Ever since Jawaharlal Lal Nehru said that he did not regard Mahatma Gandhi as his political guru - while accepting him as his spiritual mentor, Ghandijee's hold on the congress began to slip away.
The national language question for India, ever since, the 20s, is one example of the complications which arose due to the leadership vacuum on the language question. Gandhi was quite steadfast in his thinking that only Hindustani ie Hindi & Urdu in Devnagri and Persian script to, could be the National Language of India up to early 40's. The Hindustani was supposed to replace English, while the languages of the provinces, would continue to enjoy their positions in those states as before.
Gandhi, in his writings, in Harijan as referred in M.P Desai's Hindi Parchar Movement (Ahmadabad 1957), had time and again pointed out that Hindustani in Devnagri & Persian scripts was best suited for independent India.
Gandhi's first public pronouncement in India on the question of the Hindi movement was made in his presidential address to the second Gujrat Educational Conference Bharuch in 1917. He thought that Hindi should be acklowledge as the lingua franca or the Antar Bhasha of India. He asked: "Then which is the language which fulfils all the five requirements (That it should be easy to learn for Govt. officials; capable of serving as medium of instruction throughout India; to be the speech of the majority of the inhabitants of India; easy to learn for the whole of the country and that it satisfies the permanent interest of the country.) We shall have to admit that it is Hindi. I call that language Hindi which Hindus and Muslims in the North speak and which is written in the Devnagri or Urdu script". (The Hindi Parchar Movement by M.P Desai, Ahmedabad, 1957 Page 45)
With Gandhi's above clarification about Hindi it is clear that the latter-day exponents of Hindi who regarded only Hindi in Devnagri script as the Hindi and Hindi in Persian script as the language they won't accept as Hindi are the stark communalists who had the cheek to oppose Mahatma Gandhi. The communal protagonists of Hindi in Devnagri script also flouted Jawaharlal Nehru, Babu Rajendra Prashad and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad's clear-cut opinion on National Language issue. (The Hindi Parchar Movement by M.P Desai, Ahmedabad, 1957 Page 24)
Jawahar Lal Nehru had clearly said " In the Hindustani speaking area both Hindi and Urdu, with their scripts, should be officially recognised. Public notifications should be issued in both scripts. Either script might be used by a person in addressing a court or a public office, or he should be called upon to supply a copy in the other script. (The Hindi Parchar Movement by M.P Desai, Ahmedabad, 1957 Page 51).
Inspite of the above facts that Gandhi made a Himalyan blunder in once okaying UP Congress Committee's demand for the same under Tandon and Sampurnnanad's persuasions in 1942. Inspite of his life-long stand on this issue, this blunder, made in the heat of Quit India Movement of the Congress, created a lot of furore. Muslim League had all along held Urdu as the National Language of Indian Muslims. It was not a surprise, therefore, that it declared Urdu to be its favourite national language in its election manifesto in the 1946-47 elections.
Muslim League had been supporting the cause of Urdu ever since its inception on 1906 and the Gandijee's move to favour Hindustanis, Devnagri and Persian scripts was infact, meant to assure the Muslims had Urdu was infact, Hindustani in Persian Script and hence acceptable.
So it is not Muslim League's adoption of Urdu as the National Language of Muslims of India, which is a strange development but Gandhi's volte-face about the two versions of Hindustani, which created the divide.
Gandhi's succumbing to the communalists within the Congress camp led to the partition of India. They pressurised Gandhi without caring that the bandwagon of linguistic unity of India would be derailed in the process. They didn't realise that the Muslims of India already regarded Urdu as their National Language and they would feel justified to regard Urdu as a language forsaken by the majority of community.
Urdu has its roots in Surseni Prakrit. Ninety percent of its verbs, common nouns and all of its prepositions are Prakrit- based. There is no denying the fact that both Dr Sunit Kumar Chatterjee and Dr Gayan Chand Jain regard Urdu & Hindi being one and the same language. Dr Gayan Chand Jain's controvrsal book, 'Ek Bhasha, Do Likhawat Aur Do Adab' accepts the fact that Urdu and Hindi are one language containing two scripts.
The difference of scripts leads to the separate classification of literature written in Devnagri and Persian scripts for the sake of convenience. This is true that the script above was not a controversial factor. The bone of contention was the preponderance of Sanskrit and Persian vocabulary in Hindi and Urdu respectively.
Hindi and Urdu been divested of the preponderance of Sanskrit and Persian vocabulary and stuck to the basic vocabulary common to both languages could be accepted by Hindu and Muslims alike, inspite of the difference of scripts. There is an example that some Urdu Journals, rendered in Devngri script, were patronised by the Hindi supporters as their own journals.
Even Ghalib's Diwan, rendered in Devngri script, having translation of Persian words in simple Hindi footnotes, is published in thousands and a good number of Hindi readers appreciate Ghalib as if he were a Hindi poet.
I have come across journals quoting verses of quite a few Urdu poets as Hindi poets. This is not surprising as no two languages are so close to each other as Urdu and Hindi. They originate from the same stem. It is only their speaker's predilection for the Devnagri or Persian script, which arraigns them against each other.
Any how the literary traditions of these two languages have to differ when the writers of these languages decide to choose between the Sanskrit and Persian / Arabic for the classical support. Sanskrit is an ancient language with its own literary tradition so the difference of orientation towards Sanskrit literature is liable to relate it to the Hindu tradition. Not that the Urdu literature has not drawn upon Indian folklore and Hindu pantheon.
Dr Narang's trilogy tracing the influence of Hindu or Indian heritage on Urdu literature speaks volumes for the richness of Urdu. However, it could be said that Urdu literature, unlike Hindi, draws upon Persian and Arabic mainsprings, which are rich in Islamic legacy.
Apart from the above difference in orientation there is nothing that divides the two literatures. This is the kind of 'cleavage' which curriculum experts could bridge by filling up the gaps. It is strange that what could be remedied by efforts, less strenuous & vigorous, than the revival of Hebrew in Israel was not considered worth striving for.
The result being that the Urdu - Hindi divide was allowed to cement itself and we have to accept Dr Gayan Chand's, thesis "One Language Two Scripts and Two Literature". Quite a strange proposition. Anyhow this divide, man-made as it is, continues to be frowned upon by nature and the entertainment industry of India only proves that Urdu is only good Hindi for most South Indians and a bit of more Muslim and hence different from Hindi for the North Indians.
Isn't it a fact that India's North was more loud/hyper than its South. It helped create a country than reach some kind of a consensus on script, Gandhi and Nehru believed to be the ideal. Even Maulvi Abdul Haq and his Urdu brigade were fully behind this consensus up to 1943.
Comments
Comments are closed.