EjazR:
PICK up any Urdu textbook and the chances are that it will endorse the following myths: (a) the term Urdu means military camp. Our language is called Urdu because it was created in the army camps of the Mughals especially during the reign of Shah Jahan; (b) Urdu is a mixed language (khitchri zubaan); (c) Urdu is a Muslim language.
Now let us deal with these myths one by one.
All the histories in Persian about medieval India use the Turkish word Urdu (which means camp in original Turkish) for city. The word is not used in the original Turkish meaning in Indian sources in Persian for the most part. Sometimes the terms Urdu-i-muallaand Urdu-i-badshahi are also used. During Shah Jahans time, Urdu-i-mualla referred to the language spoken in the city of Shahjahanabad (Delhi).
How can one even argue about comparing the Devanagari script to the Nastaliq one? Farsi, Arabic words are written from right to left, the way Urdu is. The spellings for Arabic-Farsi derived words such as khaas, zabaan, dimagh, baaqi, phir, pareshaan is the same in the Nastaliq script. Urdu is written in exactly the same alphabets as Persian and Arabic (Urdu has the extra alphabets found in Persian but not in Arabic, and Urdu has the extra alphabets found in Arabic but not in Persian), Hindi is not written in the same alphabet. I think you are underestimating the importance of the alphabet in the general Muslim culture. These are the alphabets used for writing the Quran, the alphabet itself has a significant importance deeply uprooted in Muslim past history and culture. That is why when the Muslims were ruling India, Urdu went in excellent development but Hindi did not. Once the British took over the Mughal rule, the Hindus saw this as a great opportunity to promote the Sanskritized Devanagari script (because the Sanskritized Devanagari is their sacred script for their Holy Hindu mythologies). Unfortunately, because of the deep Muslim culture rooted in India because of Muslim rule, the spoken and the written language for poetry that had mostly Arabic/Persian derived words, was translated into the Devanagari script. This resulted in the Hindi-Urdu controversy. The Hindus tried to make the Devanagari more prominent, when initially it was only confined to the Hindu mythologies.
So, why should the Sanskrit Devanagari script (written from the left to right) even claim that these words are a part of Hindi, when they are not written or pronounced (the Hindi Devanagari addition of the dots came much later) the same way an Arabic or a Persian person does? There seems to be something fundamentally wrong with this argument.
The common Hindi (not Shudh Hindi) that you talk about contains a majority of Persian/Arabic derived words, and very few Sanskrit-derived words. So if Hindi is trying to claim that these Persian/Arabic derived words are theirs, they have to write them the same way or pronounced the same way as an Arabic/Persian person does. They do not.
This is where the contradiction arises in India: even though the common Hindi speak is influenced by words from Persian/Arabic Muslim culture, because of Indias dominant Hindu culture, India tried to make the Sanskrit Devanagari script of more importance as compared to the Nastaliq script, even though the Nastaliq script is deeply rooted into the Muslim culture of not only the Indian subcontinent, but also of the whole Middle East, Africa, Afghanistan, Iran: where ever Arabic and Persian is spoken. Sanskritized Devanagari is only deeply rooted in the Hinduism religious texts, but it has nothing to do with the Arabic/Persian derived words.
When you start writing the Quran, or deep Persian, Arabic, Urdu poetry into Sanskritized Devanagari script and claim all of those to be SOLELY YOURS, you forget the historical, cultural, linguistic ties that poetry/Quran had with the Persian/Arabic/Islamic culture of its time. Its almost like when you translate Holy Scriptures of a religious book into a completely different language and script.
The problem arose when they tried to translate the works these prominent Urdu poets such as Ghalib, Amir Khusro, Mir Taqi Mir, Bulle Shah etc written in Nastaliq script to the Sanskritized Devanagari script. As you know the limitations of the Sanskritized Devanagari script, the Urdu-lovers of India protested that the Urdu works were getting butchered by the Sanskritized Devanagari script, which is why the Hindi-Urdu controversy took place. This is also the reason why you see most Indians today speak Hindi from the Sanskritized Devanagari script, and butchering the beautiful lanaguage. The Hindi Devanagari script (made by adding dots to certain alphabets of the Sanskritized Devanagari script) was nothing but an artificial creation, predominantly for the Urdu lovers in the state of UP. Unfortunately, even know the Hindi Devanagari script is more gramatically correct than the Sanskritized Devanagari script, because of the love of Indians for Hinduism, as well as the development of the Hindi Devanagari script was only a recent phenomena, most Indians still speak words using the Sanskritized Devanagari script. Even Hindus in Delhi, which has a huge Muslim population, say J-or for zor, F-ir for phir, pare-S-aan for pareshaan etc. The words people from Delhi use are mostly Arabic/Persian derived words, but they still pronounce them from the Sanskritized Devanagari script. This is what one calls the butchering of a beautiful language.
The elderly Indian Muslim relatives I have in Bihar constantly feel their heritage and culture is in danger in India. That is why Urdu (because of its Nastaliq script) is considered a Muslim language in India, while Hindi (Devanagari script) is considered a language for all Indians. However, other states like Tamil Nadu have fought the Indian government, and refused to make it part of the mandatory state curriculum.
