COMMON BASES OF HINDI AND URDU

Omkar N Koul
Indian Institute of Language Studies
www.iils.org

In this paper the common bases of Hindi and Urdu are discussed
from historical, linguistic, and cultural points of view. Hindi and Urdu are
written in two different scripts and vary in the use of some high
vocabulary (primarily derived from Sanskrit in case of Hindi, and derived
from Perso-Arabic sources in case of Urdu). Though the two languages
have strong common bases but they are driving apart from each other in
their use in certain formal domains. Here, some suggestions are provided
for bringing the languages close to each other and resolving the problems
related to the widening gaps.
The Constitution of India provides for the use of Hindi in
Devanagri script as the official language of the Union of India. It lists 18
major languages including Hindi and Urdu in its Eighth schedule,
providing a choice to all States to choose one or more languages for use as
an official language in the concerned State. Hindi and Urdu, sharing major
linguistic structures at different linguistic levels but written in two
different Scripts (Devanagri and Perso- Arabic respectively), are listed as
two different languages. Besides the Union of India, seven states of India
namely Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Haryana,
Himachal Pradesh, Uttranchal, Jharkhand, Chattisgarh and Delhi have
opted for Hindi as the official language. Whereas all other states have
mostly chosen the languages prominently spoken in the concerned states,
the State of Jammu and Kashmir has opted for Urdu. Urdu also enjoys
second official language status in Andhra Pradesh, Bihar and in certain
regions, for specific purposes.
The political division of Hindi-Urdu into two languages, and the
preference of one over the other in certain domains have given rise to
various problems in their use in education, mass media and administration.
Here we will confine ourselves to the discussion of problems with special
reference to their use in administration. The main problems being the
artificial coinage of administrative terminology and phrases, lack of
standardization, lack of coordination and duplication of efforts. Major
problems are due to ignoring of the common bases of Hindi and Urdu and
not drawing on its strength.
Language plays a specific role in administration. It need not be
emphasized that the use of language in administration is not an end in
itself, it is merely means to run the administration for the welfare and
benefit of inhabitants of a particular region, area, state or the country as a
whole. The use of language is to be valued from the point of view of its
communicability and not by the exhibition of mastery of literary
expressions or linguistic purism. The power of communicability is
strengthened by the use of simple, common and unambiguous words,
expressions, in familiar and popular style. In a participatory democratic
set-up like that of India with low percentage of literacy rate and
multiplicity of languages and their numerous varieties or styles of speech,
communicability is to be ensured at different levels of vertical and
horizontal axis.
Historical and cultural processes and the linguistic affinity which
exist in Indian languages led to emergence of Hindi-Urdu or so called
Hindustani as the lingua-franca of major areas of India long before her
freedom. In earlier period, the languages of administration, Sanskrit in
case of earliest Hindu kingdoms, Persian in case of Muslim dynasties, and
English in case of British regime have mostly remained confined to the
elite. Others have used one form or the other of prakrits, their offshoots or
various spoken languages for communication.
Beginning with the invasion of Mohammed Ghori in the late 12th
century AD, the foreign invaders settled down in India to rule. The Slave,
