Professor Gopi Chand Naang- An Interview

[Naseer]

Dear ALUPers,

Yesterday, in another forum, I became aware of an interview which the
renowned Urdu scholar, Professor Gopi Chand Narang gave on 17/11/2012.
I am not sure who the interviewer is but here is a link to the whole
interview.

http://hindustaniawaaz-rakhshanda.blogspot.co.uk/2012_11_01_archive.html

My question for ALUPers does not require a complete reading of this
interview but interested parties are of course welcome to read the
interview in its entirety. My query relates to the following question
and answer.

"Would you agree that an enforced, almost cosmetic, Persianisation has
done it harm rather than good? Has accessibility not become a casualty
as language, especially of literary discourse, has become dense and
opaque?"

"Persianisation of Urdu has always co-existed with the process of
indigenization the nation. Technically, for different disciplines any
language has to have a particular register. But if it has to serve the
needs of the grass roots it has to be simple and close to the everyday
speech of the people. The present problem is not only Persianisation
but enforced Arabicisation for political reasons. Language is a social
entity; whenever vested political interests try to interfere, things
get distorted. It is not a service but disservice to language."

Can anyone please explain what the questioner means by "enforced,
almost cosmetic, Persianisation " and Professor Gopi Chand Narang's
comment "The present problem is not only Persianisation but enforced
Arabicisation for political reasons."? What are both persons talking
about? Has anyone from India or Pakistan come across this "enforced
Persianisation" and "enforced Arabicisation" of Urdu? It is a great
pity that neither party has provided any examples of what they are
talking about! I look forward to your views on this matter.

Naseer

[Rajiv Chakravarti]

aadaab Naseer sahab.

Thank for for that link. I won't be able to "guess" at what exactly is meant by "enforced" Persianization -- but Narang sahab has always been of the opinion that the Urdu/Hindi divide should be removed completely, and one main language should be promoted.

I have made available a recording I made myself when I had the opportunity to meet Dr. Narang locally -- this is a general talk on language and evolution, and may not be completely relevant to your query, but I throw it out there in case you or anyone else may be interested.

share(DOT)snacktools(DOT)com/AC76CCBA9F7/aupi4mnh

Regards,
RC
PS: Please replace the (DOT) in the above url to get to the clip.

[vij...@gmail.com]

Thanks for providing this wonderful audio, Rajiv Sahib. I got to it last night and listened to all straight through. Very enlightening indeed. I haven't yet fully understood the import of language not being a medium but more a cultural meme, but I am going to listen to it again and hopefully comprehend it better. (Even then, I may not fully agree with it). But as you said in your intro, there is a lot more in his talk that is fascinating. It is rare to hear audience responding with 'wah 'wah' repeatedly to prose as if they are listening to poetry.

Is there any way of saving this audio file on to my hard drive so that I can listen to it on my ipod?


Thanks once again,

Vijay

[premc...@gmail.com]

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vijay Sahib,

I am recording this audio file. Later I will compress to a format
required by iPod and then E mail it to you. When it is ready,
I will ask you for your E mail address.

PJ

[vij...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, April 20, 2013 2:18:29 PM UTC+1, premc...@gmail.com wrote:
>

>
> Vijay Sahib,
>
>
>
> I am recording this audio file. Later I will compress to a format
>
> required by iPod and then E mail it to you. When it is ready,
>
> I will ask you for your E mail address.
>
>
>
> PJ

Many thanks PJ sahib. You can send me the file at vijay76atgmaildotcom


Regards,

Vijay

[jerry...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, April 20, 2013 8:18:29 AM UTC-5, premc...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 20, 2013 1:46:46 AM UTC-7, vij...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, 18 April 2013 00:53:16 UTC+1, RC wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > aadaab Naseer sahab.
>
> >
>
> > >
>

> > PJ Sahib,


Can you share this over her so otters too can enjoy it on their iPods ?

Thanks

Jawed

[RC]

On Saturday, April 20, 2013 3:46:46 AM UTC-5, vij...@gmail.com wrote:

> Thanks once again,
> Vijay

You're welcome, Vijay sahib -- I generally disallow downloads on all my shares that I upload for various reasons -- however, I see that Prem sahib is still able to bypass that issue and make the file available to you. I would not have been able to advise on formats etc. in any case. I hope you enjoy the share.

