As a result of white-washed history, our generation has come to accept secularism as an eternal and sacrosanct value of Indian history, culture, and society. The Partition of India is explained as some kind of aberration resulting from the abetment given by the British, as a part of their divide-and-rule policy, to a fringe group of Jinnah-led Muslim elites with extremist and separatist mindset. However, a closer and more nuanced look at India’s history from 1800 onwards reveals that modern Muslim separatism or the two-nation theory was not merely a by-product of colonial rule and the quest for identity.
Instead, it was deeply rooted in the exclusivist mindset, scornful attitude towards Hindu subjects and religious and cultural superiority complex among Muslims, rooted in the 1000 years of history of Muslim rule in India. This exclusivist mindset spanned across a wide spectrum of human life; however, a glance at some critical developments in linguistic history, pertaining to the evolution of Urdu, brings forth a glimpse of this deeply-rooted separatist mindset.
By the latter half of the 13th century, Hindavi had fully developed and established itself as a language, independent and distinct from literary Apabhramsha. It was originally the language of the Nathpanthi Siddha yogis, prevalent in the 12th century, which Muslim mystics also adopted. With the Khilji Sultan invasions under Malik Kafur, it spread to southern India. In Hindavi, the linguistic exchange between Sanskrit and Persian streams continued for six centuries until the 17th century. However, in the 17th century, a systematic effort was launched by the Muslim elites to sanitise Hindavi of its Sanskritic heritage and infuse it with Persian and Arabic vocabulary.
According to several eminent experts, this process was a consequence of the Mughal decline. A significant section of the Muslim elites “resolved to create an exclusive cultural zone for themselves in a bid to perpetuate their former status” (Parallel Pathways: Essays on Hindu-Muslim Relations by Meenakshi Jain). The underlying idea was that after the colossal decline of the Mughals, there was a dire need to guard and strengthen their cultural footprint. As a result, Urdu began to separate itself from the Hindi dialects like Awadhi, Bhojpuri, Bundelkhandi, etc., and regional languages like Gujarati, Bengali, etc. To eliminate its Sanskrit influence, Urdu started discarding words that were “the common treasure of all Indian languages.” (Parallel Pathways)
A key role in this communal transformation of Urdu was played by Wali Aurangabadi (1667-1707), also known as Baba-i-Rekhta or Adam-i-Urdu. His visit to Delhi in the early 18th century is considered a significant event in the development of Urdu. A Naqshbandi Sufi mystic, Shah Sadullah Gulshan—who was a disciple of the anti-Hindu extremist cleric Sheikh Ahmed Sarhindi—inspired Wali Aurangabadi to abandon Dakini Hindi in favour of Urdu, with a strong Persian and Arabic influence. As Meenakshi Jain aptly concludes, “The passage from Hindi/Hindavi to Urdu was thus the result of a consciously created rupture.” Interestingly, this linguistic purification coincided with the Islamic reform movement initiated by the Naqshbandi Sufi Shah Waliullah in the 18th century.
Notably, in Pakistan, Deobandi terrorist groups and scholars have historically revered Naqshbandi mystics over their 150-year history. The famous Urdu poets of Delhi, including Sauda, Mir, and Soz, frequently attended mushairas at the house of Mir Dard, a leading Naqshbandi affiliated with the puritanical tariqa Muhammadiya. Mir Dard considered himself the “renovator of the unalloyed religion of Muhammad.”
Over time, due to its Persianisation, Urdu became synonymous with the Muslim community. Indian Muslim scholars like Syed Insha Allah Khan categorically stated that Urdu is the language of Muslims. Dr. Muhammad Iqbal, an iconic figure in the history of the two-nation theory, asserted that his philological attachment to Urdu was as strong as his religious attachment. Thus, Urdu, with its Persian influence, became a language spoken primarily by Muslim elites or by Hindus who served in royal courts or government institutions. However, Urdu never became the language of the masses; even common Muslims did not speak it.
After 1850, the differences between the advocates of Hindi in Devanagari script and Urdu in Persian script, regarding their adoption as court languages, became increasingly prominent. Amidst these controversies, Sir Sayyid Ahmed Khan, the father of the two-nation theory and founder of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), made a revealing statement during a conversation about Muslim education with Mr Shakespeare, the commissioner of Benarus. He said, “I was now convinced that the two communities (Hindus and Muslims) were incapable of putting their heart and soul into anything requiring mutual effort….” Shakespeare was reportedly shocked by Sayyid Ahmed Khan’s views, which prioritised Muslim interests over those of the Indian people as a whole.
Finally, in 1900, when the provincial government of the North-Western Provinces and Oudh granted equal status to the Nagri script and Urdu for certain official purposes, the Muslim leadership was offended, even though the decision had no negative impact on Urdu. The move was perceived as a threat to the economic and cultural interests of Muslims and was strongly criticised by the Urdu Defence Association.
Based on the journey of Urdu discussed above, it can be reasonably concluded that even after 1,000 years of coexistence and interaction with Hindus in India, the Muslim community faced significant challenges in integrating and assimilating with Hindus following the decline of the Mughal Empire.
The author is a Cornell University graduate in public affairs, bachelors from St Stephen’s College, Delhi and has done his PhD on Jaish-e-Mohammad. He is a policy analyst specialising in counterterrorism, Indian foreign policy and Afghanistan-Pakistan geopolitics. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent the stand of this publication.
Comments
0 comment