Tughluq, Lodi and Mughal dynasties used Persian in administration, but
they used the local language spoken in and around Delhi for
communicating with the people for their day to day needs. It was a form of
Apbhramsha, which eventually shaped in the form of khariboli, they called
this language as Hindi - a language belonging to Hind. Thus, the Hindi
language derived its name from the Persian towards the end of the 12th
century or beginning of the 13th century. During the Mughal period, the
word Urdu was derived from the Turkish word ‘Yurt’ or ‘ordu’ that meant
‘military encampment’. This variety was distinguished on the basis or
Perso-Arabic influence at the lexical level and was written in the Perso-
Arabic script. The Hindi-Urdu became the medium of communication
between the Muslim rulers and local people. This was used by both
Muslim and Hindu to preach their religious faiths and belief not only in the
North but in South as well. The solution variety of the speech, best known
as Dakhini, also became medium of literature and socio-religious
discourse. This variety, naturally was influenced by the Dravidian
languages as a result of language contact and convergence.
Due to common structural basis, Hindi and Urdu
continued to be treated as synonymous for centuries at least up to the
period of Mirza Ghalib. Mirza Ghalib called his language Hindi at several
occasions, though he used Perso-Arabic script for writing it. He has named
one of his works as ‘ode-e-Hindi’ (perfume of Hindi).
Primarily in the domain of different genres of literature,
Hindi and Urdu started drifting away from each other not only in the use of
two different scripts but also literary styles and vocabulary. Hindi started
drawing more and more from Sanskrit, and Urdu from Persian and Arabic.
The processes continue till today. Hence the controversy.
 During the British rule, when English was adopted as the
official language, local languages were assigned roles for certain
administrative functions at lower levels of administration. A competition
started between the protagonists or supporters of Hindi and Urdu for
official recognition of their languages. In the first instance, Urdu was
recognized by the Britishers in the Northwest and Oudh, Bihar and the
Central Provinces in 1830 AD as the language of the courts. This was
followed by the recognition accorded to Hindi. Hindi and Urdu were
involved in controversy and mutual competition for their recognition in
various domains of education and administration.
The mutual conflicts were intensified right from the
beginning of the 20th century. On the one hand, there were protagonists of
Hindi and Urdu languages who were eager to maintain separate linguistic
identities, and on the other hand, some national leaders wanted to develop
Hindustani as a combined linguist identity on the basis of its use by
common masses. Bal Gangadhar Tilak pleaded for the use of Hindi as the
national language of India as early as in 1905. Pt. Madan Mohan Malviya
launched a campaign against highly Persianized Urdu jargon used by the
court offices which was as unintelligible as English to the rural Hindus and
Muslims alike.’ (quoted by Brass p. 131). The Muslim League intended to
make Urdu as ‘universal language of India’ (Das Gupta p.121). Hindu
Mahasabha declared that Sanskritized Hindi and not Hindustani deserved
to be the national language of India (Das Gupta p.121).
Gandhi favoured the development of Hindustani and other Indian
languages as against English. He strongly felt that not the English
themselves but our own English knowing men have enslaved India. He
stated, ‘to give millions a knowledge of English was to enslave them’
(Harrison p.56). Gandhi favoured Hindustani as the national language. He
said a national language must fulfill five requirements:

1. It should be easy to learn for government officials.

2. It should be capable of serving as a medium of religious, economic
and political intercourse throughout India.
3. It should be the speech of the majority of the inhabitants of India.
4. It should be easy to learn by the whole of the nation.
5. In choosing the language, considerations of temporary or passing
interest should not be counted.

He categorically stated that no language could compete with Hindi

(by
that he meant Hindustani) in satisfying the above five requirements. He
defined Hindustani as a ‘resultant of Hindi and Urdu, neither highly
Sanskritized nor highly Persianized or Arabiazed’ (Young India 27 Aug.
1925). He clarified that by Hindi he meant the language spoken in the
north by both Hindus and Muslims and was written either in the Devanagri
or in the Persian script. He deplored the Hindi-Urdu controversy and
maintained that it was wrong for the Hindus to reject Persian words, and
for Muslims to reject Sanskrit words. According to him, ‘a harmonious
blend of the two will be as beautiful as the confluence of Ganges and
Yamuna’; blend of the two will be as beautiful as the confluence of
Ganges and Yamuna’. Gandhi addressed a meeting of the Dakshina Bharat
Prachar Sabha in 1946 and said, ‘I want a pledge from you here and now
that you will all learn Hindustani. I say it is your dharma to learn
Hindustani which will link south with the north’ (Harrison p.279). Gandhi
favoured the development of Hindi - Urdu combined as Hindustani at any
cost. When P.D.Tandon wrote him in 1945 that he regarded Urdu as a
particular form of Hindi and that the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan did not
intend to concern itself with that form. Gandhi was angry and gave up the
ordinary membership of the Sammelan (Das Gupta p.122).
Jawaharlal Nehru, Rajendra Prasad and Abul Kalam Azad
supported Gandhi’s ideas whole-heartedly. Nehru declared that Hindustani
should be accepted as the ‘All India language’ (Das Gupta p. 111).
Rajendra Prasad reiterated that structurally there was nothing to
distinguish between these two languages. They seem to represent a
common heritage of both Hindus and Muslims (India Divided p.54)
After independence of the country, Hindi and Hindustani
controversy was more intensified than it was earlier. The adoption of Hindi
in Devanagri script as the official language was the outcome of action plan
drama. Rajendra Prasad and Azad were in favour of Hindustani, and others
were in favour of Sanskritized Hindi. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar has remarked,
‘there was no article, which proved more controversial than article 115,
which deals with the (Hindi) question. No article produced more
opposition. No article produced more heat’ (1955 : 14). The debates
continued in Constituent Assembly as well as outside of it. Azad made a
strong appeal in favour of Hindustani. According to him, ‘the term
Hindustani has developed a wider connotation. It embraces all forms of the
language spoken in northern India. It includes Hindi as well as Urdu, and
even more than that. We have to replace English, which is a literary and
extensive language, with a national language. That can only be done by
making our own language rich and extensive by giving it the name of
Hindustani alone, you can widen its scope’ (CAD P.1454-1456).
Rajendra Prasad said, ‘if Hindi has to progress, even ‘sentiment
would dictate a compromise, which will recognise a policy of non-boycott
of words of foreign origin which would include various styles in the Hindi
language within its scope and while recognizing the Devanagri script as
the only script for all India purpose would for a limited period as a matter
of convenience, allow the use of even the Urdu by people who desire to
use it’ (Hindustan Times 21st Aug 1949).
It is believed that the official language of the Union was decided
just by one vote. Seth Govind Das has written, when the votes were taken
78 were in favour of Hindi and 77 in favour of Hindustani’. The question
of numerals was the most controversial, the international form of India
numerals was adopted amid protests by some Hindi protagonists.
As per constitutional provisions, Hindi was to replace English
within 15 years of its adoption as the official language of the Union,
immediate task in front of the Govt. was to develop administrative register
in the language involving administrative terminology and phrases. Shyama
Prasad Mukherjee (on 13 Sept. 1949) pleaded for allowing Hindi to
develop in the natural process by absorbing words and idioms not from
Sanskrit but also from other sister languages of India (CAD vol. ix p.
1391). Nehru observed, ‘I am quite sure if we proceed wisely with the
Hindi language, we proceed wisely in two ways by making it an inclusive
language and not an exclusive one, and in it all the language elements in
Hindustani, not by statute, remember, but by allowing it to grow’ (CAD
vol. ix, p.1414).
The task for the development of Administrative registers in the
language and for making Hindi acceptable to all was spread over for first
three five-year plans. It was planned to prepare technical terminology in
Hindi, to make Hindi as a compulsory subject in secondary schools in all
the non-Hindi speaking states, to propagate its use in non-Hindi speaking
states, and make Hindi popular by adult literacy programmes in Hindi. A
Board of Scientific and Technical Terminology was set-up in 1950. The
terminology prepared by the Board was to be approved by the export
committee of the Govt. of India.
The Official Language Commission was constitute for reporting to
the President. It proved following requisites for the change over of the
language in administration:
1. Preparation and standardization of the necessary special
terminology used in the administration
2. Translation into Hindi of official publication embodying rules,
regulations, manuals and other procedural literature.
3. Development and furnishing of mechanical and service aids in
Hindi, and
4. Training of administrative personnel of different categories in
Hindi.