I have added 2 more clips (both of them together constitute the full closing remarks of the distinguished "sadr-e-mush'aira" we hosted locally on May 17, 2008. The portable recorder (same one) was in the large auditorium in my hand, so the volume is a bit low -- I am confident you will be able to amplify it to suit your needs though.

RC

[RC]

On Saturday, April 20, 2013 3:46:46 AM UTC-5, vij...@gmail.com wrote:

> It is rare to hear audience responding with 'wah 'wah' repeatedly to prose as >if they are listening to poetry.
>

> Vijay

I don't know about the appreciation of prose being "rare" as you mention -- but use of good language and well selected quotes and couplets in speech is very much liked and enjoyed here and I, for one, am very happy that this is the case and fortunate to have been part of some enjoyable events. There is a lot to learn from people who speak well (regardless of the language of course) -- diction, use of relevant examples, keeping the interest of the listeners, etc.

RC

[premc...@gmail.com]

------------------------------------------
Jawed Bhai,

Apna Email bhejiye.

PJ

[jerry...@gmail.com]

jerrt...@gmail.com

Shukria PJ Sahib

[premc...@gmail.com]

-------------------------------------------------------------------

RC Sahib,

I am sorry for making your post available to others without your permission.
Please forgive me for taking that liberty. I was not aware that you did not want to share your posts with other ALUP members.

PJ

[premc...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, April 20, 2013 1:50:54 PM UTC-7, RC wrote:

[premc...@gmail.com]

----------------------------------------------------------

Jawed Bhai,

The Audio file is the property of RC sahib. So, Please Get RC
sahib's permission and then I will Email you the audio files.

PJ

[RC]

On Sunday, April 21, 2013 8:39:50 AM UTC-5, premc...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> RC Sahib,
> I am sorry for making your post available to others without your permission.
>
> Please forgive me for taking that liberty. I was not aware that you did not want to share your posts with other ALUP members.
>
>
>
> PJ

Prem sahib:

No, its OK to share -- I was simply stating that most of my shares online generally disallow download on the players for fairly obvious reasons. This one is not really protected by copyright, per se. If you enjoy it, it is yours! But please copy all the meta-information and provide it with the clip.

Regards,
RC

[premc...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, April 21, 2013 8:55:47 AM UTC-7, RC wrote:

> Prem sahib:
>
>
>
> No, its OK to share -- I was simply stating that most of my share generally disallow download on the players for fairly obvious reasons. This one is not really protected by copyright, per se. If you enjoy it, it is yours! But please copy all the meta-information and provide it with the clip.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> RC

------------------------------------------------------------------------

RC Sahib,

Thank your your kind approval. I really enjoyed that audio. I even heard the the other two that you have posted. They are wonderful also.

When I send that audio clip to others, I will always mention that I had downloaded it from

URL: http://share.snacktools.com/AC76CCBA9F7/aupi4mnh

Thanks again for giving us the opportunity to listen to Professor Gopichand Narang's talk on HindiUrdu language.

PJ

Whee it was up loaded by R. Chakaravarty

[nages...@yahoo.com]

Naseer Sahib and Rajiv Sahib:

Many thans for your posts on Professor Narang. I have a book of his, "Urdu Language and Literature - Critical Perspectives," which contains several essays. The publisher is Sterling Publishers Private Limited, and the edition is dated 1991. It is dedicated to his parents, and the dedication includes an excerpt from Iqbal's wAlidah marhUma ki yAd meN". THe first verse in the excerpt is:

vaqt-e hasti meN thi zarri varq teri hayAt
thi sarApA dIn-o dunyA ka sabaq teri hayAt

Regards,

Nagesh

[Raj Kumar]

On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 6:42:17 AM UTC-7, nages...@yahoo.com wrote:

> Naseer Sahib and Rajiv Sahib:
>

> Many thanks for your posts on Professor Narang. I have a book of his, "Urdu Language and Literature - Critical Perspectives," which contains several essays. The publisher is Sterling Publishers Private Limited, and the edition is dated 1991. It is dedicated to his parents, and the dedication includes an excerpt from Iqbal's wAlidah marhUma ki yAd meN". THe first verse in the excerpt is:

>
> vaqt-e hasti meN thi zarri varq teri hayAt
>
> thi sarApA dIn-o dunyA ka sabaq teri hayAt

janaab-e-Nagesh saahib:

mu'aaf keejiye, is she'r ke pehle misr'e ki saheeh saaKht yeh hai:

daftar-e-hastii meiN thii zarriiN-varaq terii hayaat,

jab-k duusraa misr'a jaise aap ne likkhaa hai, saheeh hai!

