mujhko ik baar to seene se lagaa lo jaanaaN
tanhaa
ye Ghazal jo k maiN aap sab ke saath "share" karne waala houN, pichhle
saal kahi thi aur stanvir board par bhi post ki thi, magar ALUP
archives meiN search karne ke baad pata chala k yahaaN nahiiN pesh ki,
to socha kyoN na is mehfil ki garma-garmi ka faayda uThaaya jaaye aur
is Ghazal ko bhi yahaaN pesh kar diya jaaye.. to lijiye .. arz kiya
hai k
mujh ko ik baar to seene se lagaa lo jaanaaN
mujh ko is gardish-e-dauraaN se bachaa lo jaanaaN
mere guzre hue kal ne to mujhe luuT liyaa
mujh ko aate hue lamhoN se chhupaa lo jaanaaN!
meri naakaam umeedoN ki paRii hai jo laash
mere aage se kisii taur haTaa lo jaanaaN
gham-e-furqat meiN jhulastii huii raateiN beetiiN
ab to aaghosh-e-tavajjo meiN sulaa lo jaanaaN
is se pahle k muhabbat ho hamaarii rusvaa
aaj jaise bhi ho bas paas bulaa lo jaanaaN
ye taqaddus, ye rasoomaat-o-aqaaid kya haiN?
khud ko in "ghor andheroN" se nikaalo jaanaaN!
log haNste haiN jo mujh par to chalo yuuN hi sahii
meri haalat ka zaraa tum bhi mazaa lo jaanaaN!
haaye 'tanhaa' no vo din haiN, na vo raateiN baaqii
jab vo kahte the "mujhe apna banaa lo jaanaaN!"
sat pal
This is very good ghazal. and nodoubt beher is so sweet
you might be very good writer.pl send your introduction.
i am also a poet, but not famous one but your ghazal very musical
i am remembering one song in simillar beher song is
mujhko is raat ki tanhai mein awaaz na do...........
thanks
Sat pal
Kali Hawa
Tanhaa Sahib,
Aadaab!
Allow me this deviation. I had difficulty coming to terms with
'Tanhaa' attached to a guy. It was always feminine, passive and soft.
All creative moments are intensely 'tanhaa' even if the creator is an
extrovert therefore the word is found everywhere in poetry, yet never
gets stale....
Ghazal Khuub bani hai, daad qubool farmaayen albatta I have quarrel
with choice of words in some places.
meri naakaam umeedoN ki paRii hai jo laash
mere aage se kisii **taur** haTaa lo jaanaaN
'taur' sounds unpoetic but tarah, I guess, would not fit meter. These
two ash'aar I like best:
log haNste haiN jo mujh par to chalo yuuN hi sahii
meri haalat ka zaraa tum bhi mazaa lo jaanaaN!
gham-e-furqat meiN jhulastii huii raateiN beetiiN
ab to aaghosh-e-tavajjo meiN sulaa lo jaanaaN
tavajjo(?) isn't tavajjo giving importance? Please explain aaghosh-e-
tavajjo.
Once again well done!
Kali Hawa
tanhaa
Shukriya Satpal ji and apologies for the delay in replying to you.
Regards
Amit Malhotra
tanhaa
> Tanhaa Sahib,
> Aadaab!
>
> Allow me this deviation. I had difficulty coming to terms with
> 'Tanhaa' attached to a guy. It was always feminine, passive and soft.
> All creative moments are intensely 'tanhaa' even if the creator is an
> extrovert therefore the word is found everywhere in poetry, yet never
> gets stale....
really? you can't attach 'tanhaa' to a guy? even though 'tanhaa' is
definitely (as a word) not feminine.
I think the takhallus really came about from my fascination with the
word 'tanhaa' .. which has its own reasons as well.
>
> Ghazal Khuub bani hai, daad qubool farmaayen albatta I have quarrel
> with choice of words in some places.
>
daad ke liye bahut shukriya.