It was desired that in preparing the terminology, clarity, precision

and
simplicity should be aimed at and international terminology, should be
adopted and adapted in evolving terms for all Indian languages. It was not
done in practice.
Despite the guidelines provided by the commission and the
assurance given by the Govt. the Hindi enthusiasts at the helm of affairs
coined artificially technical terminology without bothering about its
acceptability. A great emphasis was laid on the Sanskritization of Hindi for
it was thought that it would be easily understood in most parts of the
country, and all this was done in the name of implication of Article 351 of
constitution. Translations of official documents into Hindi, which came
out at a fast pace, were not acceptable to many. Frank Anthony, a member
of the CPOL stated, ‘new Hindi is a negation of secular democracy, that it
spells the immediate destruction of minority languages’. Nehru and some
other leaders were also very much worried by the philosophy of purist
movement which was pleading for pure Hindi in which Urdu words had no
place. Participating in the discussion of the report of the CPOL in the Lok
Sabha on the 4th September 1959, Nehru stated, ‘the type of Hindi they
produce is really a most extraordinary one. I am not worried about it, it is
only irritating. What kind of Hindi are we really going to have? This
business of some kind of slot machine turning out Hindi words and Hindi
phrases, that kind of approach is artificial, unreal, absurd, fantastic and
laughable approach’. Dinkar said in Rajya Sabha on the 4th March 1958, ‘
the language which is described by us as office Hindi is becoming unduly
difficult and this grievance is not only of those who recognise Hindi as
their mother tongue’.
Again in the National integration conference held in 1962, Nehru
observed that it was difficult to understand Hindi words which were being
coined. Dinkar remarked that those coining Hindi terms were rendering the
greatest disservice to the country (Bhasha Nov 1961 : 135). Dinkar later
clarified that what he had stated in the conference was that so long as
Hindi was not rescued from the clutches of the coiners of words, it would
continue to be difficult and stilted. Dictionaries should serve as an aid to a
language and they could not replace the languages. (Bhasha 1961 : 135).
It was due to simply weeding out of simple Urdu and English
words, artificial coinage of terminology. Hindi translation of official
documents was found to be stilted even for that well acquainted with Hindi
appeared quite unnatural. Most often it was felt the Hindi words were
grafted in English sentence structures. Some non-Hindi speaking states
immediately reacted to the state of affairs and raised their voice against
this kind of Hindi and its so called imposition. Government had to
reconsider the whole issue. Nehru declared, ‘there must be no imposition.
Secondly, for an indefinite period, I do not know how long, I would have,
English as an associate additional language. I would have it as an
alternative language, as long as people require it and the decision for that I
would leave not on the Hindi knowing people but to the non-Hindi
knowing people’. This resulted in the passing of official language Act
1963 that was later amended in 1967. This gave a fresh lease to the
continuation of English as an associate official language for indefinite
period.
The structure of administrative Hindi continued to be debated by
academicians and politicians. Niharanjan Roy made his observations in
1967 as follows:
‘Though Hindi has been declared as the office Language of the Union, its
form existing at the time of a regional character, and with a view to
enabling it to perform an all India role it had to be so developed as to make
acceptable to the people living in different parts of the country as their
own’ (Quoted in S.Dwivedi 1981 : 209). He accused the Govt. for taking
Hindi away from colloquial speech. He stated, ‘I object to the Govt.’
(Language and society of India. Present Hindi is remodeled so as to carry
the non-Hindi speaking section with you’. According to Dwivedi ‘In
incorporating the Article 351 in the constitution, the idea precisely was to
lift Hindi from its regional character and raise it to the status of an all India
language by drawing support from all the 8th schedule languages, and
Hindustani for its form, style and expressions and from all languages for
its vocabulary’ (1981 : 210). The wide criticism made about the structure
of administrative Hindi had a constructive impact.
In a meeting of the central Hindi committee held on December
20,1972, members were unanimous on the use of simple, intelligence and
mixed type of Hindi. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, who chaired the
meeting, sounded a note of warming and said, ‘a watch has to be kept to
ensure that Hindi does not become a victim of officialese’. Some more
positive steps were taken. A Govt. of India circular dated March 17, 1976
provided a new hope. It reiterated the following points :

1. Simple Hindi should be used in writing notes and letters, so that it

is
easily understood by all. For communicating one’s views to
others, it is
not enough that the writer himself should understand what has
been
written, rather it is more important that the reader should
understand
what the writer actually wishes to convey.
2. Only the words, which are commonly understood, should be
increasingly
used in official work and there should be no hesitation whatsoever
in
using popular words of other languages.
3. Whenever it is felt that the reader may find it difficult to
understand a
particular technical word or designation in Hindi, it would be
helpful if its English equivalent is also written in brackets.

Keeping in view the current official language policy, there is a

wide scope for drawing on the strength of common basis of Hindi and
Urdu as far as their use in administration is concerned. Hindi and Urdu still
continue to be two literary varieties of single communication code and the
use of it would be helpful in strengthening the communicability of Hindi in
administration and widening its horizons. Besides adopting common
vocabulary of Urdu, Hindi has imbibed certain styles of Urdu. The simple
words and expressions given in brackets below can replace the problem of
the unnatural coinage of new terms and unfamiliar expressions.

