Hindustan is not India

[Post Colonnial]

Not really dialects in the conventional sense, since both incorporate elements of different language families and are written in different scripts, but in a sense they could be. But that is not my point here. What the Wikipedia article does is take Hindi to be synonymous with Hindustani which isnt the case today or even a hundred years ago.

The thing is, that Hindustani or casual Hindi still has some Persian origin words, such as dil and zindagi, while Hindi (the form that we would associate with Nat Geo commentary) is basically purged of all Persian, Arabic and Turkish words for higher vocabulary and instead uses Old Sanskrit for them. Literature of this language, in the Devanagiri script, before the 19th century, the time when Persian, Arabic and Turkish words got purged from it, isn't found. A Hindustani language using Old Sanskrit for it's higher vocabulary that is.

Urdu or Hindustani on the other hand, could have said to begin around the times of the Delhi Sultanate, with Amir Khusro forming his poetry at the time, written in the Perso-Arabic script. The article mostly mentions this Hindustani language.

but then how do account for the heritage that the video very clearly outlines? It goes very clearly that Hindi & Urdu came from Hindustani; Hindustani came from Sauraseni Prakrit which in turn came from Sanskrit. This would imply that Sanskrit roots are most natural to Hindustani (and its offsprings viz Hindi and Urdu) and if any purging took place it must have been to take Sanskrit words out of Urdu and replace them with Persian equivalents. This last notion is also fully corraborated by the the statement that the mughals (turkic mongol descent) 'looked up' to Persian culture and civilization and used Persian as their preferred franca, even neglecting their own turkic mongol roots.

 

[Tergon18]

but then how do account for the heritage that the video very clearly outlines? It goes very clearly that Hindi & Urdu came from Hindustani; Hindustani came from Sauraseni Prakrit which in turn came from Sanskrit. This would imply that Sanskrit roots are most natural to Hindustani (and its offsprings viz Hindi and Urdu) and if any purging took place it must have been to take Sanskrit words out of Urdu and replace them with Persian equivalents. This last notion is also fully corraborated by the the statement that the mughals (turkic mongol descent) 'looked up' to Persian culture and civilization and used Persian as their preferred franca, even neglecting their own turkic mongol roots.

I do agree with the fact that both Urdu and Hindi mostly have their basis in the Hindustani language. However the fact is that Urdu developed over a period of around eight hundred years, while Hindi is merely around a hundred years old.

If you take English, and purge it of all Greek, Latin and French words used for higher vocabulary and replace them with the ancestor of the English language, Proto-Germanic, and start using a form of primitive Germanic script to write them, instead of the Latin script in which we are currently writing (which is foreign to England) I am sure it would sound quite unnatural as well as opposed to the Greek, Latin and French words used for higher vocabulary present in English that have been allowed to develop over a period of eight hundred years or longer in English. This is how linguistics work. If you go back further in time, Persian and Sanskrit have common origins as well, both being descendants of the Proto-Indo-Iranian language, so they aren't that foreign to each other, really.

Same is the case with Urdu and Hindi. You would not find literature of Hindustani using Old Sanskrit for higher vocabulary, in the Devanagiri script prior to the time of it's purging, the 19th century but you would find literature of Hindustani using Persian, Arabic and Turkish for higher vocabulary as old as eight hundred or so years ago, in the Perso-Arabic script.

That is the difference between Urdu and Hindi.

 

[Levina]

I couldn't possibly.

This is the most entertainment I have had with my clothes on.

Sorry.
I'm not here for your entertainment and I'm going to ensure we don't cross each other's path or else I'll loose whatever lil respect I've for you...sir.
I won't be replying to your posts anymore.

@MilSpec @nair @SpArK
(None of you need to reply to this post, I Jst wanted to bring this to ur notice.Thats all). Sorry for the off-topic but I thought this was necessary.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Sorry.
I'm not here for your entertainment and I'm going to ensure we don't cross each other's path or else I'll loose whatever respect I've for you...sir.
@MilSpec @nair @SpArK
(None of you need to reply to this post, I Jst wanted to bring this to ur notice.Thats all). Sorry for the off-topic but I thought this was necessary.