> meri naakaam umeedoN ki paRii hai jo laash
> mere aage se kisii **taur** haTaa lo jaanaaN
> 'taur' sounds unpoetic but tarah, I guess, would not fit meter. These
> two ash'aar I like best:
as far as meter goes, "tarah" can fit the similar vazan as "taur".
Thank you for the observation.
> log haNste haiN jo mujh par to chalo yuuN hi sahii
> meri haalat ka zaraa tum bhi mazaa lo jaanaaN!
>
> gham-e-furqat meiN jhulastii huii raateiN beetiiN
> ab to aaghosh-e-tavajjo meiN sulaa lo jaanaaN
>
> tavajjo(?) isn't tavajjo giving importance? Please explain aaghosh-e-
> tavajjo.
>
The several meanings of the word tavajjo in the dictionary are:
A tawajjo h [inf. n. v of 'to turn the face (to)'], s.f. Directing
the steps (towards), turning (towards or to); countenancing,
regarding, attendiug (to); inclination; regard; attention,
consideration, countenance, favour, kindness, obligingness.
I hope this makes the "tarkeeb" clearer in terms of understanding.
Apologies for the short reply. Thank you for your kind words.
Regards,
Amit Malhotra
Naseer
kitnii achchhii baat hai kih is baar aap "lurk" karne kii bajaae kuchh
lamHe hamaare saath guzaarne ke liye aamaadah ho gae haiN:) bahut
bahut shukriyah.
merii farmaaish ko puuraa karne kaa shukriyah. aap kii pesh-kardah
GHazal mujhe bahut achchhii lagii, Khusuusan yih ash'aar..
gham-e-furqat meiN jhulastii huii raateiN beetiiN
ab to aaghosh-e-tavajjo meiN sulaa lo jaanaaN
(aaGHosh-i-tavajjuh kii tarkiib bahut bhalii hai.)
haaye 'tanhaa' na vo din haiN, na vo raateiN baaqii
jab vo kahte the "mujhe apna banaa lo jaanaaN!"
......................................................................................................................
log haNste haiN jo mujh par to chalo yuuN hi sahii
meri haalat ka zaraa tum bhi mazaa lo jaanaaN!
"mazaa" ko Urdu meN 'umuum-an "mazah" likhaa jaataa hai. yaqiin-an
shaa'irii meN "mazaa" qaabil-i-qubuul ho gaa (?).
Kala Sahib ne lafz "tanhaa" kaa zikr chheRaa hai. yih kisii se
poshiidah nahiiN hai kih is ke ma'nii "alone" ke haiN. lekin Amit
Malhotra jii, kyaa aap jaante haiN kih "tan" ke ma'nii "body" ke haiN
awr "tan-haa" ke ma'nii "bodies" ?!!!
mujhe is baat se yih maqsuud hai kih aap utne tanhaa nahiiN jitnaa kih
aap samajhte haiN:)
KHair-andesh,
Naseer
Raj Kumar
>
> log haNste haiN jo mujh par to chalo yuuN hi sahii
> meri haalat ka zaraa tum bhi mazaa lo jaanaaN!
>
> "mazaa" ko Urdu meN 'umuum-an "mazah" likhaa jaataa hai. yaqiin-an
> shaa'irii meN "mazaa" qaabil-i-qubuul ho gaa (?).
janaab-e-Naseer saahib:
daKhl-dar-ma'aqoolaat ke liye ma'azirat chaahataa hooN magar vaaqe'a
yeh hai k is lafz ko 'mazaa' kehna yaqeenan ravaa hai, jis ke liye
maNdarja-zail sanad pesh hai:
shor-e-paNd-e-naaseh ne zaKhm par namak chhiRkaa
aap se ko'ii poochhe, tum ne kyaa mazaa paayaa ---------- Mirzaa
Ghaalib
aur maze ki baat yeh hai k is lafz ko likkha bhi 'alif' ke saath hai,
na k 'he' ke saath!