I am curious to know whether this is a 'minor slip' on your part or this is the way this misr'a appears in the book itlsef --- in the latter case, I wouldn't consider this a 'minor slip'!

du'aa-go,
Raj Kumar

[nages...@yahoo.com]

Raj Kumar Sahib:

This was not a minor slip on m part. It was an egregious error, attributable to my continuing struggle with reading Urdu in smaller print.

The original is as you wrote it.

Thanks for the correction - the latest in a long string - for which I am grateful. It makes so much more sense.

Regards,

Nagesh

[Anil Kala]

Naseer Saahib,

aadaab ....

> Can anyone please explain what the questioner means by "enforced,
>
> almost cosmetic, Persianisation "

It is a loaded question [assumes that there is excessive Persianized vocabulary artificially forced on the language therefore the language has become incomprehensible to common folks]

>
>
>
>
>
> Persianisation" and "enforced Arabicisation" of Urdu? It is a great
>

I have only one example.... I have been hearing 'KHuda Hafiz' for ages then suddenly everyone in Pakistan TV started signing off with 'Allah Hafiz'

I don't know if this practice persists now!

aadaab arz hai

[Anil Kala]

Naseer Sahib

aadaab!

>
> Can anyone please explain what the questioner means by "enforced,
> almost cosmetic, Persianisation "

I am borrowing this piece from RC Sahib's post

<quote: AC>
Janab Rajiv Chakarvarti Saahab se yeh anparh faqeer arz guzaarta hai mandarja e baala bait jisko aapne sirf Khusrau likh kar mansoob farmaaya hai aslan Nasir Khusrau Isfahani ka hai! Barr e Sagheer ke muta'addid afraad is bait ko aur iski munsalik ghazal ko (Mat'la ~ "Ae keh goyi heich mushkil chun firaq e yaar neist! Gar umeed e wasl baashad hamchunan dushwaar neist!") Hazarat Amir Khusrau Laachin Dehlavi R.A. ki kahi hui jaante hain! Buhat saalon ki mehnat aur safar e Iran o UK o USA aur imdaad e daanishwaraan e barr e sagheer Hind o Pak se aur az nazar e khud mat'aala e makhtoota o matb'oua dawaween e Ameer Khusro mein na yeh ghazal dikhi faqeer ko aur na woh mashhoor ghazal "Namidaanam che manzil bood shabjaaye keh man boodam! Baharsu raqs e bismil bood shabjaaye keh man boodam!" hi nazar aayi! Albatta yeh donon ghazalein alaltarteeb matb'oua Diwan e Nasir Khusrau Isfahani mein (Danishgaah Tehraan, Saltykov - Shechedrin Public Library St Petersburg Russia mein maujood hain!
</quote: AC>

What do you think of this Urdu?

[RC]

Anil sahab,

Interesting to note you chose this section from my other post as an
example of "forced" Persianization of Urdu.. I am not sure if this is
just a "formal register" of the language or indeed "forced
Persianization" myself -- primarily because I am not privy to how
formal Urdu was/is taught to students, what the street language may
have been. If "Meer" is taken as an example of "regular street
Hindustani" then there is of course a difference in the language seen
above from his poetry in general -- but could this reflect just a
"register change?"

I know this is not an answer to Naseer sahab's original question --
but we have to consider the distinguish "register" of the language
when discussing this issue, I would think. Is formality considered to
be "forced?" If yes, then certainly, the quoted paragraph above would
be put into that bracket -- but if it is nothing but the "normally
spoken" register of a well-learned person of a generation earlier, are
we capable (in this current generation) of concluding whether or not
this is "forced" simply because we are not used to it these days?

More questions, I know.. but food for thought. I for one, am glad to
be able to read this register -- and learn language..