You will decide that not by threats or notices but by the contents of your posts. Your posts are entertaining, and nothing else.

 

[911]

Do you even know how Hindi was formed?
Urdu and Hindustani are synonymous with one another...both terms are intertwined. Hindi is a bastardisation of Urdu. In the late 1880s, north Indian Hindu nationalists were fed up with Urdu/Hindustani becoming the dominant language. After the failed 1857 War of Independence, the British banned Persian...this led to the explosion of Urdu/Hindustani. This language was written using the Persian-Urdu alphabet. From 1857 to the 1880s, Urdu became the most spoken and written language in British India.

The north Indian Hindus didn't like that...they saw Urdu with its Persian script as being an "invading" language. So in the 1880s, they came up with "Hindi"...they took all the Persian based words in Urdu and replaced them with Sanskrit words and changed the script from Persian alphabet to Devanagari. This resulted in the formation of Hindi....which is basically Sanskritised Urdu written in Devangari script. This is the reason why Hindi sounds so unnatural.

It's no different from Croatian-Serbian language dispute. The original Balkan language was written in Acrylic as Serbian language is today. The Croats in an attempt to differentiate themselves from there Serb enemies took the language, and changed the script to Roman...and called it "Croatian".

The same thing happened with Urdu to Hindi.

Hindi evolved from Khariboli, not Urdu, you are confused because the base is same except loan words. Urdu too has evolved, and still evolving (recent change replacent of word Khuda by Allah). Urdu of today is not same as Hindustani as you claim, there were many changes in past specially in Zia era. Pure Urdu and Pure Hindi speakers are very rare, what most people speak is corrupted versions of Hindustani both in India and Pakistan. There must be some Sanskrit loaned/evolved words present in Urdu even today such as Chand which you might want to replace slong with famous Pakistani Punjabi chant "Jeevay Jeevay Pakistan", Jeevay is evolved from Jeevan/Jeevit. Oh great Indus man, the sole owner of the Indus, you are very confused, on one hand you take pride in everything related to Indus on the other hand you ridicule Sanskrit. Joe Shearer is right, most propaganda threads on history go unchallenged. Your posts on Indus civilization are more hateful rants than facts. You can't apply today's demographics and apply on 5000 year old history and create arguments based on it. As i said earlier no matter what narrative Pakistan adopts (Mighty invaders , Mighty Indus man or anything else in future) one basic thing remains common is that people living in today's Pakistan and India have been entirely different throughout history.

 

[nair]

Sorry.
I'm not here for your entertainment and I'm going to ensure we don't cross each other's path or else I'll loose whatever respect I've for you...sir.
I won't be replying to your posts anymore.

@MilSpec @nair @SpArK
(None of you need to reply to this post, I Jst wanted to bring this to ur notice.Thats all). Sorry for the off-topic but I thought this was necessary.

That post (the one you quoted) was a pretty low one and uncalled for and least expected........

 

[Tiger7]

What a pity.


Typical stupid mistake. You are confusing facts with nationalism, with a patriotic outlook. They don't belong together.

I think threads such as this should be banned and deleted in their entirety.

Not really. It is a fact that Pakistan was mostly ruled by foreign invaders throughout its history as the people of the Indus region did not have a strong identity as it was mostly dominated by tribal chiefs who were not united among themselves.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Not really. It is a fact that Pakistan was mostly ruled by foreign invaders throughout its history as the people of the Indus region did not have a strong identity as it was mostly dominated by tribal chiefs who were not united among themselves.

You didn't get it, obviously. I'm saying precisely that, that the facts represent something. But patriotic outlook demands that the facts be ignored.