Platts ki varaq-gardaanii se mazeed pata chalaa k jab is lafz ko
'alif' ke saath likhte haiN to yeh Hindi ka samjha jaata hai, na k
Faarsi ka -------------- Ghaaliban, isi vajah se is ki jam'a "maze"
musta'mal hai, jaise
maze jo maut ke aashiq bayaaN kabhoo karte ---- Zauq
I hope this helps.
> Kala Sahib ne lafz "tanhaa" kaa zikr chheRaa hai. yih kisii se
> poshiidah nahiiN hai kih is ke ma'nii "alone" ke haiN. lekin Amit
> Malhotra jii, kyaa aap jaante haiN kih "tan" ke ma'nii "body" ke haiN
> awr "tan-haa" ke ma'nii "bodies" ?!!!
mushaahida aap ka bar-haq hai, saahib, magar ise paRh kar aek baat
zehn meiN aati hai --- voh yeh k, is soorat-e-haal meiN, "tan tanhaa"
yaa "tan-e-tanhaa" ki taraakeeb kaise zuhoor meiN aa'iiN?
Raj Kumar
Naseer
> daKhl-dar-ma'aqoolaat ke liye ma'azirat chaahataa hooN magar vaaqe'a
> yeh hai k is lafz ko 'mazaa' kehna yaqeenan ravaa hai, jis ke liye
> maNdarja-zail sanad pesh hai:
>
> shor-e-paNd-e-naaseh ne zaKhm par namak chhiRkaa
> aap se ko'ii poochhe, tum ne kyaa mazaa paayaa ---------- Mirzaa
> Ghaalib
>
> aur maze ki baat yeh hai k is lafz ko likkha bhi 'alif' ke saath hai,
> na k 'he' ke saath!
>
> Platts ki varaq-gardaanii se mazeed pata chalaa k jab is lafz ko
> 'alif' ke saath likhte haiN to yeh Hindi ka samjha jaata hai, na k
> Faarsi ka -------------- Ghaaliban, isi vajah se is ki jam'a "maze"
> musta'mal hai, jaise
>
> maze jo maut ke aashiq bayaaN kabhoo karte ---- Zauq
>
> I hope this helps.
janaab-i-Raj Kumar Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai.
yih daKHl hargiz nahiiN balkih aap kaa baRaa-pan hai kih aap apne 'ilm
awr tajrubaat ke zaKHiiroN se kuchh ratan ham jaisoN meN baaNTne se
bhii gurez nahiiN karte:)
to kyaa ek "aafaaqii" qaa'idah banaayaa jaa saktaa hai kih jahaaN
jahaaN 'Arabii yaa Farsi ke vuh alfaaz jin ke aaKHir meN he aatii hai,
zaruurat paRne par is he ko alif-i-mamduudah meN tabdiil kiyaa jaa
saktaa hai?
masal-an
shikvah> shikvaa> shikve
rutbah> rutbaa> rutbe
gilah> gilaa > gile
andeshah>andeshaa>andeshe
vaGHairah vaGHairah.
.......................................................................
> mushaahida aap ka bar-haq hai, saahib, magar ise paRh kar aek baat
> zehn meiN aati hai --- voh yeh k, is soorat-e-haal meiN, "tan tanhaa"
> yaa "tan-e-tanhaa" ki taraakeeb kaise zuhoor meiN aa'iiN?
jahaaN tak tanhaa/tan-haa kaa ta'alluq hai, mujhe andeshah hai kih aap
ko shaayad GHalat-fahmii ho gaii hai (yaa maiN aap kii baat ko
samajhne se qaasir rahaa huuN). maiN, mazaaq ke taur par sirf yih kah
rahaa thaa kih go tanhaa=alone, Farsii ke qaa'ide ke mutaabiq tan-haa
(haa inanimate plural marker)= bodies, ya'nii bahut se log. so apne
janaab-i-Tanhaa Sahib *tanhaa* nahiiN haiN balkih *tan-haa* haiN:)
rahii baat tan-i-tanhaa kii, to yih emphasis ke liye hai, jaise ham
Punjabi log "kallam-kallaa" kii tarkiib isti'maal karte haiN. At
least, this is how I understand it.
