exact syllable 'vand' and 'band', see here for example which lists 'vand' as a variant of 'band' in Persian, or Darband village near Tehran which may have earlier been Darvand.


----------



## hindiurdu

eskandar said:


> If you cannot admit that the impact of Persian on India, especially in the realm of naming things, is incomparably greater than the impact of Sanskrit on Iran in the same, then there's no point continuing this discussion. By your own admission there are a great many Indian places that were given indisputably Persian names, but no Iranian places which were given Sanskrit names. While you are trying to argue that "if you believe in the possibility of a Persian etymology for Deoband then you must accept this absurd Sanskrit etymology for Caspian or else reject both"



Apples and oranges. Those two ideas are of equal logical validity. And there are Persian words which are borrowed from Sanskrit. Kapi (ape) is one. I was corrected on this very board on this point some years ago. Who's to say Caspian isn't another one? You've presented zero arguments to disprove it other than the logical equivalents of "it doesn't feel right."



eskandar said:


> no one here is buying your reductio ad absurdum because the two are simply not comparable.



An elementary fallacy. Argumentum ad populum. Why are you resorting to this? Only people whose arguments are failing usually do.



eskandar said:


> It appears several times in the Shahnama as well as elsewhere in Persian literature. Another place (among many) that it appears is in the Bustan of Sa'di. Given that knowledge of the Gulistan of Sa'di is required for entry-level students in Darul Uloom Deoband, you cannot reasonably argue that Deobandis would be unfamiliar with Sa'di.



No idea. Possibly true, possibly false. Please provide references so I can verify and get into at some depth (I will).



eskandar said:


> Your reading comprehension skills have really failed you here. I have written above about why it's anachronistic to assume that Indo-Muslims of centuries past would have associated Persian literature with Shi'ism or Zoroastrianism. It was part of their canon and part of Indo-Muslim civilization and they saw no contradiction between it and their Sunni puritarianism. Shibli Nu'mani's _Shi'r al-'ajam_ which is still widely taught in India makes this argument; it's available online so you can read it for yourself. Otherwise why would this same Wahhabi-oriented group "magically" reject the Shahnama yet make Sa'di's Gulistan (a Persian, Iranian text riddled with references to wine and drunkenness) an important part of their curriculum?



You really need to ask this question? Because Sadi didn't write a nationalistic epic about a culture and period which they reject. It's obvious.



eskandar said:


> Let me simplify that comment for you since you failed to understand. You said that today most Indians haven't read the Shahnama, arguing that this suggests that the Shahnama was never influential in that area. I replied that today most Pakistanis haven't read Sanskrit epics but that doesn't mean that Sanskrit was never influential in that area.



So are you conceding that Khudaband is Sanskrit?



eskandar said:


> You clearly don't know the first thing about historical linguistics if you are saying this. A v>b shift does not mean every instance of v would have to become b. I gave the example of Vadodara>Baroda, yet you can still find places in Gujarat with v as well as b. Your argument is akin to those who refute evolution by asking "if man evolved from apes then why are there still apes?" In fact we have examples of shifting between this exact syllable 'vand' and 'band', see here for example which lists 'vand' as a variant of 'band' in Persian, or Darband village near Tehran which may have earlier been Darvand.



Hence, Hariban > Hariband. Ramban > Ramband. And, Deoban > Deoband. Also, Deovand (Deo worship) > Deoband is possible too. Your own logic. To top it all, all the historical sources quoted here more-or-less say this is what happened.

You're in a bind here. You either have to concede that Khudaband and Caspian are Indian names of Sanskrit origin. Or you have to concede that Deoband is of Sanskrit, non-Persian origin. You cannot have both. Pick.


----------



## hindiurdu

Wolverine9 said:


> It makes perfect sense.  You're making the assumption that the Indo-Aryans in Mitanni came from east of Iran to Syria.  You have no proof of that.  What we know is that were present in Syria and Punjab at roughly the same time.  Whether they were there all along or came from the north, south, east or west, by land or sea, etc. is pure conjecture.  There's no sound reason for you to even bring Mitanni into the discussion.  It may be an interesting topic, but it's irrelevant to the thread.



It is totally relevant. Caspian is a naming that could have happened in that period. We don't know. As I see it, you are randomly connecting things. No reason why I shouldn't as well, so I will. I scarcely think there's any grounds for you to object.