Regards,
RC

[Afzal A. Khan]

On 4/16/2013 7:25 PM, Naseer wrote:


> Dear ALUPers,

> Can anyone please explain what the questioner means by "enforced,
> almost cosmetic, Persianisation " and Professor Gopi Chand Narang's
> comment "The present problem is not only Persianisation but enforced
> Arabicisation for political reasons."? What are both persons talking
> about? Has anyone from India or Pakistan come across this "enforced
> Persianisation" and "enforced Arabicisation" of Urdu? It is a great
> pity that neither party has provided any examples of what they are
> talking about! I look forward to your views on this matter.
>
> Naseer

Naseer Saheb,

Agar aap bura na maaneN to maiN ek (light-hearted) baat 'arz
karooN....

Kehte haiN, chor chori se jaaye, lekin hera~pheri se naheeN
jaata !

Your penchant for stirring up a hornet's nest continues
unabated !

Although a language can be spoken and understood in a number of
countries, the unique cultural milieu of each such country can
and does cause changes in what is referred to as "register".
The background to Urdu's usage in India and "across the border"
is not quite the same.

I seriously doubt if there is any deliberate attempt towards
"enforced, almost cosmetic, Persianisation or enforced Arabici-
sation in India (that is Bharat). The kind of Urdu we read and
hear in India is practically the same as we did before the
events of 1947. At least that has been my experience. {Part
of my early life was spent in pre-1947 India.} Being
an Indian, I feel we need not worry over much as to what is
happening across the border.

At one place (in the above interview), Prof. Narang makes a
telling remark (and I quote) :

"In Pakistan Urdu is not the language of the soil. The natural
speeches are Punjabi, Sindhi, Pushto and Bulochi. Urdu is a
cultural-political necessity, and the link role it can play no
other language can play."

A few years back, UVR Saheb (who, unfortunately, does not grace our
Newsgroup any more) rightly fulminated against some Delhi acquain-
tance of his who asked him to use "Allah Haafiz", instead of
"KHuda Haafiz". My advice to UVR Saheb at the time was to just
tell that guy where he got off.

I can cite scores of examples from Urdu poetry where our poets have
liberally used and preferred "KHuda" to "Allah". Here are a few :

KHuda ne aaj tak us qaum ki haalat naheeN badli
Na ho jis ko KHayaal aap apni haalat ke badalne ka

(Maulana Zafar Ali Khan)

BTW, this sher is often attributed
to Iqbal -- erroneously, I think.

Na KHud~beeN, nai KHuda~beeN, nai jahaaN~beeN
Yehi shahkaar hai tere hunar ka

('Allama Iqbal)

KHudi ko kar bulaNd itna k(e) har taqdeer se pehle
KHuda baNde se KHud poochhe, bata teri raza kya hai

('Allama Iqbal)

InheeN khetoN men paani ke kinaare yaad hai ab bhi
KHuda bhi muskura deta tha, jab hum pyaar karte the

(MaKHdoom Muhiuddin)

KHuda to KHair musalmaanN tha, us se kya shikwa
Mire liye mire bhagwan ne bhi kuchh na kiya

(Pandit Hari Chand AKHtar)

KHuda ne husn se ik roz yeh sawaal kiya
JahaaN men kyoN na mujhe tu ne laa~zawaal kiya

('Allama Iqbal)

KHudaaii ehtimaam-e-KHushk-o-tar hai
KHudaaWaNda KHudaaii dard-e-sar hai

('Allama Iqbal)

Karo mehr'baani tum ahl-e-zameeN par
KHuda mehr'baaN hoga 'arsh-e-bareeN par

(Maulana Haali)

KHabar naheeN kya hai naam is ka KHuda~farebi k(e) Khud~farebi
'Amal se faariGH huwa musalmaan, bana ke taqdeer ka bahaana

('Allama Iqbal)

Taqdeer hai ik naam makaafaat-e-'amal ka
Dete haiN yeh paiGHaam KHudaayaan-e-Himaala

('Allama Iqbal)

Faanoos ban ke jis ki hifaazat KHuda kare
Woh shama' kya bujhe jise raushan KHuda kare

(Maulana Mohammed Ali Jauhar ?)