KHair-KHvaah,
Naseer
tanhaa
Namaste Naseer sahib,
First of all, thank you for your kind comments on my Ghazal and
especially appreciating some of the couplets I penned in there.
As far as tanhaa is concerned, I thought the debate was going to be
interesting in a way that "tan-haa" actually meant "bodies" and not
"alone", but you said you were just joking, so there goes that
debate. I was actually about to ask you if you could give any poetic
examples of where "tan-haa" would be used as "bodies". Alas!
To further dwell on the word, now that it has been bought up by Kala
sahib and yourself, I actually got fascinated by the word tanhaa when
I read Parvez Sahib's (RK sahib's brother) ghazal that RK sahib posted
on ALUP a while ago, and during the discussion on that Ghazal, I even
posted my newly found fascination with the word "tanhaa". It's a
beautiful Ghazal and if you can find it in ALUP's archives, I invite
you to read it as well:
here's the matla of that Ghazal:
dard-e-dil samajhtaa hai dil ki daastaaN tanhaa
bas yihi hai le de kar apna raazdaaN tanhaa!
So when I started writing poetry, I think 'tanhaa' as a taKhallus came
naturally to me and hence started "deewan-e-tanhaa" (LOL).
chaliye ab ijaazat dijiye, ek baar phir se Ghazal par apne ta'asuraat
pesh karne ke liye aapka bahut bahut shukriya.
Regards,
Amit Malhotra
Naseer
> As far as tanhaa is concerned, I thought the debate was going to be
> interesting in a way that "tan-haa" actually meant "bodies" and not
> "alone", but you said you were just joking, so there goes that
> debate. I was actually about to ask you if you could give any poetic
> examples of where "tan-haa" would be used as "bodies". Alas!
janaab-i-Amit Malhotra Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai.
"tan" with "-haa" added to it indeed means "bodies". However, I doubt
if an Urdu poet has used it in this sense. I could be wrong.
Naseer
tanhaa
I doubt the same as well Naseer sahib, but then, where did the word
"tanhaa" meaning "alone" came from?
Regards
Amit Malhotra
Naseer
> I doubt the same as well Naseer sahib, but then, where did the word
> "tanhaa" meaning "alone" came from?
janaab-i-Amit Malhotra Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai.
"tanhaa"/alone and "tan-haa"/bodies being "ham-aavaaz" maHz ik
ittifaaq hai.
(kyaa aap ko ma'luum hai kih jis qism kaa jumlah maiN ne uupar likhaa
hai ise Sarwar Sahib "chuuN chuuN kaa murabbah kahte haiN?:) )
murabbah banaanaa bhii har kisii ke bas kii baat nahiiN!
KHair-Khvaah,
Naseer
Raj Kumar
>
> janaab-i-Raj Kumar Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai.
>
> yih daKHl hargiz nahiiN balkih aap kaa baRaa-pan hai kih aap apne 'ilm
> awr tajrubaat ke zaKHiiroN se kuchh ratan ham jaisoN meN baaNTne se
> bhii gurez nahiiN karte:)
kyaa karooN, miyaaN, yeh Khazaana maiN seene pe dhar ke le jaane se to
rahaa --- to phir kyooN na ise apne azeezoN-azeeziyoN meiN baaNTtaa
chalooN? :)
albatta, ta'assuf hai k is 'forum' par ziyaada-tar azeez log hi haiN,
azeeziyaaN naheeN haiN ----
(sivaaye Zoya saahiba ke)! :( ;)
> to kyaa ek "aafaaqii" qaa'idah banaayaa jaa saktaa hai kih jahaaN
> jahaaN 'Arabii yaa Farsi ke vuh alfaaz jin ke aaKHir meN he aatii hai,
> zaruurat paRne par is he ko alif-i-mamduudah meN tabdiil kiyaa jaa
> saktaa hai?