Wolverine9 said:


> You're missing the point.  The degree of influence was totally different.  Sanskrit speakers weren't ruling Iran.  Conversely, Persian speakers ruled India for centuries.  You can't honestly think Sanskrit had a similar influence in Iran that Persian had in India.  Indian languages have thousands of loanwords from Persian, while Persian has a small number of loanwords from Sanskrit.



Irrelevant. The British started calling their own country Blighty because of Indian influence. This argument makes zero sense. Asymmetry does not imply zero on one end.



Wolverine9 said:


> Jamshed is used as a name by Muslims of the subcontinent.



Please be relevant. Which place in India generally or Uttar Pradesh specifically is named for Jamshed (in which the Parsis were not involved)? I can't think of any. And because you tend to lose context a bit (I am sorry for my own bluntness here) remember this is specifically to verify if Shahnameh-inspired names or objects exist in any palpable way in India.



Wolverine9 said:


> No, there was a sound shift for Khudavand > Khudaband but not necessarily for Deoband, so your line of reasoning falls flat.



Because you say so? I cannot accept that. There are actual references for Deoban/Devban > Deoband. I have shared them. Where are yours for Khudavand > Khudaband? You haven't shared any that specifically deal with this place. So, I cannot accept this based on your sentiment alone. In order for your Deoband contention to hold, this is either a place that is derogatory to Khuda (the "binder of God") or it is of Sanskrit non-Persian origin. Which will it be? However, please note that the reverse is not true. It might still well be that Deoband is a Sanskrit name and so is Khudaband, because that preserves the sense consistently. Just saying. [Obviously, I don't actually believe this - I want proof for conjectures like this. But you should believe it - because you don't seem to need this sort of evidence.]


----------



## Dib

hindiurdu said:


> You're in a bind here. You either have to concede that Khudaband and Caspian are Indian names of Sanskrit origin. Or you have to concede that Deoband is of Sanskrit, non-Persian origin. You cannot have both. Pick.



Actually no, they have other options, most notably to not commit to any etymology proposed for Deoband, even while spelling out various alternatives - like they had mostly done before your contributions, and take there own sweet time and wait for what they consider better evidence, unless you ask them leading questions and cyber-bully them into taking a side. While fortunately your posts added a lot of data, your presentation unfortunately made the environment hostile and not conducive of honest intellectual evaluation of those data.

-----

Btw, I am just curious, are you yourself 100% convinced that Deoband is from Deva(v/b)ana, or something such? Irrespective of the problem of the final -nd, without any reference to any alternative hypothesis. Who knows, maybe all the hypotheses thus far presented are wrong!


----------



## eskandar

hindiurdu said:


> Apples and oranges. Those two ideas are of equal logical validity. And there are Persian words which are borrowed from Sanskrit. Kapi (ape) is one. I was corrected on this very board on this point some years ago. Who's to say Caspian isn't another one? You've presented zero arguments to disprove it other than the logical equivalents of "it doesn't feel right."


As I said above, there are Indian place names of Persian origin. It is therefore not unusual to find an Indian town with a Persian name. If you need scholarly proof of the origin of some of those names (eg. Hyderabad which you mentioned yourself as an example) I can provide them. If you cannot provide any examples of Iranian places with Sanskrit names and back them up with scholarly evidence then you need to concede this point.



> An elementary fallacy. Argumentum ad populum. Why are you resorting to this? Only people whose arguments are failing usually do.


And those who resort to reductio ad absurdum and false dilemma? Those are the people whose arguments are airtight, right?



> No idea. Possibly true, possibly false. Please provide references so I can verify and get into at some depth (I will).


Here is one place where دیوبند (as an adjective دیوبندی) appears in Sa'di's Bustan. According to this source both the Bustan and Gulistan are part of the Deoband curriculum (it also claims that maulvi/munshi/pandit exams under the British involved translating passages from the Shahnama). On Deoband and Gulistan see here.  While looking for references I found proof that the Bustan is also part of the madrasa curriculum elsewhere.

According to this source the Shahnama was part of the standard curriculum for Islamic schools under the Mughals as well as the British, and this source mentions it as well. But I think we've moved on from the point of whether or not Indians knew the Shahnama so I won't belabor it.



> You really need to ask this question? Because Sadi didn't write a nationalistic epic about a culture and period which they reject. It's obvious.


You have provided zero evidence in support of your erroneous claim that Deobandis reject the Shahnama. Here is a fatwa, from Darul Uloom Deoband's own website, stating that names from the Shahnama are acceptable for Muslims.



