HINDI VS URDU

An Artificial Divide?
SUDARSH RATHI,201125172 0 ASIF HUSSAIN,201225086 RUDHIR SIDDHAM,201225195

The Question
The purpose of this paper or 'the problem statement' is to analyze if Hindi and Urdu two separate languages, two varieties of a same language or a single variety.

Some definitions before we proceed

Register: Manner of speaking or writing specific to a certain function, that is, characteristic of a certain domain of communication (or of an institution), for example, the language of religious sermons, of parents with their child, or of an employee with his/her supervisor. Style: The characteristic use of language in a text. When referring to the speaker, style is more or less the controlled choice of linguistic means, whereas in referring to texts, style is the specific form of language. For the reader or listener, style is
1

the variation (or confirmation) of possible expectations, i.e. the observation and interpretation of linguistic specifics. Dialect Continuum: A dialect continuum, or dialect area, was defined by Leonard Bloomfield as a range of dialects spoken across some geographical area that differ only slightly between neighboring areas, but as one travels in any direction, these differences accumulate such that speakers from opposite ends of the continuum are no longer mutually intelligible. Standard Language: A standard language (also standard dialect or standardized dialect) is a language variety used by a group of people in their public discourse. Alternatively, varieties become standard by undergoing a process of standardization, during which it is organized for description in grammars and dictionaries and encoded in such reference works. Typically, varieties that become standardized are the local dialects spoken in the centers of commerce and government, where a need arises for a variety that will serve more than local needs. Pluricentric Language:A pluricentric language or polycentric language is a language with several standard versions, both in spoken and in written forms. This situation usually arises when language and the national identity of its native speakers do not, or did not, coincide. Diagraphia: In sociolinguistics, digraphia refers to the use of more than one writing system for the same language. Some scholars differentiate between synchronic digraphia with the
2

coexistence of two or more writing systems for the same language and diachronic (or sequential) digraphia with the replacement of one writing system by another for a particular language. Diglossia: Diglossia refers to a stable situation in which two dialects or usually closely related languages are used by a single speech community for different functions.

The Introduction
The Hindi-Urdu controversy is an age-old debate with its roots lying in the medieval history of India and the conflict finally taking shape in the 19th Century. While the question, are Hindi and Urdu same languages, was officially settled by the Government of India in 1950, when it declared Hindi as the official language of governance, the actual dilemma lives on. It is very much important to note that the problem does not only have social undertones but is awash and very much shaped by social differences. Hindi and Urdu are literary registers are literary registers of the Khariboli dialect of Hindi Languages, spoken by a large number of people in the sub-continent across the Hindi dialect continuum. It is worth noting that, a large a number of people in the 'Hindi belt' speak their local dialects of Hindi as mother tongue and the above-mentioned registers of Khariboli are later acquired. A persianized variant of Khariboli is referred with
3

names Hindi, Urdu & Hindustani. In the following report we will first put forward and compare the structural aspects of both the varieties and the similarities and differences. We will then analyze the origin of these varieties lying in the history of medieval India analyzing some literary works for their linguistic features. We will understand the social aspects of the development of the respective varieties and try to ascertain when, how and why these they diverge. Here in we will also try to analyze the existence of the 'Hindustani language'. We will also see the role writing systems played in this interesting case. Further later into the report we will take example of some modern conversations as obsereve the sociolinguistic peculiarities associated with it. Thus with the help of these we will attempt to arrive at few conclusion, closing statement and possibly and answer to the imminent question. Here in we will also try to analyze the existence of the Hindustani language

The Varities
Hindi
Hindi, or more precisely Modern Standard Hindi is a standardised and sanskritised register of the Hindustani language (Hindi-Urdu). It is the mother tongue of people living in Delhi, Haryana, Western Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, northeastern Madhya
4

Pradesh, and parts of eastern Rajasthan, and is one of the official language of India though there are many non-native speakers from other parts of India who understand it easily because it is closely-related to their own native languages that, just like Hindi, descended from various Prakrits. These languages have common roots and the native speakers of several regional Indian languages find it easier to understand the more Sanskritised form of Hindi. Colloquial Hindi is mutually intelligible with another register of Hindustani called (Modern Standard) Urdu. Mutual intelligibility decreases in literary and specialized contexts which rely on educated vocabulary. The number of native speakers of Standard Hindi is unclear. According to the 2001 Indian census, 258 million people in India reported their native language to be "Hindi". However, this includes large numbers of speakers of Hindi languages other than Standard Hindi; as of 2009, the best figure Ethnologue could find for Khariboli dialect (the basis of Hindustani) was a 1991 citation of 180 million.