bhaanti (tarah), puurnatah (puurii tarah), lambit rakhaa

jaae (rookee rakhaa jaae), nisheedh (mana), anudeesh
(hidaayat), samswiikriti (manzuurii) paksh vipaksh
(aagaa piichaa) prastut (peesh), paraamarsh (salaah),
adhisheesh (baakii) antsheesh (rookaR baakii), aadisheesh
(rookaR jamaaii), biijak(bil), adhivakta (vakiil), aarakshak
(sipaahii), vidhi bhang karnaa (kannuun toRnaa),
pratibandh (shart), adyta (aaj tak), abhiyaacnaa (mAAg),
padoonnti (taraqqi), aashodhan (tarmiim), yathaaaa
shoodhit (tarmiim kee saath), pravart (laagu), prathamtahh
(pahlee too), preeshan (ravaangii), vicalan (fark),
pravishTii (indraaj), sancikaa (misil), ghoor pramaad
(bhaari laaparvaahii), anveeshan (taphtiish) sandarbh
(havaalaa), avar praakkalan (kam anumaan), alp vay
(kam umr), alp vaysk (naa-baalig) etc.

There is lack of standardizaion in the usage of administrative

terms and phrases. There are instances of the usage of different words and
expressions in Hindi for the same administrative terms or expressions.
Different terms and expressions are used in different regions or states. A
particular term or expression used in one region or state for a particular
concept, is used for different concept in other region. For example, the
terms nirdeeshak nidee shak and sancaalak are used for ‘lecturer’,
pravaacak, vaacak, upaacaarya for ‘reader’ kulsaciv, panjiiyak for
‘registrar’, shikshak, prashikshak and anudeeshak for ‘instructor’, anuman
Daladhikaari:, up a manDaladhikaari and pargana adhikaarii are used for
Sub Divisional Officer, sancikaa, misil are used for ‘file’, abhiyantaa and
yaantrik are used for ‘engineer’ in different regions. The terms ziladhiish,
zilaadhikaari:, and samaaharta are used for ‘collector’, van rakshak, and
van paal are used for ‘forest guard’; van raajii and van vritadhikaari for
‘ranger’, aranyapaal and van manDaladhikaarii for ‘divisional forest
officer’, etc. are used in different regions and States. Therefore, there is a
need for standardization of administrative terms and phrases.
Again, there is a lack of coordination between various agencies
involved in the preparation of glossaries of technical and administrative
terms and expressions. It would have been economical to consolidate all
efforts made by different states or regions at one place and draw on the
common resources. This would have saved the duplication of work.
 Urdu is the official language of the state of Jammu and Kashmir,
and it is also recognized as a second official language in certain areas of
Andhra Pradesh and Bihar for its use in local administration. The use of
Urdu in administration in the provisions, it is used in Jammu and Kashmir
mainly at lower levels of administration. Furthermore, there is no agency
to monitor the actual use of Urdu in administration.
Like Hindi enthusiasts, protagonists of Urdu have attempted to
drift the administrative register of the language away from the common
masses. The high Persianized administrative and technical terminology
coined in Urdu lacks fluency in use. The terminology is not standardized
yet. The translations of the official documents attempted so far are stilted
and lack communicability. There is lack of coordination in the work being
done by various State and central agencies for the development of
administrative register in Urdu. This kind of half-heartedness will not help
Urdu to develop its administrative register. As long as Urdu continues to
be used as a tool in the hands of politicians, Hindi and Urdu controversy is
bound to widen.
The only alternative solution in the circumstances of widening
Hindi and Urdu controversy to our mind would be to simplify the use of
administrative Hindi drawing on the strength of common linguistic bases
of Hindi-Urdu and evolve common administrative terminology and
phrases which are understood by the Hindi-Urdu speech community as a
whole. Furthermore, we would suggest that Perso-Arabic (or Urdu) script
should be recognized as additional alternative script and it can be used in
those States and regions where there is need or demand for it. This would
definitely help the development of common administrative register of
Hindi-Urdu.

REFERENCE

Ambedkar, B.R. 1955. Thoughts on Linguistic States. Bombay.

Brass, Paul A. Language Religion and Politics in North India. New Delhi:
Vikas.
Das Gupta, Jotiridra Language, Conflict and National Development.
Bombay: Oxford University Press.
Dwivedi, S. 1981. Hindi on Trial. New Delhi: Vikas.
Government of India. CAD (Constituent Assembly Debates).
Governmenet of India. Preparation and Development of Hindi ( 1952-
1967).
Government of India. Report of the Official Language Commission. 1956.
Government of India 1961. Bhasha.
Kumaramangalam, S. Mohan. India’s Language Crisis. Madras: New
Century Book House.
C-13, Greenview Apartments
Plot No. 33, Sector 9, Rohini,
Delhi - 110085