 

[Tergon18]

Hindi evolved from Khariboli, not Urdu, you are confused because the base is same except loan words. Urdu too has evolved, and still evolving (recent change replacent of word Khuda by Allah). Urdu of today is not same as Hindustani as you claim, there were many changes in past specially in Zia era. Pure Urdu and Pure Hindi speakers are very rare, what most people speak is corrupted versions of Hindustani both in India and Pakistan. There must be some Sanskrit loaned/evolved words present in Urdu even today such as Chand which you might want to replace slong with famous Pakistani Punjabi chant "Jeevay Jeevay Pakistan", Jeevay is evolved from Jeevan/Jeevit. Oh great Indus man, the sole owner of the Indus, you are very confused, on one hand you take pride in everything related to Indus on the other hand you ridicule Sanskrit. Joe Shearer is right, most propaganda threads on history go unchallenged. Your posts on Indus civilization are more hateful rants than facts. You can't apply today's demographics and apply on 5000 year old history and create arguments based on it. As i said earlier no matter what narrative Pakistan adopts (Mighty invaders , Mighty Indus man or anything else in future) one basic thing remains common is that people living in today's Pakistan and India have been entirely different throughout history.

Again, you have totally missed the point of my argument. I am not arguing for the similarities or differences. I have already said earlier that the basis for them, is the Hindustani language, you have completely missed my point.
And no, the word Khuda as well as Allah is used, I don't know where you have gotten that from. This topic has got more to do with the semantics of language, more than anything else and is unrelated to this.
Khariboli is the name used for Hindustani language, some 300 years ago, written in the Perso-Arabic script with Persian, Arabic and Turkish words being used for higher vocabulary. Look up the poetry of Ghalib and Mir Taqi Mir for this.
I don't think a long-term effort to try to purge Urdu of whatever influences that you think were, done in Zia's era. Read some Urdu literature from the 40s, of Patras Bokhari or Altaf Hussain Hali and you'll know what I mean. Not a lot (if any) differences.

Pure Urdu and Pure Hindi both are taught at schools and are used in the media, both written and electronic, and also in literature but yes, the casual form is Hindustani, which I have noted above as well.

The word for moon in Vedic Sanskrit, atleast, is māsa not chand. And yes, the word Jeeway has evolved out of the Vedic Sanskrit word jīva, and almost the exact same word is found in Avestani Persian, as zīva. Both words have evolved out of a single Proto-Indo-Iranian word, gʷih₃wós (jwihos). Remember, Old Vedic Sanskrit and Old Avestani Persian used to be one language, Proto-Indo-Iranian until 2000 BC. This is why these words, (jind and zind) are quite often interchangeable. They belong to the same Indo-Iranian language family. You can compare the words of Proto-Indo-Iranian here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Iranian_language

And coming to the Hindi-Urdu part. I have explained this countless times above, and there is little point in repeating the same thing over and over again to clueless people. From the wikipedia article on the Hindi-Urdu controversy:

'A Persianized variant of Hindi and Urdu, began to take shape during the Delhi Sultanate(1206–1526 AD) and Mughal Empire (1526–1858 AD) in South Asia
Urdu, along with English became the first official language of British India in 1850...Although the need to have a language for Hindus developed post 1850, the irrevocable birth of Hindi language took place in 1880...Hindi and Urdu started to diverge linguistically, with Hindi drawing on Sanskrit as the primary source for formal and academic vocabulary, often with a conscious attempt to purge the language of Persian-derived equivalents.'

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindi–Urdu_controversy

Honestly, you accusing me of 'ridiculing' Sanskrit is rather hilarious. Why would I do that? Merely saying that a constructed language, only a little more than a hundred years old, which was concsiously purged of certain influences and replaced with others will sound unnatural, isnt ridicule. That is because it is the very definition of unnatural: not naturally allowed to grow over a period of more than eight hundred years unlike Urdu. I suggest you pick up a dictionary.

I am sure even the most hardcore of English nationalists would agree with me that purging English of Greek/Latin/French words, replacing them with Old Germanic ones and using an Old Germanic script to write them unlike the 'foreign' Italian Latin script that we currently write in would be unnatural.

Again, I'll say this. A Hindustani language relying on Old Sanskrit for its higher vocabulary, written in Devangairi script, prior to the 19th century isnt found. A Hindustani language using Persian, Arabic and Turkish for it's higher vocabulary, using the Perso-Arabic script has had literature dating to almost eight hundred years ago. Thats the difference between Urdu and Hindi.