Urdu
Urdu, or more precisely Standard Urdu, standardised and persianized register of the Hindustani language (Hindi-Urdu). It is the national language and lingua franca of Pakistan. It is also an official language of five Indian states and one of the 22 scheduled languages in the Constitution of India.
5

Based on the Khariboli dialect of Delhi, Urdu developed under the influence of Persian, Arabic, and Turkic languages over the course of almost 900 years.It originated in the region of Uttar Pradesh in the Indian subcontinent during the Delhi Sultanate (12061527), and continued to develop under the Mughal Empire (15261858). Urdu is mutually intelligible with Standard Hindi spoken in India. Both languages share the same Indo-Aryan base, and are similar in basic structure, grammar and to a large extent vocabulary and phonology. The combined population of Urdu and Standard Hindi speakers is the fourth largest in the world.

Phonology
Hindi and Urdu still retains the original Indo-European distinction between aspirated and unaspirated voiced plosives (cf. Indo-European *ghrdho and Hindi ghar (house). It retains the distinction between aspirated and unaspirated voiceless plosives that emerged in Indo-Aryan, that is, the distinction between kal (time) and khal (skin). Another Indo-Aryan feature, that of retroflexion, is also their in Hindi and Urdu, cf. tota (parrot) and oa (lack). These two features, that is those of aspiration and retroflexion, are mainly responsible for why HindiUrdu sounds so different from its European cousins. Stress is not distinctive in both Hindi & Urdu; words are not distinguished on the basis of stress alone. The tense vowels are phonetically long; in pronunciation the vowel quality as well as length is maintained irrespective of the position of the vowel or stress in the word. Hindi sounds a
6

represented with Devanagari script while Urdu sounds in PersoArabic script

Hindi sounds

Urdu sounds
9

Morphology
Rules regarding both derivational and inflectional morphology are identical in both Hindi and Urdu. Interestingly both the languages uses affixes in ways consistent with the Indo-Aryan and also affixes borrowed from Persian and Arabic. Example, Urdu: Sing. /vlid/ /vlid/ /vlid/ (Parent) Plur. /vlid/ (Parents,oblique case) /vlid/ /vlidain/ (Parents)

Clearly in first case the affix is from Khariboli,the second case is similar to /pit/ while the third one has affix borrowed from persian. Similarly in Hindi,
10

Hindi: /likhan/ ----------------------->/likh/ /likhan/ ----------------------->/likhvaa/ (write,verb) (handwriting,noun)

The first case is a common form in Hindi while the second one is persianized. In Hindi,a sanskritized register, and Urdu,a persianized register, comparative and superlative adjectival forms using suffixes derived from those languages can be found indicating a divergence in the fact that from where the variety are drawing upon. Hindi/Sans. Comparative Superlative -tar -tam Urdu/Pers. -tar -tarin

The varying forms for the 3rd pn. dir. constitute one of the small number of grammatical differences between Hindi and Urdu. yah "this" / ye "these" / vah "that" / ve "those" is the literary set for Hindi while ye "this, these" / vo "that, those" is the set for Urdu and spoken (and also often written) Hindi. Many nouns which are masculine in Urdu are feminine in Hindi, the opposite also being true. An interesting observation is that higher use of compound verbs
11

in Urdu compared to Hindi. For example look at the same utterance in the two varieties, Hindi: | Urdu: | English: They are endowed with reason and conscience. In sentences in which a conjunctive participle is used to refer to the first act in a series of two, if the first act is in some sense a 'cause' for the second act, Hindi prefers the conjunctive suffix kar be dropped and only the root of the first verb used. In Urdu, on the other hand, the use of conjunctive suffix is always required.For example, Hindi: uko dekh ham ro pae Urdu: uko dekhkar ham ro pae English: On seeing him we burst into tears. Despite few subtle differences in rules the grammar is consistent across the two varieties.