Go fikr-e-KHuda~daad se raushan hai zamaana
Aazaadi-e-afkaar hai iblees ki iijaad

('Allama Iqbal)

Mataa'-e-be'bha hai dard-o-soz-e-aarzoo~mandi
Maqaam-e-bandagi de kar na looN shaan-e-KHuda'wandi

('Allama Iqbal)

MaujoN ki tapish kya hai, faqat zauq-e-talab hai
Pin'haaN jo sadaf men hai woh daulat hai KHudaa~daad

('Allama Iqbal)

Ik 'umr men hoti hai baseerat paida
Karta hai KHuda shaaz yeh daulat paida

(Josh Maleehabadi)

Baja kahe jise 'aalam, use baja samjho
Zabaan-e-KHalq ko naqqaara(h)-e-KHuda samjho

(Zauq)

KHuda bhala kare ai Shaad nukta~cheenoN ka
Sikha diya hameN bach bach ke raasta chalna

(Shaad 'Azeemabadi)

Tauheed to yeh hai k(e)KHuda hash'r me keh de
Yeh baNda(h) do~'aalam se KHafaa mere liye hai

(Maulana Mohammed Ali Jauhar)



If there has been a concerted attempt IN INDIA towards
"enforced, even cosmetic Persianisation or Arabicisation",
I would be glad to read such examples, and then we can all
pillory such attempts !



Afzal

[RC]

On Apr 29, 9:39 am, RC <rajiv.chakrava...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I know this is not an answer to Naseer sahab's original question --
> but we have to consider the distinguish "register" of the language
> when discussing this issue, I would think.

aargh! Please read as: "we have to distinguish the "register" of the
language.. "
in the above sentence -- this is what I get when typing and not double-
checking myself before hitting the "Send" button..

Sorry.
RC

[Anil Kala]

> Interesting to note you chose this section from my other post as an
>
> example of "forced" Persianization of Urdu.. I am not sure if this is
>
> just a "formal register" of the language or indeed "forced
>
> Persianization" myself -- primarily because I am not privy to how
>
> formal Urdu was/is taught to students, what the street language may

Rajiv Sahab

aadaab

I quoted this particular piece from your other post for a special purpose. I really don't believe there is artificial or forced Persianization of Urdu in India at least, like Afzal Sahib opined. As suggested by him language exists on several planes. It is not that Manto/Prem Chand etc could not write or did not want to write what we regard heavily Persianized Urdu, their characters were common folks who spoke the kind of language they wrote in their fiction. All along essays and critical reviews were written in chaste Urdu like it is in probably all languages. A literary work needs 'mint condition' words for impact, common usage words don't impact us therefore it is a necessity of the art. We can see this in English as well; its fiction has varied language while other literary works contain heavy dose of uncommon adjectives for real impact. This is primarily because critical writings are for a focused group and not general public.

News however is one area where delicate balance is required. The language should not slip into esoteric domain so that common folks miss out on meaning nor the aesthetics of the language is compromised.

The quoted portion is not literary work, it is simply a matter of conveying information. Which I believe could have been passed in a simple language without much difficulty.

Just my view

aadaab arz hai

Anil

[Afzal A. Khan]

On 4/29/2013 9:39 AM, RC wrote :