> Hence, Hariban > Hariband. Ramban > Ramband. And, Deoban > Deoband. Also, Deovand (Deo worship) > Deoband is possible too. Your own logic.


Nowhere have I argued that Deoband cannot have a Sanskrit origin! In fact I explicitly stated the opposite in post #35 ("I'm not convinced one way or the other about the etymology of the town's name, and I'm not committed to a Persian etymology"). I think it is possibly Sanskrit or possibly Persian, we have not come to conclusive evidence either way. I'm providing arguments in favor of the possibility of a Persian origin. You are arguing, quite poorly, that such origin is impossible and it must therefore be from Sanskrit.



> You're in a bind here. You either have to concede that Khudaband and Caspian are Indian names of Sanskrit origin. Or you have to concede that Deoband is of Sanskrit, non-Persian origin. You cannot have both. Pick.


False dilemma. You do not exhibit any understanding of how sound changes work historically. You are committed to a kind of imagined consistency ('if Khudaband is from Khudavand then Deoband _must_ be from Deovand, etc.') which does not exist in real life. Anyone who has studied linguistics can tell you that that's simply not how it works.


----------



## hindiurdu

Dib said:


> Actually no, they have other options, most notably to not commit to any etymology proposed for Deoband, even while spelling out various alternatives - like they had mostly done before your contributions, and take there own sweet time and wait for what they consider better evidence, unless you ask them leading questions and cyber-bully them into taking a side. While fortunately your posts added a lot of data, your presentation unfortunately made the environment hostile and not conducive of honest intellectual evaluation of those data.



Cyber-bullied? If they feel I am being strident, I apologize. I really do not intend to be. I was actually enjoying the vigour of the discussion. Note that in two other discussions on this forum, I was the one arguing for Persian-origin (Dehliiz > Dehli > Delhi and Faal).



Dib said:


> Btw, I am just curious, are you yourself 100% convinced that Deoband is from Deva(v/b)ana, or something such? Irrespective of the problem of the final -nd, without any reference to any alternative hypothesis. Who knows, maybe all the hypotheses thus far presented are wrong!



Not 100% convinced, no. I am half-convinced though, by which I mean that it is very unlikely that, in the Indian context, Deo- is going to mean anything other than Dev- in a place name. Could it mean something different? Of course, anything could be theoretically be. But then you need a solid argument. Here there is absolutely none at all. Instead there is a tonne of books from the 1800s to today saying the opposite. The -band piece I am less certain of. -vand > -band, -vant > -band, -van > -band, -bandh > -band are all possibilities. It could also literally mean "Binding God" in the sense of establishing a temple or something. Tough to say. However, if we do not speculate and stick strictly to references, the option that emerges is -van > -band. Note that there are many examples of this in India. Vrindavan > Brindaband [1], [2], [3], [4]. The answer to whether or not this place's name is of Persian origin is not of great importance. However, just doing a dispassionate inventory:

Thousands of places called Deo-xxx in India. Hundreds possibly in UP alone.
Paucity of placenames in India named after Shahnameh characters.
Lack of any Deobands in the Persianate world (you would expect to see this if Deoband really were a notable thing in any respect). As far as I know, not too many Deo-anything placenames.

Historical records specifically describing provenance of the name, pretty much all centered on the name "Sacred/Divine Forest".
It's a clincher. I am also accounting for a meaning continuum here. Note that Dev/Diiv ranges in meaning along God (the singular Divinity) - gods (deities) - cosmic/nature spirits - gia|nts - monsters - malevolent spirits - demons. I'd say for India, you'd put a line from the left through the middle of giants (shown). For Iran, from the right through the middle of giants. There is some overlap there, I recognize, so initially I was coming down in the direction of "I sort of believe this but could be wrong" but the more I looked into it, the more clarity there was.


----------



## hindiurdu

eskandar said:


> As I said above, there are Indian place names of Persian origin. It is therefore not unusual to find an Indian town with a Persian name. If you need scholarly proof of the origin of some of those names (eg. Hyderabad which you mentioned yourself as an example) I can provide them. If you cannot provide any examples of Iranian places with Sanskrit names and back them up with scholarly evidence then you need to concede this point.



Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If it were, your argument would cease functioning immediately. You've discarded Occam's Razor for Deoband, so it is unavailable to you here also.



eskandar said:


> Here is one place where دیوبند (as an adjective دیوبندی) appears in Sa'di's Bustan.