The Lexicon
It is generally accepted that Hindi and Urdu differ mainly in the
12

lexicon and vocabulary though the nature and degree of lexical differences present complex problems when viewed under the light of other integral linguistic aspects. Thus it becomes extremely difficult to draw a clear boundary line between Hindi and Urdu. Emperically you can ascertain if a word-form has been borrowed from Sanskrit or Perso-Arabic but that does not necessarily infer that the sample observed is Hindi or Urdu. This is because both Perso-Arabic and Sanskrit words are common in both Hindi and Urdu. For example we could take some work of a writer like Premchand and try to ascertain whether it belongs to Hindi or Urdu but the use of the writer's lexicon would be affected heavily by his linguistic and educational background thus blurring the differences if any.

The History and Origin

The history of Hindi, Urdu and Hindustani is so entwined that it may point towards a conclusive answer to our 'the question'. Most of the grammar and basic vocabulary of these variety descends directly from the medieval language of central India, known as Sauraseni,a dramatic prakrit in which msot medieval dramas were written. After the tenth century, several Sauraseni dialects gave rise to varieties including Braj Bhasha, Awadhi and Khari Boli, the latter being prevalent in Delhi and surrounding rural areas. After the Islamic invasion of India, in the Delhi Sultanate period, Delhi become a seat of power and centre of commerce under various Arabic, Persian and Turkic dynasties. These made
13

Persian the language of the imperial court and thus began a variety of interaction of between the Muslim and Hindu cultures and their languages. During this formative period of the language it was referred as Hindi, Hindavi, or Dehlvi, a language under the influence of Persian as well as many regional varieties. Though this period saw most literary works in either Persian or other dialects of Hindi like Awadhi and Braj-bhasha by bhakti saints many sufis of North India, Nath-Panthis, local poets, Kabir and Amir Khusrao.

Amir Khusrao The following is the work of Amir Khusrao Delhavi who is said to write Hindavi, the first recorded poet in Khariboli, Khusro dariya prem ka, ul v k dhr, Jo ubhr so b gay, jo b so pr.
14

(Khusro! the river of love has a reverse flow He who floats up will drown (will be lost), and he who drowns will get across.) Sej vo sn dekh ke rovun main din rain, Piy piy main karat hn pahron, pal bhar sukh n chain. (Seeing the empty bed I cry night and day Calling for my beloved all day, not a moment's happiness or rest.)

Kabir while the following are the few works of Kabir in Khariboli affected by other dialects of Hindi, Jab Tun Aaya Jagat Mein, Log Hanse Tu Roye Aise Karni Na Kari, Pache Hanse Sab Koye (When you were born in this world
15

Everyone laughed while you cried Conduct NOT yourself in manner such That they laugh when you are gone) Chinta Aisee Dakini, Kat Kaleja Khaye Vaid Bichara Kya Kare, Kahan Tak Dawa Lagaye (Worry is the bandit that eats into one's heart What the doctor can do, what remedy to impart?) The former may be identifiable with Urdu today while the later with Hindi though the works are inherently written in the same languages with borrowings from little Perso-Arabic or Sanskrit. From here on, this emergent language Hindavi travelled to south with spread of Muslim rule towards the Deccan giving rise to a variety there which was in turn influenced by local languages and eventually emerged as Dakhani. With the consolidation of power at Delhi from the period of 12th to 17th century, the language developed at centres like Delhi,Agra and Lucknow influenced by local Awadhi and displaced others to emerge as the prestige dialect. During this period the language was also reffered to as Rekhta (literally "mixed language") though the use of the name is though to have extended into the 19th century as evident in this quote of Galib, Rexte ke tum h ustd nah ho lib, Kihte hai agle zamne me ko mr bh th. In 1776, the word Urdu was first time used to describe this
16