>
> masal-an
>
> shikvah> shikvaa> shikve
> rutbah> rutbaa> rutbe
>
> gilah> gilaa > gile
> andeshah>andeshaa>andeshe
>
> vaGHairah vaGHairah.
huzoor, meri samajh-boojh ke mutaabiq, aisa ko'ii aafaaqi qaa'eda
ma'amool meiN naheeN hai aur na hi ham aisa ko'i qaa'eda naafiz karne
ke aihl haiN -------------- magar vaaqe'a yeh hai k agar Faarsi ka
ko'ii ism (=noun) harf 'he' par Khatm hota hai to use, Urdu meiN
ist'emaal karte vaqt, ham par Hindi 'grammar' aur Hindi 'syntex' ka
paalan karna laazim hai. jaise,
SHIKVE mirii zabaan pe aa aa ke reh gaye
tum gale se mil gaye, saare GILE jaate rahe
RUTBE meiN mehr-o-maah se kamtar naheeN hooN maiN -----
I know fully well that the word "rutbe" here is not the plural of
"rutba" but all I am talking about is the manner of "syntax" ----
which is clearly Hindi-vaadi, not Faarsi-vaadi!
In this context --- but, on a lighter note, --- let me narrate an
interesting incident that Naresh Kumar Shaad has penned down in one of
his numerous writings ---------- farmaate haiN k
Dilli ki aek 'informal gathering' meiN --- jahaaN (deegar udabaa ke
saath saath) janaab-e-Firaaq Gorakhpurii aur janaab-e-Josh
Maleehaabaadi bhi maujood the ----------- Firaaq saahib ne (apne aek
haaliya safar ka zikr karte huye) kahaa k "saahib, Shimla ki aab-o-
havaa ka kyaa kehna"?"
Firaaq saahib ka yeh jumla sunte hi, Josh saahib bole, "ae Farquve (if
you guys don't know this, let me tell you that on most occasions, if
not all, Firaaq and Josh were very friendly with one-another and,
believe it or not, this IS the "overly informal" way the latter used
to address the former)! Josh saahib ka poora farmaan tha:
"ae Farquve, yeh "Shimla ki aab-o-havaa" kahaaN ki zabaan hai?
tum "Shimle ki aab-o-havaa" naheeN keh sakte"?
yeh sun kar Firaaq saaahib bole, "huzoor, aap to yooN bigaR rahe haiN
jaise maiN ne "ghoRe ki dum" ki bajaaye "ghoRaa ki dum" keh diyaa
ho"! WOW!!! :) bal-k LOL bal-k ROTFL
> rahii baat tan-i-tanhaa kii, to yih emphasis ke liye hai, jaise ham
> Punjabi log "kallam-kallaa" kii tarkiib isti'maal karte haiN. At
> least, this is how I understand it.
shukriya, Naseer saahib, aap ke "kallam-kalla" ne to meri sabhi
gutthiyaaN suljhaa diiN. nateejatan, ab maiN ba-Khoobi samajhne lagaa
hooN k is tarkeeb ke kyaa ma'ani haiN ----------- emphasis on
'loneliness'! Right?
Khair, jaate jaate, isi baat par Khaaksaar ke biraadar-e-mohtaram
(late!) janaab-e-Parvez ka yeh she'r sunte jaaiye:
yaadgaar-e-Gham-e-ulfat tan-e-tanhaa hooN maiN
jis ko sab chhoR chuke haiN, vuhi dunyaa hooN maiN!
Aameen!!!
Khair-aNdesh, Raj Kumar
Naseer
janaab-i-Raj Kumar Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai.
> huzoor, meri samajh-boojh ke mutaabiq, aisa ko'ii aafaaqi qaa'eda
> ma'amool meiN naheeN hai aur na hi ham aisa ko'i qaa'eda naafiz karne
> ke aihl haiN -------------- magar vaaqe'a yeh hai k agar Faarsi ka
> ko'ii ism (=noun) harf 'he' par Khatm hota hai to use, Urdu meiN
> ist'emaal karte vaqt, ham par Hindi 'grammar' aur Hindi 'syntex' ka
> paalan karna laazim hai.
maiN sirf aap kii ek baat se, ek "technicality" par "issue lenaa"
chaahtaa huuN awr ise, lillaah, koii tanaazu'ah nah samajhiye gaa. jab
aap ne farmaayaa hai..