Sorry, but you cannot even find a direct reference to دیوبند in any other work except the Shahnameh? Do you see how random your whole contention is? Can you find a place in Iran or Afghanistan called Deoband, perhaps? That would help your argument too. I mean something, anything that indicates this is a term of any lasting importance in Persian culture?



eskandar said:


> According to this source both the Bustan and Gulistan are part of the Deoband curriculum (it also claims that maulvi/munshi/pandit exams under the British involved translating passages from the Shahnama). On Deoband and Gulistan see here.  While looking for references I found proof that the Bustan is also part of the madrasa curriculum elsewhere.



Conceded but this is still different from the Shahnama, see my previous point.



eskandar said:


> According to this source the Shahnama was part of the standard curriculum for Islamic schools under the Mughals as well as the British, and this source mentions it as well. But I think we've moved on from the point of whether or not Indians knew the Shahnama so I won't belabor it.



Conceded also.



eskandar said:


> You have provided zero evidence in support of your erroneous claim that Deobandis reject the Shahnama. Here is a fatwa, from Darul Uloom Deoband's own website, stating that names from the Shahnama are acceptable for Muslims.



I believe my contention was that they didn't know enough about it. And to be honest that's how this link reads to me. Who's Rustam? Great wrestler chap. Please read my Gama Pehlwan comparison. Was I that off? Sohrab? Son of Rustam, not much else to say. Khushroo, pretty face. Jamshed? He had this bowl thing. Please look at the depth of knowledge here. I think they might have had more to say about figures from Shakespeare.



eskandar said:


> Nowhere have I argued that Deoband cannot have a Sanskrit origin! In fact I explicitly stated the opposite in post #35 ("I'm not convinced one way or the other about the etymology of the town's name, and I'm not committed to a Persian etymology"). I think it is possibly Sanskrit or possibly Persian, we have not come to conclusive evidence either way. I'm providing arguments in favor of the possibility of a Persian origin. You are arguing, quite poorly, that such origin is impossible and it must therefore be from Sanskrit.



I have never said it is impossible for it to have a Persian origin. I have said it seems exceedingly unlikely to me. As likely as Caspian being an Indian name. The odds are seriously stacked against it. See my points to Dib (!) above.



eskandar said:


> False dilemma. You do not exhibit any understanding of how sound changes work historically. You are committed to a kind of imagined consistency ('if Khudaband is from Khudavand then Deoband _must_ be from Deovand, etc.') which does not exist in real life. Anyone who has studied linguistics can tell you that that's simply not how it works.



Please stop trying to railroad me with "everyone says x" and "anyone who is anyone wouldn't say y" - that's no argument at all. You cannot pick and choose what rules to apply based on what is convenient to you. Your entire argument is based on pure conjecture that strings together low-probability events. It _might_ be that Deoband here is not a usual Deo- type name despite a hundred other Deo-s around it. It _might_ be that it is this obscure term from a text that _might_ have been used to name this place, though virtually no other place-name can be found based on it nearby for far more prominent figures from the same text (Rustam excepted, he's known as a legendary Iranian wrestler, like Gama is now). It _might _be that the British and other Indian sources got the name provenance wrong. It _might _be that somehow no other place in Persian-speaking countries is known as Deoband because [unexplained]. It _might_ be that dev-van > deoband is not how the name arose despite references to the contrary. It _might_ be that known, referenced occurrence of another Deoband (the one near Chakrata, which isn't that far away from the one in question) in placename as a variant for Deoban is irrelevant. However, Khudavand > Khudaband is how that happened, definitively, though there are zero references for that. What? How does this magic work again?


----------



## hindiurdu

mundiya said:


> I've read the article from which it was extracted so I know he's talking about the same Delhi.  Besides, using a bit of logic, which other city would he be talking about in "Haryana country"?  It's meant to be a rhetorical question if it wasn't obvious.
> 
> I don't think your claims about "dehlii" being more common pre-independence are accurate for Hindi, nor the prevalence of "dillii" due to Punjabis moving in to the city.  For Urdu, yes I agree "dehlii" was (and perhaps still is) more common.  If you wish to continue the discussion on Delhi, you can respond on the Delhi thread.  Otherwise, it's off-topic here.