language by poet Mashafi(1750-1824). It comes from 'Zaban-eUrdu' or language of the camp as it was called during the mughal period as Urdu was the word for a barack.For example, Shahajahan named the market near the royal fort 'Urdu-Bazaar'. At this period we observe the emergence of different bases of the two varieties of Hindi and Urdu mainly for three reasons. 1. Firstly, a large body of Dakhani literature had been and was being written in Perso-Arabic script and this affected the northern variety which adopted that script to develop a separate identity thus limiting the access to a large literary strata. 2. Secondly, some conscious efforts were made by stalwarts like Khan Arzu, Shah Hatim and Mazhar Janejanan who laid out principles for weeding out the indigenous Hindi words and incorporating their Arabic and Persian counterparts in 18th century. 3. Finally, by the end of 18th century and the beginning of 19th century prose was being written widely in Khariboli by Hindu writers who wrote in Devanagari or Kathi script and drew upon Sanskrit vocabulary. The British at the Fort William College at Calcutta encouraged writing in both styles and by 1800 Hindi and Urdu emerged as pluricentric varieties with a flurry of works in both of them. The divergence was further consolidated by the polarization of literateurs in favour of one variety or the other. This was followed by many colonial events that contributed to the development of antagonistic attitudes between them. First, Persian was replaced by Urdu written in Perso-Arabic script as
17

the official and court language with English in British-ruled provinces in north India. Not only this helped the transfer from Muslim to British rule but also caused uproar in the Hindu community drawing resistence along communal lines. It was argued that the Persian script something alien to the Indian people and gave rise to the Hindi Movement flooding north India with pamphlets and critiques written in Devanagari supplimenting linguistic chauvinism. When, in 1881, Urdu in Persian script was replaced by Hindi in Devanagari script, the Muslim community saw this as a offensive against Urdu and retaliated with Urdu Movement. This heightened the cultural inclinations of the two communities towards different languages. Hindi and Urdu started to be considered essetial to the identity of Hindus and Muslims respectively. During the national movement revolved around the issue of selecting vernacular of people,'a vernacular Hindi' as the language in which the citizens of the future nation could speak to each other. It had the support of Gandhi who deplored as linguistic antagonism and debated in favour of re-merging the varieties as Hindustani. Although it was not clear what exactly this Hindustani would be, it was unquestionably the people's vernacular that had the appeal and support for becoming the centerpiece of national struggle. But over the period of time, the discursive space of the people's vernacular was progressively usurped by Sanskrit 'Hindi' and Persianized 'Urdu'. What remained common in this transformation is only the continuity in the name from Hindustani to Hindi (literally still meaning Indian). The internal linguistic forms underwent radical change. With the partition, 'Sanskritized Hindi' and 'Persianized Urdu'
18

came into existence. Such linguistic engineering is often undertaken at the behest of a select social elite either to appropriate political power or to maintain the status quo. In such cases, a premium is always placed on the language of the social elite. The emergence of separatist tendencies in linguistic engineering not only created the 'Hindi-Urdu' equation, but also set into motion forces of Sanskritization and Persianization within the secular Hindustan. Here we observed that political motivations drove both communities to champion for a pristine Urdu or pristine Hindi which possessed aspects of power which were trying to create speech communities speaking a language that mimic and glorifies cultural history. This provides the means by which people construct ideological representations of differences in linguistic practices and focus on linguistic differences for defining 'self' against some imagined 'other' in the identity formation.

Can script effect language?

In sociolinguistics, digraphia refers to the use of more than one writing system for the same language. An case of digraphia is Hindi-Urdu, which is written, as mentioned above, in the Devanagari script or the Perso-Arabic script is considered a typical and extreme example of it. In such cases of 'typical' digraphia the difference in script can create profound differences both linguistic and societal- in grammar and lexicon, in culture and religion, in way of life and
19