>>
>> I am borrowing this piece from RC Sahib's post
>>
>> <quote: AC>
>> Janab Rajiv Chakarvarti Saahab se yeh anparh faqeer arz guzaarta hai mandarja e baala bait jisko aapne sirf Khusrau likh kar mansoob farmaaya hai aslan Nasir Khusrau Isfahani ka hai! Barr e Sagheer ke muta'addid afraad is bait ko aur iski munsalik ghazal ko (Mat'la ~ "Ae keh goyi heich mushkil chun firaq e yaar neist! Gar umeed e wasl baashad hamchunan dushwaar neist!") Hazarat Amir Khusrau Laachin Dehlavi R.A. ki kahi hui jaante hain! Buhat saalon ki mehnat aur safar e Iran o UK o USA aur imdaad e daanishwaraan e barr e sagheer Hind o Pak se aur az nazar e khud mat'aala e makhtoota o matb'oua dawaween e Ameer Khusro mein na yeh ghazal dikhi faqeer ko aur na woh mashhoor ghazal "Namidaanam che manzil bood shabjaaye keh man boodam! Baharsu raqs e bismil bood shabjaaye keh man boodam!" hi nazar aayi! Albatta yeh donon ghazalein alaltarteeb matb'oua Diwan e Nasir Khusrau Isfahani mein (Danishgaah Tehraan, Saltykov - Shechedrin Public Library St Petersburg Russia mein maujood hain!
>> </quote: AC>
>>
>> What do you think of this Urdu?
>
> Anil sahab,
>
> Interesting to note you chose this section from my other post as an
> example of "forced" Persianization of Urdu.. I am not sure if this is
> just a "formal register" of the language or indeed "forced
> Persianization" myself -- primarily because I am not privy to how
> formal Urdu was/is taught to students, what the street language may
> have been. If "Meer" is taken as an example of "regular street
> Hindustani" then there is of course a difference in the language seen
> above from his poetry in general -- but could this reflect just a
> "register change?"
>
> I know this is not an answer to Naseer sahab's original question --
> but we have to consider the distinguish "register" of the language
> when discussing this issue, I would think. Is formality considered to
> be "forced?" If yes, then certainly, the quoted paragraph above would
> be put into that bracket -- but if it is nothing but the "normally
> spoken" register of a well-learned person of a generation earlier, are
> we capable (in this current generation) of concluding whether or not
> this is "forced" simply because we are not used to it these days?

> RC



Rajiv Saheb,

Firstly, there is nothing difficult about the quoted Urdu passage.
I can read and understand the same, and (I daresay) so can you.

The above message was composed by a certain person (Mr. A) and
sent to another person (Mr. B). Now, nobody is foolish enough to
write/compose a message that his addressee (i.e. the recipient of
his message) cannot read and assimilate. But does it follow that
any Tom, Harry and Dick should also be able to read and understand
the same ? Particularly when it is not meant for the general
public ?

A Babu Moshai in Bengal usually may not understand Tamil or
Telugu. But can he demand as to why newspapers like Dinakaran or
Eenadu are getting published ?

Adverting to Urdu poetry, Ghalib has written verses like :

Neend kyoN raat bhar naheeN aati

And he has also written verses like his famous qat'aa :

Zulmat~kade men mere shab-e-GHam ka josh hai

where there are very very few words which are commonly understood
by the "hoi polloi".

Much of Ghalib's poetry is considered quite abstruse. The annals
of ALUP are replete with threads where people have asked for
meanings and interpretations of his poetry. Wherever possible,
Yours Truly has tried to answer their queries. But should people
condemn Ghalib for writing such difficult poetry ?

Many of us are fairly conversant with the English language. But
can all of us readily understand Elliot's "Wasteland" ? I think
not.

Any number of examples can be quoted from Urdu Literature, where
the language employed is particularly difficult for common readers.
But if any of us are unable to follow the same, the fault or
shortcoming may perhaps lie within us. In any case, why blame
the worthies who have chosen to express themselves in a somewhat
difficult "register" ?



Afzal

[RC]

Afzal sahib --

I agree with you, which is why I raised the point of "register" in
language - even if a piece of text was meant for a larger audience --
as Anil sahab suggested, it would be perfectly fine. I, personally, am
of the opinion that any art should not be "dumbed down" to please the
100% -- this is, in fact, a grave injustice to the art (the art being
discussed here is language and presentation, of course). I certainly
applaud the person whose quote Anil sahab has picked as an example,
for retaining his skill and ability to write beautifully. As an aside,
I love to hear both the Urdu and the Hindi newscasts even though they
are not "normal" registers -- simply for the lovely expressions used.

We are probably no closer to addressing Naseer sahab's original post
though -- the term of "forced", I think, can be safely interchanged
with "deliberate" -- and if that is acceptable as a suggestion, then I
think good art is most certainly rendered after thought, introspection
and deliberation.