If you go to ISBT (was definitely true as of 5 years ago, I have not been recently), you'll see dozens of buses that say देहली on them, in Hindi. A lot of UPSRTC buses say that on them. Older people from Delhi still say 'देहली'. It's got nothing to do with Urdu or Hindi. This was the name of the place. Yes, some called it दिल्ली too. Punjabis almost exclusively called it and still call it दिल्ली. It feels like the classic de-aspiration+gemination typical of Punjabi and Haryanvi. But if you go to any place like Hapur or Meerut, (older) people would say Dehli. I think there's a strong case to be made that this is from Dehliiz and is of Persian-origin. Also read the Ghaznavid thing in this thread. If there's an argument being made about Shahnama getting known in this time frame, how much more likely is Dehliiz to come in? Far more, I would argue. Can you please link the Delhi thread? I am having trouble finding it. I appreciate your help.


----------



## eskandar

> Sorry, but you cannot even find a direct reference to دیوبند in any other work except the Shahnameh? Do you see how random your whole contention is?


It is really frustrating trying to debate with someone who does not even bother to read what I write half the time. I listed references to دیوبند from *Mas'ud Sa'd Salman*, *Asadi Tusi*, and *Khaqani* as well in post #35. I even indicated the relevance of these poets to the subcontinent. ‌Now you are seriously quibbling over the fact that it appears here as an adjective derived from the noun? Does 'Deobandi' not come from 'Deoband'? Might 'Hyderabadi' and 'Hyderabad' have separate etymologies? This is ridiculous.



> I believe my contention was that they didn't know enough about it. And to be honest that's how this link reads to me. Who's Rustam? Great wrestler chap. Please read my Gama Pehlwan comparison. Was I that off? Sohrab? Son of Rustam, not much else to say. Khushroo, pretty face. Jamshed? He had this bowl thing. Please look at the depth of knowledge here. I think they might have had more to say about figures from Shakespeare.


Now you are moving the goalposts - you started off by arguing that "It is extremely unlikely that they would somehow look positively on some reference from the Shahnama." Then when I disproved that, you changed your tune to "well they don't know enough about it." But you said earlier that they'd oppose it because "It is the Shahnama. It is Iranian culture itself. There is a lot of hostility for these things among the orthodox." In the link I provided you can clearly see that they know these names are from the Shahnama, they acknowledge its association with Iran, and they conclude that there's no issue with them. You must at least concede the point that Deoband would be ideologically opposed to the Shahnama in face of this clear evidence to the contrary. The brevity of the response does not tell us anything about the depth of their knowledge about the Shahnama, or lack thereof, because it is fitting with the format; the majority of their other fatawa are equally curt and many are even shorter than this.



> Please stop trying to railroad me with "everyone says x" and "anyone who is anyone wouldn't say y" - that's no argument at all. You cannot pick and choose what rules to apply based on what is convenient to you.


Do you want a scholarly debate or not? You seem to, by demanding sources for things, but then you complain of appeal to authority when I point out where linguists would disagree with you. I cannot sit here and spoon-feed you the principles of historical linguistics, and you wouldn't take my word for it anyway, so please go read something introductory on historical phonology and come back to this topic when you're ready to engage with the scientific principles of sound change. Otherwise it's like debating natural selection with a Creationist.



> Your entire argument is based on pure conjecture that strings together low-probability events. ...


Nowhere have I advanced the argument that Persian is the highest-probability source for the name. Frankly I don't know. My main prerogative is rebutting the inaccuracies and conjecture you've built your argument around: Indians never read the Shahnama, Deobandis would be totally against it for ideological reasons, etc. If your issue is that I make too much of India's Persianate history, my contention is that you give it too little, and you seem to know sadly little about it.



> It _might _be that somehow no other place in Persian-speaking countries is known as Deoband because [unexplained].


You argued that "Delhi" is of Persian origin, so why are there no other Delhis in the Persophone sphere? You refuted this argument yourself when you said "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."



> However, Khudavand > Khudaband is how that happened, definitively, though there are zero references for that. What? How does this magic work again?


"How does this magic work again?" is indeed your approach to linguistics. Just so you don't think I'm making this up, see reference here to "the common cross-linguistic adaptation of */v/ to /b/". In other words it's a basic sound change that happens across languages. Here is a citation about the process in Spanish, for comparison.


----------



## hindiurdu

eskandar said:


> It is really frustrating trying to debate with someone who does not even bother to read what I write half the time. I listed references to دیوبند from *Mas'ud Sa'd Salman*, *Asadi Tusi*, and *Khaqani* as well in post #35. I even indicated the relevance of these poets to the subcontinent. ‌Now you are seriously quibbling over the fact that it appears here as an adjective derived from the noun? Does 'Deobandi' not come from 'Deoband'? Might 'Hyderabadi' and 'Hyderabad' have separate etymologies? This is ridiculous.