sensibility. As mentioned above one of the main reason for the divergence of Hindi and Urdu was the use of Perso-Arabic Script in Urdu literary and official practices. Towards the second quarter of the nineteenth century, the British government decided to replace Persian with Urdu in PersoArabic script as the official language so that the people could freely approach the government with their petitions. This gave rise of oppostion of the Urdu variety from the Hindu community who considered that the script was an alien script and was inaccessible giving rise to institutions like 'Arya Samaj' and 'The Hindi Movement' favouring sanskritization of the language.This situation continued till 1870. In the 1880s, the governments of Bihar and the Central Provinces decided to allow official work to be conducted in Hindi written in the Nagari script. The Devanagari script was allowed to replace the two scripts Perso-Arabic and Kaithi then extensively in use. It was also introduced in the schools throughout these provinces, but no one wanted it, because it was of no practical use to anyone. Instead, people continued to use the Kaithi script. Attendance in schools using the Devanagari script for instruction continued to be low and the government was forced to reconsider the issue of the scripts. At this time, criticism of the Kaithi script gained momentum. Supporters of the Nagari script aggressively pointed out that Kaithi was not just hard to read but was also phonetically inadequate . In the wake of these criticisms, the government decided to improve the Kaithi script. In some areas, particularly in Avadh, significant improvements were introduced. Consequently, Kaithi became a more functional
20

script. However, the efforts to improve the Kaithi script did not go far in either effect or duration, as the government policy suddenly veered in favor of Nagari-script Hindi as the official language of U.P. By 1900, Khari Boli Hindi written in the Nagari script had received official recognition in Bihar, the Central Provinces, and the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh. The supremacy of the Devanagari script over the other prevalent scripts was sealed by government. Such events drived a wedge between the communites. An extraordinarily large amount of political energy was expended on Hindi-Urdu digraphia as communal tensions between Hindus and Muslims increased. There was fear among Muslims that Urdu and in particular its script were in danger of being supplanted altogether by Hindi. Such fear had been driving them towards persianization of the language. Gandhi an advocate of 'Hindustani' rather Hindi or Urdu believed that the question of script was irrelevant.Those who favored the traditional PersoArabic script of Urdu were free to write in that; those who preferred the traditional Devanagari script of Hindi were free to use that. But as similar to the idea of Hindustani, this idea lost momentum as India approached partition. It would be going too far to blame Hindi-Urdu digraphia for the partition of British India into the separate nations India and Pakistan; but it would not be going too far in the least to reify Hindi-Urdu digraphia as a metaphor for communal conflict between Hindus and Muslims on the subcontinent.

21

The Present
An interesting account, A student from the United States makes her first trip to Delhi, India after spending four semesters at the University of Michigan studying Hindi. In desperate need of a guidebook, she steps into a small, Hindu-owned store and asks,Namaste. Mujhe ek achhii kitaab kii zaruurat hai. Kyaa aap merii madad kar sakte hain? (Namaste. Im in need of a good book. Can you help me?). The storekeeper is stunned and compliments the student on her exceptional Hindi. However, the store does not stock the appropriate book. The student notices another store across the street. As she steps in, she notices the storekeeper is Muslim. Replacing a Namaste with a Salaam, she inquires about the book, employing the same word choice. Again, the storekeeper is surprised, and with a big smile on his face tells her, MashaAllah. Your Urdu is perfect. The puzzled student picks up her book and leaves the store. This student had elected Hindi for the past four semesters, not Urdu! Yet, she is being complimented for her conversational skills in this language. This paints a very familiar picture in today's India and highlights that the Hindi-Urdu debate hasn't died down. While notions of the two languages have diverged since independence, colloquial varieties of Hindi and Urdu are almost indistinguishable from one another.As we remeber, the broader basis of vocabulary and syntax from which both Hindi and Urdu had developed called Hindustani is considered the
22