Your attempt to ridicule the other thread of Aitzaz Ahsan's book is rather pathetic. I based my arguments on historic facts, statistics, studies etc. and you are free to tell me if I have stated anything factually wrong there, in a level-headed and rational way. Take this to that thread if you want, and it's really irrelevant bringing that up here. I don't care whether you call it a 'narrative' or whatever since I have come to expect such irrational and spiteful reactions from your lot regarding this subject.

 

[911]

Again, you have totally missed the point of my argument. I am not arguing for the similarities or differences. I have already said earlier that the basis for them, is the Hindustani language, you have completely missed my point.
And no, the word Khuda as well as Allah is used, I don't know where you have gotten that from. This topic has got more to do with the semantics of language, more than anything else and is unrelated to this.
Khariboli is the name used for Hindustani language, some 300 years ago, written in the Perso-Arabic script with Persian, Arabic and Turkish words being used for higher vocabulary. Look up the poetry of Ghalib and Mir Taqi Mir for this.
I don't think a long-term effort to try to purge Urdu of whatever influences that you think were, done in Zia's era. Read some Urdu literature from the 40s, of Patras Bokhari or Altaf Hussain Hali and you'll know what I mean. Not a lot (if any) differences.

Pure Urdu and Pure Hindi both are taught at schools and are used in the media, both written and electronic, and also in literature but yes, the casual form is Hindustani, which I have noted above as well.

The word for moon in Vedic Sanskrit, atleast, is māsa not chand. And yes, the word Jeeway has evolved out of the Vedic Sanskrit word jīva, and almost the exact same word is found in Avestani Persian, as zīva. Both words have evolved out of a single Proto-Indo-Iranian word, gʷih₃wós (jwihos). Remember, Old Vedic Sanskrit and Old Avestani Persian used to be one language, Proto-Indo-Iranian until 2000 BC. This is why these words, (jind and zind) are quite often interchangeable. They belong to the same Indo-Iranian language family. You can compare the words of Proto-Indo-Iranian here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Iranian_language

And coming to the Hindi-Urdu part. I have explained this countless times above, and there is little point in repeating the same thing over and over again to clueless people. From the wikipedia article on the Hindi-Urdu controversy:

'A Persianized variant of Hindi and Urdu, began to take shape during the Delhi Sultanate(1206–1526 AD) and Mughal Empire (1526–1858 AD) in South Asia
Urdu, along with English became the first official language of British India in 1850...Although the need to have a language for Hindus developed post 1850, the irrevocable birth of Hindi language took place in 1880...Hindi and Urdu started to diverge linguistically, with Hindi drawing on Sanskrit as the primary source for formal and academic vocabulary, often with a conscious attempt to purge the language of Persian-derived equivalents.'
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindi–Urdu_controversy

Honestly, you accusing me of 'ridiculing' Sanskrit is rather hilarious. Why would I do that? Merely saying that a constructed language, only a litte more than a hundred years old, which was concsiously purged of certain influences and replaced with others will sound unnatural, isnt ridicule. That is because it is the very definition of unnatural: not naturally allowed to grow over a period of more than eight hundred years unlike Urdu. I suggest you pick up a dictionary.

I am sure even the most hardcore of English nationalists would agree with me that purging English of Greek/Latin/French words, replacing them with Old Germanic ones and using an Old Germanic script to write them unlike the 'foreign' Italian Latin script that we currently write in would be unnatural.

Again, I'll say this. A Hindustani language relying on Old Sanskrit for its higher vocabulary, written in Devangairi script, prior to the 19th century isnt found. A Hindustani language using Persian, Arabic and Turkish for it's higher vocabulary, using the Perso-Arabic script has had literature dating to almost eight hundred years ago. Thats the difference between Urdu and Hindi.

Your attempt to ridicule the other thread of Aitzaz Ahsan's book is rather pathetic. I based my arguments on historic facts, statistics, studies etc. and you are free to tell me if I have stated anything factually wrong there, in a level-headed and rational way. Take this to that thread if you want, and it's really irrelevant bringing that up here. I don't care whether you call it a 'narrative' or whatever since I have come to expect such irrational and spiteful reactions from your lot regarding this subject.