How is this ridiculous? If anything it indicates this is not an important enough word. And, just for the record, you've conveniently dodged my core question. Why are there no other names from the Shahnama in placenames in India? There should be hordes of them if your contention holds. Yet there are hardly any.



eskandar said:


> You argued that "Delhi" is of Persian origin, so why are there no other Delhis in the Persophone sphere? You refuted this argument yourself when you said "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."



Glad you asked. Dehliz, Lorestan Province, Iran (actually another one too: Dehliz-i-Do). Dehliz-e-Seh, Khuzestan Province, Iran. Kowtal-e-Dehliz, Badakhshan, Afghanistan. Platts says this was imported into Arabic from Persian too. So, also Hayy ad Dihliz, Lebanon. See, the difference here is that there is a lot of historical reference on Delhi's name. Dehliz > Dehli > De'lli. Even the locals know this is Persian name. This ढिल्ली thing is a new one and seems to be from a set of folks who want to shrug-off the compelling Persian origin.



eskandar said:


> Now you are moving the goalposts - you started off by arguing that "It is extremely unlikely that they would somehow look positively on some reference from the Shahnama." Then when I disproved that, you changed your tune to "well they don't know enough about it." But you said earlier that they'd oppose it because "It is the Shahnama. It is Iranian culture itself. There is a lot of hostility for these things among the orthodox." In the link I provided you can clearly see that they know these names are from the Shahnama, they acknowledge its association with Iran, and they conclude that there's no issue with them. You must at least concede the point that Deoband would be ideologically opposed to the Shahnama in face of this clear evidence to the contrary. The brevity of the response does not tell us anything about the depth of their knowledge about the Shahnama, or lack thereof, because it is fitting with the format; the majority of their other fatawa are equally curt and many are even shorter than this.



Unfair. And you're the one who moved the goalpost from the original reason why this came up. The contention was that Darul Uloom deliberately chose this due to the name and its origins in the Shahnama. My contention was (a) they probably can't even make any such connection and (b) if they did, they'd know enough to have the opposite reaction. You've disproven neither.



eskandar said:


> Nowhere have I advanced the argument that Persian is the highest-probability source for the name. Frankly I don't know. My main prerogative is rebutting the inaccuracies and conjecture you've built your argument around: Indians never read the Shahnama, Deobandis would be totally against it for ideological reasons, etc. If your issue is that I make too much of India's Persianate history, my contention is that you give it too little, and you seem to know sadly little about it.



I'd appreciate you not putting words into my mouth. When have I ever said you make too much of India's Persianate history? If anything, I'd argue that all North Indians should learn basic Persian at least, otherwise they are estranged from a big part of their own heritage. If anything, I'd say you make too little of it. We all do. I look at all these Indians going to Alliance Francaise and wonder what Iran should be doing about this. Do NOT generalize from this one town and from this one text into Persian influence overall. If I told you that the word Yoga is of Persian origin, you'd have an issue with that, correct? I am having the same issue. It's a question of truth ONLY.



eskandar said:


> "How does this magic work again?" is indeed your approach to linguistics. Just so you don't think I'm making this up, see reference here to "the common cross-linguistic adaptation of */v/ to /b/". In other words it's a basic sound change that happens across languages. Here is a citation about the process in Spanish, for comparison.



Completely uncalled for. Are you deliberately trying to misunderstand what I said?


----------



## mundiya

hindiurdu said:


> This ढिल्ली thing is a new one and seems to be from a set of folks who want to shrug-off the compelling Persian origin.



Please don't make unfounded assumptions.  Scholarly works, for example here (pp. 280-281), as well as the excerpt I posted earlier, support ढिल्ली (Dhillii) as the etymology.  You tend to dismiss things that don't suit your fancy, whether it be the etymology of Delhi or Deoband.  That's a bad approach to take in linguistics.


----------



## hindiurdu

mundiya said:


> Please don't make unfounded assumptions.  Scholarly works, for example here (pp. 280-281), as well as the excerpt I posted earlier, support ढिल्ली (Dhillii) as the etymology.  You tend to dismiss things that don't suit your fancy, whether it be the etymology of Delhi or Deoband.  That's a bad approach to take in linguistics.