lingua franca across North India and Pakistan by many experts. After partition, newly independent India made its Hindi more Sanskritized and Pakistanis made their Urdu more Persianized. The outcome is a diglossia in society. Indians and Pakistanis speak relatively the same lingua franca of Hindustani on the streets while notions of standard Hindi and standard Urdu have become polarized. Therefore, in an effort to avoid common Hindustani words, their media use a strict, artificial, stilted form of Hindi or Urdu. As Singh puts it most realistically, the result that it is difficult for a common man to understand either Hindi or Urdu in the 'pure' form. Following partition, the Pakistani governement favoured the 'Islamization of Urdu' had words from Sanskrit and local dialects were 'purged out' in favor of Persian and Arabic words. In addition, allusions to a common Hindustani culture and land were replaced by references to Persian and Islamic culture and an Iranian landscape. Though the elite embraced this hyperPersian form of speech, many others were alienated by this new, foreign understanding of Urdu. The vast majority of Urdu speakers were a product of the Hindustani culture not Iranian. Similarly, the newly-formed Republic of India was engaged in the translation of official documents from English to Hindi. The outcome of this project was the creation of thousands of neologisms of Sanskrit origin describing administrative terms and practices. But, what is important to mention here is that mere familiarity with Sanskrit lexicons may not necessarily guarantee any comprehensibility of these neologisms. This also gave rise to absurd terms like dur purviya deshon 'Far East
23

countries'. These countries may be 'far' for the English speakers but not for us. Such 'pure' registers are highly artificial and ideologically motivated. The 'Hindi' Film Industry (Bollywood) has contributed in large part to the propagation of Hindustani as a reflection of the type of colloquial speech used by millions of Indians and Pakistanis. As a commercial institution, the Industry seeks to become accessible to as broad an audience as it can, and therefore employs Hindustani. This decision allows audiences from across India as well as Pakistan to freely understand the films in a manner which Sanskritized Hindi would not have. Use of pristine Hindi in the telecast serials such as Ramayana, Mahabharata, etc., while use of Urdu for movies like Mughal-eazam, Jodhaa Akbar etc. are an interesting phenomenon. Ashok Kelkar(1968) explains the situation of Hindi-Urdu as follows, As a linguistic system Hindi-Urdu has no marked dialect variations; but it has the full gamut of styles : formalized highbrow (poetry, learned discourse, ratory, religious sermons and the like in the "great tradition'' of urban centers of power, commerce, and religion); formalized middlebrow (popular printed literature, songs, mass propaganda); casual middlebrow (everyday educated talk especially in linguistically mixed groups and within the regionally uprooted upper or middle class family; private letter writing and newspapers waver between this and the
24

previous styles; out of the four styles this is the most receptive to borrowings from English); and casual lowbrow (this is defnitely substandard and outside the "Great Tradition''; everyday talk in lower-class, uneducated, urban milieus; this style, often called "Bazaar Hindustani'' , is sometimes resorted to even by educated speakers and even in printed literature destined for the uneducated lower classes) The polarization between "Hindi'' and "Urdu'' reaches its maximum in the formalized highbrow style. Hindi is associated with the Devanagari script (called Nagari for short) and the drawing upon Sanskrit for "higher vocabulary'' and metrics, with secular nationalism and Hindu revivalism, and with what anthropologists have called ``Sanskritization'' (the spread of Vedantic and Brahmanical culture). Urdu is associated with a modied form of the Perso-Arabic script and the drawing upon classical Persian (and through it, upon classical Arabic and upon Turkish) for "higher vocabulary'' and metrics and with Muslim renascence and the courts of the Muslim princes.

It can be pointed out that this act of Sanskritizing and Persianizing the pople's vernacular was carried out with political objectives. At one hand, Pakistani Government used it effectively as an important tactic in the regional power struggle, and, on the other hand for Indian Goverment, it helped 'Sanskritized Hindi' or the rashtrabhasha catapult to national level. As A.Rai (2000) states in 'Hindi Nationalism'
25

In Urdu, the love for the pristine is of a vanishing tribe who simply uses Perso-Arabic expressions for defence. In Hindi, the love for the pristine is of an emerging culture, which harks back on the Golden Age of revivalism, a sense of nostagia and false sense of linguistic identity.