"magar vaaqe'a yeh hai k agar Faarsi ka ko'ii ism (=noun) harf 'he'
par Khatm hota hai to use, Urdu meiN ist'emaal karte vaqt, ham par
Hindi 'grammar' aur Hindi 'syntex' ka paalan karna laazim hai",
yahaaN aap "Urdu grammar" awr "Urdu syntex" likh sakte the. is kii
vajh yih hai kih Urdu meN jis tarH laRkaa, laRke meN tabdiil ho jaataa
hai isii tarH gilah, gile kii shakl iKHtiyaar kar letaa hai. yih alag
baat hai kih 'ain yahii qaa'idah Hindi meN bhii musta'mal hai.
>jaise,
>
> SHIKVE mirii zabaan pe aa aa ke reh gaye
>
> tum gale se mil gaye, saare GILE jaate rahe
>
> RUTBE meiN mehr-o-maah se kamtar naheeN hooN maiN -----
> I know fully well that the word "rutbe" here is not the plural of
> "rutba" but all I am talking about is the manner of "syntax" ----
> which is clearly Hindi-vaadi, not Faarsi-vaadi!
ek baar phir...jii haaN yih Farsi-vaadii nahiiN magar "Urdu-vaadii"
hai. agar yahaaN ham Farsi awr 'Arabii kaa liHaaz rakhte to yih alfaaz
"gilah-haa", "shakawaat" awr "rutab" hote.
> In this context --- but, on a lighter note, --- let me narrate an
> interesting incident that Naresh Kumar Shaad has penned down in one of
> his numerous writings ---------- farmaate haiN k
>
> Dilli ki aek 'informal gathering' meiN --- jahaaN (deegar udabaa ke
> saath saath) janaab-e-Firaaq Gorakhpurii aur janaab-e-Josh
> Maleehaabaadi bhi maujood the ----------- Firaaq saahib ne (apne aek
> haaliya safar ka zikr karte huye) kahaa k "saahib, Shimla ki aab-o-
> havaa ka kyaa kehna"?"
>
> Firaaq saahib ka yeh jumla sunte hi, Josh saahib bole, "ae Farquve (if
> you guys don't know this, let me tell you that on most occasions, if
> not all, Firaaq and Josh were very friendly with one-another and,
> believe it or not, this IS the "overly informal" way the latter used
> to address the former)! Josh saahib ka poora farmaan tha:
>
> "ae Farquve, yeh "Shimla ki aab-o-havaa" kahaaN ki zabaan hai?
> tum "Shimle ki aab-o-havaa" naheeN keh sakte"?
>
> yeh sun kar Firaaq saaahib bole, "huzoor, aap to yooN bigaR rahe haiN
> jaise maiN ne "ghoRe ki dum" ki bajaaye "ghoRaa ki dum" keh diyaa
> ho"! WOW!!! :) bal-k LOL bal-k ROTFL
bahut KHuub, Raj Kumar Sahib. is silsile meN ek lambhii chaurii baHs
ALUP par chal chukii hai. mulaaHizah ho..
kalkatte se... mere Ghariib KHaane meN....
> > rahii baat tan-i-tanhaa kii, to yih emphasis ke liye hai, jaise ham
> > Punjabi log "kallam-kallaa" kii tarkiib isti'maal karte haiN. At
> > least, this is how I understand it.
>
> shukriya, Naseer saahib, aap ke "kallam-kalla" ne to meri sabhi
> gutthiyaaN suljhaa diiN. nateejatan, ab maiN ba-Khoobi samajhne lagaa
> hooN k is tarkeeb ke kyaa ma'ani haiN ----------- emphasis on
> 'loneliness'! Right?