On the contrary, it seems that you and some others have become quite used to not being challenged. You've become comfortable and get rattled when you're asked to prove your assertions. Appeal to authority does not make you right. The fact that you resort to it so readily makes your positions even more suspect. Also, this charge of dismissing things is rich coming from someone who themselves dismissed a bunch of references at the start of this discussion. Are you a credentialed linguist of Indian languages? Please answer this question directly with an honest Yes/No.

I buy the idea of Haryana country, of course. Unsurprising. He is also describing the Jats tribes it seems like (won't submit to any domination, bloodthirsty with their enemies). I do not buy the idea of Dhilli being this large capital city at the time. Remember Mahmud Ghaznavi raided around this time - his raid on Mathura was in 1018. How come there is no mention of this Ḍhilli then? Vibudh Shridhar was in the 1130-1180 period roughly. Anangpal II called his city Lal Kot and Prithviraj Chauhan called it Qila Rai Pithora. Could Ḍhilli simply be a corruption of Dehliiz? I mean isn't it interesting that Ḍhilli is appearing here suddenly as the invasions are beginning? We have precedence for this (Yavana, for example). I see material that says that Anangpal was fortifying in response to Mahmud's raids. Do we have any idea if people like Jaypala Janjua or any of those other Hindu Shahis of Kabul and other areas ever referred to Delhi? One of your cited papers "An Early Attestation of the Toponym Dhilli" actually says that the whole Ḍhilli/loose concept is suspect and that Dehali (threshold) is a legit possibility. Also, he flags Vibudh Shridhar's other corruptions, eg Amir > Hammiira. Cohen says it himself that Vibudh's sequencing is not to be taken literally - "It lends support to the thesis that Shridhara's reference to Anangapala should not be taken as a reference to the contemporary Tomara ruler of Delhi." Aside, though I don't know what to make of it: in the second paper he is (seemingly) talking about crossing the Yamuna from Haryana to get to Ḍhilli. That cannot be right. Haryana and Delhi are on the same side of the river. In fact, Yamuna is and has always been the border of Haryana/Punjab. In the Mahabharata as well, the Yamuna ended the border of Hastinapur. Something does not fit here.

Anyway, please flag the Delhi thread so we can move this off-topic discussion there. Thank you.


----------



## mundiya

hindiurdu said:


> On the contrary, it seems that you and some others have become quite used to not being challenged. You've become comfortable and get rattled when you're asked to prove your assertions. Appeal to authority does not make you right. The fact that you resort to it so readily makes your positions even more suspect. Also, this charge of dismissing things is rich coming from someone who themselves dismissed a bunch of references at the start of this discussion.



Unfortunately, you're making the conversation with everyone go in circles. In response to your last accusation, I have doubted your references but haven't dismissed the possibility of a Sanskrit etymon for Deoband nor have I ridiculed it, unlike you who has dismissed and ridiculed the possibility of a Persian etymon by comparing it with Kashyap > Caspian nonsense.



> Could Ḍhilli simply be a corruption of Dehliiz?



That's an illogical, unsubstantiated conjecture on your part.



> One of your cited papers "An Early Attestation of the Toponym Dhilli" actually says that the whole Ḍhilli/loose concept is suspect and that Dehali (threshold) is a legit possibility.



You seem to have missed the point of this paper.  Cohen provides ample evidence of the toponym Dhillii used by early writers.  He only finds the "loose" meaning associated with it in legend to be suspect.  That doesn't change the fact that Dhillii was attested as a Rajput city prior to the establishment of the Sultanate.  There is only one citation for dehalii, and that was by the 19th century archeologist Cunningham, who according to Cohen had an unscientific transliteration, so he may very well have meant Dhillii instead.  In addition, no reproduction of the inscription Cunningham saw has ever been available, so what he wrote can't be corroborated. In any case, both words (Dhillii and dehalii), and thus the city name is of Prakrit/Apabhramsha origin as I originally stated, which debunks your theory of the name originating in the Persian word dehliiz.  To get to the Delhi thread, just click the arrow in my original post mentioning Dhillii.


----------



## hindiurdu

mundiya said:


> Unfortunately, you're making the conversation with everyone go in circles. In response to your last accusation, I have doubted your references but haven't dismissed the possibility of a Sanskrit etymon for Deoband nor have I ridiculed it, unlike you who has dismissed and ridiculed the possibility of a Persian etymon by comparing it with Kashyap > Caspian nonsense.