Reality Check
In the following section we will analyze a little data on the colloquial Hindi-Urdu and try to arrive at some conclusion with the help of some statistics. The content analyzed is dually attached. ( Please refer to Data Folder) Conversation I: A foreigner and a priest, Benaras. The priest can be observed to speak a literary style common to Brahmins, especially in Benaras, Allahabad etc. called 'shudh hindi'. It can be observed that this style has many words of Sanskrit origin such as praaciin,adhik and the use of singular yah and wah and plural ye and we. Now as an exercise we will replace these few of these 'Hindi' constructions with 'Urdu' alternates like Hindi prasiddh Urdu mashur
26

wastu adhik

saaman zyaada

and so on. We observe that the conversation is still quite legible to us and may stay as we go one replacing indicating that these varieties are highly entwined in our society. It is interesting to observe how the priest uses 'Sanskritized' hindi though he understand the colloquial variety of the foreigner. It shows an intent of showing his identity as Hindu, a common thought in temple town like Benaras. Conversation II The foreigner among friends, Lucknow. The use of lexicon here appears starkly different from the previous language of Brahmin. This is a more urban setting and the language here is somewhat more 'Persianized'. Remember, we can recall Lucknow was one of the centre of development of both Hindi and Urdu and thus the sitaution prevails here. Also, since Urdu was historically the language of nobility in Awadh, it enjoys great prestige here. Conversation III The foreigner with counterpart and local traveller, Patna. The local dialects of Hindi has large native speakers here. Standard Hindi is artificially aqcuired as shown by the pure nature of his language. It is worth noting here that though the variety spoken
27

by the foreigner and his counterpart is colloquial, local who has artificially learnt Hindi is overjoyed at the prospect of Hindi from a foreigner's mouth. He regards standard variety with prestige compared to his local mother tongue. Conversation IV & V This is a comparson between two situation a guest to a Hindu home in Allahabad, and to a Muslim home is Aligarh. Notice the overall similarity in the pattern of polite-ness in both cases. Differences tend to appear only in vocabulary mainly. Many expression are almost interchangeable like C.IV padhaariyee, andar cal-kee baiThaa jaaee. C.V aaiyee, andar tasrif laaiyee, tasrif rakhiye

also inviation for food or drinks. Both the case show how the choice of language corresponds with their identity though both may be as comfortable switching to colloquial.

We now try to derive some statistics using these conversations based on the functions used in them. Also we observe some videos, a hindi news telecast, a urdu news telecast and a movie
28

scene. We observe the difference between standard registers used in news broadcast compared to the colliqual variety in the movie scene. We will observe the presence of Tadbhava derived from Sanskrit & Tatsama words borrowed from Sanskrit vs Perso-Arabic borrowings.

29

30

31

32

33

Closing Statement

We viewed are question from various point of views to ascertain the distinction between Hindi & Urdu, Structurally, they show very little variation and that in lexicon which is common among dialects or even within the same dialect as synonyms. We can structurally conclude them to be a same variety. Historically, they developed together and the divergence that emerges is merely socio-political and weak on linguistic grounds. Analytically, we observed that though Standard registers (like the ones used in news media) are highly 'Sanskritized'
34

or 'Persianized' but the colloquial variety exhibits almost equal influence of both phenomena. The efforts by the authorities to standardize the language in different directions was driven by the political motivations and introduced diglossia in the society where there was none. We observed how digraphia can have social and linguistic effects even to mobilization along communal lines and motivating efforts to force artificial variation in the language. The difference in the Hindi and Urdu is that of style not much else. Thus we can arrive at this result that Hindi and Urdu are essentially same variety of pluricentric language Hindustani. We also observe that like representing a social, religious, or cultural group as a homogeneous entity, even a language may be imagined as homogeneous. Under political motivations, the internal linguistic variations of a language may be ignored, and there may be a conscious selection of those expressions which only exaggerate and increase already existing differentiation. There is a totalizing vision in such linguistic ideology.

35

Bibliography
Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics, Hadumod Bussmann http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urdu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindustani_language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amir_Khusrow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabir King, C. R. 1994. One Language, Two Scripts : The Hindi movement in Nineteenth Century North India, Bombay : Oxford University Press. Rai, A. 2000. Hindi Nationalism, Orient Longman . Kelkar, Ashok (1968). Studies in Hindi-Urdu. Poona: Deccan College Postgraduate and Research Institute. Michael Clyne (1992),Pluricentric Languages: Differing Norms in Different Nations Gumperz, John J.,Conversational Hindi-Urdu. Vol. 2, pp. xiv214. Berkeley: ASUC Bookstore, University of California.
36