Regards,
RC

[Anil Kala]

>
> Afzal sahib --
>
>
>
> I agree with you, which is why I raised the point of "register" in
>
> language - even if a piece of text was meant for a larger audience --
>
> as Anil sahab suggested, it would be perfectly fine. I, personally, am
>
> of the opinion that any art should not be "dumbed down" to please the
>
> 100% -- this is, in fact, a grave injustice to the art (the art being
>
> discussed here is language and presentation, of course). I certainly
>
> applaud the person whose quote Anil sahab has picked as an example,
>
> for retaining his skill and ability to write beautifully. As an aside,
>
> I love to hear both the Urdu and the Hindi newscasts even though they
>
> are not "normal" registers -- simply for the lovely expressions used.
>
>
>
> We are probably no closer to addressing Naseer sahab's original post
>
> though -- the term of "forced", I think, can be safely interchanged
>
> with "deliberate" -- and if that is acceptable as a suggestion, then I
>
> think good art is most certainly rendered after thought, introspection
>
> and deliberation.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> RC

Rajiv Sahib

If you or Afzal Sahib understood that piece or you enjoy listening to Urdu/Hindi news, it is a non-event. Nobody in his dream would regard you or Afzal Sahib from among the hoi polloi. Sure that piece was meant for you therefore it was a bad example. I didn't even say that there is forced Persianization of Urdu and regard usage of lesser used words a necessity of the craft the hammer home a point with some emphasis. It is only the 'News' that is served to the elite as well as masses that creates impression of forced Persianization. Back in eighties when I heard news from Pakistan/Urdu service in India I thought I was listening to Farsi sprinkled with some Urdu. With time I began to understand it but still not completely only the context makes it clearer however I am not a regular at it, if I were I would understand it completely as I do Hindi news. I still regard Hindi News in private channels much better than Doordarshan's because there is no taboo with them to use Farsi/Arabic words. You can hear 'ab yahaaN koi bhi mefuuz nahiiN hai' which is just not possible in Doordarshan.

I hope I make my view clear.

regards

Anil Kala

[Afzal A. Khan]

I seriously doubt it !

We had been talking about different "registers" --- and what is
written above is not easily understood (at least by me).

The operative sentence in the above post seems to be "...it was
a bad example". So why should one reach a conclusion, form an
opinion and even disseminate it, based on some invalid premise ?

News on TV (whether in India or Pakistan) is supposed to convey
information to the viewers. Those in charge do make an effort
to couch the news in language that can be understood by most, if
not all, viewers. But it does not follow that viewers in India
(generally speaking) should necessarily be able to understand
Urdu news aired on Pakistani TV channels in its entirety. Maybe,
if someone like me (i.e someone familiar with Urdu) listened to
these telecasts, he would understand them (because he knows the
language). Many others in (or from) India may not. But can the
latter demand that newscasters (and the authorities) across the
border should use an easier register, so that people like Shri
Anil Kala should be able to understand their news ?

Lastly, I think the issue involved the so-called "enforced" and
"cosmetic" Persianisation (and even Arabicisation) --- as Naseer
Saheb had placed this poser before us. And we seem to be talking
about something else altogether. For one thing, I don't think
Naseer Saheb was referring to TV news language/register at all.



Afzal

[Anil Kala]

>
> I seriously doubt it !
>

Doubt what?

>
>
> We had been talking about different "registers" --- and what is
>
> written above is not easily understood (at least by me).
>

If you have not understood then what do you doubt?

> The operative sentence in the above post seems to be "...it was
>
> a bad example". So why should one reach a conclusion, form an
>
> opinion and even disseminate it, based on some invalid premise ?
>

It was bad example nevertheless an example to illustrate the kind of Urdu I had difficulty in understanding and therefore I assumed it would create similar difficulty to other folks and cause impression of enforced Persianization of Urdu.

>
> not all, viewers. But it does not follow that viewers in India
>
> (generally speaking) should necessarily be able to understand
>
> Urdu news aired on Pakistani TV channels in its entirety. Maybe,
>
> if someone like me (i.e someone familiar with Urdu) listened to
>
> these telecasts, he would understand them (because he knows the
>
> language). Many others in (or from) India may not. But can the
>
> latter demand that newscasters (and the authorities) across the
>
> border should use an easier register, so that people like Shri
>
> Anil Kala should be able to understand their news ?
>

Beats me! How Shri Afzal Khan concluded that I suggested/demanded any change in the language of news telecast cast from Pakistan so that I can understand it. I merely pointed out that I did not listen to it regularly had I done so I would have no difficulty understanding it now. This however does not mean I don't understand Urdu, I can read it and I can understand quite a lot of its literature.