You make a totally unsubstantiated conjecture on Deoband. Then you want it to be accepted as gospel truth. There are absolutely zero linguisitic or historical references that give your argument a shred of credence. There is a large repository of referenced facts that is diametrically opposed to your speculation. So, yes, it absolutely is in the category of Kashyap > Caspian. And if you're going to be random in this way, learn to be tolerant of being questioned. And, again, I see you resorting to the usual "we are a syndicate, deal with us as a syndicate" tactic. Your argument stands utterly demolished, Sir. Have the intellectual integrity to recognize that. Also, I note how carefully you have skirted my direct question on whether you are a linguist. You are clearly not. So it would also behoove you to stop grandstanding and lecturing others on how linguistics is or is not to be done when you're challenged. Learn to have your arguments stand on their own without this "just trust me" attitude.



mundiya said:


> That's an illogical, unsubstantiated conjecture on your part.



Unsubstantiated, yes, of course. That's why it is in the form of a question. Illogical, hardly. The paper itself mocks the "loose pillar" story. So where does it come from? No idea. No concept of it's emergence is offered. Correct me if I am wrong (with referenced facts please, not emotions).



mundiya said:


> You seem to have missed the point of this paper.  Cohen provides ample evidence of the toponym Dhillii used by early writers.  He only finds the "loose" meaning associated with it in legend to be suspect.  That doesn't change the fact that Dhillii was attested as a Rajput city prior to the establishment of the Sultanate.  There is only one citation for dehalii, and that was by the 19th century archeologist Cunningham, who according to Cohen had an unscientific transliteration, so he may very well have meant Dhillii instead.  In addition, no reproduction of the inscription Cunningham saw has ever been available, so what he wrote can't be corroborated. In any case, both words (Dhillii and dehalii), and thus the city name is of Prakrit/Apabhramsha origin as I originally stated, which debunks your theory of the name originating in the Persian word dehliiz.  To get to the Delhi thread, just click the arrow in my original post mentioning Dhillii.



That's a highly selective and misleading reading of the paper. Verbatim:

"_A reproduction of the inscription has neither appeared in print, nor have scholars, save one, ever questioned Cunningham's transliteration. Rai Bahadur Daya Ram Sahni reported the inscription to read Sammat Dhilli 1109 Amgapala vadi. 20 Admittedly, Sahni's transliteration, like Cunningham's, is unscientific, but there is no avoiding the issue of the different spellings Dihali/Dhilli and bahi/vadi. Before considering this point, however, a remark on the syntax of the line is in order. Syntactically, the line is confused. That the name of the city intervenes between Samvat and the date 1109, and that Aigapala (Anangapala) is not inflected suggest that little care was given to the engraving of the inscription and that it is unlikely the inscription was meant to be official. This is also borne out by the garbled spelling of the ruler's name. What may have happened, as H. Dvivedi has suggested that an artisan, associated with or present at the pillar's erection, is responsible for the inscription. If this is the case, then the spelling Dihali may be an illiterate attempt at Ḍhilli, the spelling which occurs for the first time in the Pasanahacariu and which is attested in later contexts, also with the pleonastic suffix -ka._"​
It's pure speculation and Cohen is fully transparent about it. He is calling ALL readings unscientific. You're cherry-picking to fit your conjecture. But it gets worse (from your perspective):
"_The etymology of the word DhillT cannot be conclusively settled from the available data. If Cunningham's reading, Dihali, is correct, the etyma dehali 'threshold' and dehudl/dehudd(h)i 'mound, threshold' are of possible interest._"​And:
"_That the name of a capital city would be derived from a word meaning 'loose' is, of course, unlikely. The reference to the historically factual succession of the Cauhan and Pathan as rulers of Delhi identifies the account as a popular story dated substantially later than the suzerainty of the Tomara._"​
This absolutely does NOT clinch Ḍhilli. It absolutely does leave the option wide open that threshold is a legit possibility for the name. It absolutely does question the whole Dheela > Dhilli idea as a later element added to the story. Sorry, from wher are you finding this authoritative "You are Wrong" voice? Go back and re-read your comment to me initially. I think you're incorrect to be so certain. All I've been saying is that there is a strong case to be made for Dehliiz > Delhi and I want to make it.


----------



## cherine

Dear all,

Their are a few posts in this thread that crossed the line of "academic and cordial" tone we strive to have in the forum. It is hereby closed until one of the moderators has the time to review and edit what needs to be edited/deleted.
I would like to remind you all to take a moment to re-read the forum rules before posting again.

Thanks for your understanding.

Cherine
Moderator


----------