Already know all of what you have copy pasted what is your point? And the word Chand is evolved from Chandra, a sanskrit word.

 

[Tergon18]

Already know all of what you have copy pasted what is your point? And the word Chand is evolved from Chandra, a sanskrit word.

'Copy pasted'
Seriously, what is your point here, if you have any to begin with in the first place?

 

[ThunderCat]

Just like how English, a West Germanic language of the Anglo-Frisian branch, relies on Greek, Latin and French for it's higher vocabulary, Hindustani relied on Persian, Arabic and Turkish for it's higher vocabulary until purged by Hindu nationalists of them in the 19th century. I think the LangFocus YouTube channel (link provided by another user above) has explained the differences between them quite well. This is just the history. You won't find an example of Hindustani using Old Sanskrit for higher vocabulary in literature before the 19th century.

Just to correct you, it gained it's vocabulary from Chagatai, a Turkic language spoken by the Mughals and not Turkish, the language of Turkey. While the two are related, they are two distinct languages of the same family.

 

[MadDog]

There's been a lot of misconceptions in Pakistan as well as India that Hindustan is India and that "Hindu" is a religion.

In reality Hindu is a geographic term and it's usage to refer to a religion did not occur until some two centuries ago by the Europeans.

For example Hindu Kush or Hindko language are not associated with India or "Hinduism", so why do we associate Hindu or Hindustan with them?

Problem is people misuse and misapply terminologies so the confusion comes up. In reality the words "Hindu" "Indus" and "India" have their roots in ancient Sanskrit "Sindhu" or "Sapta Sindhu". These words evolved into Indus and Hindu by the Greeks and Persians. Even the name Sindh and Sindhi comes from there.

The name "India" eventually spread to Europe and referred to the Indus and possibly Ganges plains. The Muslim invaders continued using Hindu or Hindustan to refer to these geographic territories.

Even the older name of Urdu (and Hindi) is actually Hindustani. For one to say they speak Hindustani means they speak Hindi or Urdu because these are both different dialects of Hindustani.

When the British arrived they started calling all the indigenous spiritualities of the subcontinent "Hinduism". Even using the name "India" by the modern country is technically incorrect, since India originally meant land of the Indus, or today known as Eastern Pakistan.

So to break it down. Hindustan is Eastern Pakistan + Northern India + Bay of Bengal and arguably parts of Nepal and China. A Hindu or Hindustani is a native of these region, not some religious group.

Hindustani is the language that developed in this territory, a derivative of Sanskrit and the languages of the invaders that influenced this language.

So using the term Hindustan to refer to India is wrong and calling the local religions of the subcontinent is also wrong.

India is the westernized name, Hindustan has Persian roots, Hind was the word used in Arabic, its not different. It was never one country, just a region like Europe, that is why British coined the term "subcontinent" where throughout history different empires ruled, had the British not come, there would be atleast 20 countries in subcontinent.

 

[ThunderCat]

Most of what he said is correct save for the Urdu and Hindi accent part. He is also wrong to claim all of India was Hindustan. Hindustan= North India, Eastern Pakistan.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Most of what he said is correct save for the Urdu and Hindi accent part. He is also wrong to claim all of India was Hindustan. Hindustan= North India, Eastern Pakistan.

I don't really think 'Hindustan' extended beyond Bihar.

@Tergon18

That was impressive, but it is difficult to imagine what you think occupied the space that you have assigned to Hindustani, eight centuries ago (that would put us in the thirteenth century). We already know that the intermediate space was occupied by Suraseni Prakrit, just as our eastern languages, including the one I share with the Bangladeshis, including Maithil, Nepali, Oriya, Assamese, and the dialect in Tripura, were originated in Magadhi Prakrit. Suraseni Prakrit spawned Punjabi, Rajasthani, Gujarati and Marathi, Sindhi, and logically (never thought of this or followed it up) Konkani as well. So what happened to the Yamuna Ganges Doab? Were they (bless the thought) mercifully silent till they burst into speech at the point of a Shamsher?