>
> Khair, jaate jaate, isi baat par Khaaksaar ke biraadar-e-mohtaram
> (late!) janaab-e-Parvez ka yeh she'r sunte jaaiye:
>
> yaadgaar-e-Gham-e-ulfat tan-e-tanhaa hooN maiN
> jis ko sab chhoR chuke haiN, vuhi dunyaa hooN maiN!
>
bahut achchhaa! bahut KHuub! awr yahaaN "kallam-kalla" fits perfectly
too.
iraadat-mand,
Naseer
Raj Kumar
> maiN sirf aap kii ek baat se, ek "technicality" par "issue lenaa"
> chaahtaa huuN awr ise, lillaah, koii tanaazu'ah nah samajhiye gaa.
janaab-e-Naseer saahib:
maiN bhalaa aap ki is baat ko tanaazo' kyooN na samjhooN? huzoor, aap
ki to baat baat tanaazo' ka sar-chashma hoti hai! ;)
> jab aap ne farmaayaa hai..
> "magar vaaqe'a yeh hai k agar Faarsi ka ko'ii ism (=noun) harf 'he'
> par Khatm hota hai to use, Urdu meiN ist'emaal karte vaqt, ham par
> Hindi 'grammar' aur Hindi 'syntex' ka paalan karna laazim hai",
>
> yahaaN aap "Urdu grammar" awr "Urdu syntex" likh sakte the. is kii
> vajh yih hai kih Urdu meN jis tarH laRkaa, laRke meN tabdiil ho jaataa
> hai isii tarH gilah, gile kii shakl iKHtiyaar kar letaa hai. yih alag
> baat hai kih 'ain yahii qaa'idah Hindi meN bhii musta'mal hai.
janaab-e-man, yeh qaa'ide SADIYON pehle Hindi vyaakaran meiN raa'ij
the, peshtar is ke k Urdu vaaloN ne inheN apnaane ka kashT kiyaa. That
is what I meant to say here and, believe me, that is ALL I meant to
say!
And that is why I often tend to distinguish between Persian sarf-o-
nahv and Hindi vyaakaran ---- because, to be fair with you, there is
NO real Urdu graamar and NO real Urdu syntex EXCEPT what I call Hindi
grammar and Hindi syntax!
In case you disagree with me, please give me some "trust-worthty"
counter-examples! ;)
azeez-e-man, I often encounter questions such as ------------- kyaa
lafz "raNj" Urdu ka hai aa Hindi ka?
Please tell me what, at such a question, should I say?
In any case, my standard response is:
agar ham Ghaur se dekheN to, hamaari bol-chaal meiN, AEK BHI lafz Urdu
ka naheeN hota kyooN-k ham "Urdu vaale" jo bhii alfaaz bolte haiN, voh
beshtar yaa to Faarsi ke hote haiN yaa Hindi ke!
agar aap ko meri is baat par yaqeen na aaye to aap kisi bhi mustanad
luGhat ko dekh leejiye ------------- kehne ko to yeh luGhaat Urdu ki
hoti haiN magar, lafz lafz par, hameN tanbeeh karti haiN k yeh lafz
Faarsi ka hai, yeh lafz Arabi ka hai, yeh lafz Hindi ka hai, yeh lafz
Turki kaa hai, etc.
magar afsos k ko'i bhi luGhat yeh naheeN kehti kl "yeh lafz Urdu ka
hai'! :(
So, my honest opinion is that Urdu is hardly a language on its own ---
luckily for us, it is a fantaaaaastic compound of Persian taraakeeb
and Persian sophistication but, structurally, it is 100 % founded on
Hindi gramamr and Hindi syntax! Even so, we love it and don't shy
away from regrding it as an entity on its own!!!
> >jaise,
>
> > SHIKVE mirii zabaan pe aa aa ke reh gaye
>
> > tum gale se mil gaye, saare GILE jaate rahe
>
> > RUTBE meiN mehr-o-maah se kamtar naheeN hooN maiN -----
> > I know fully well that the word "rutbe" here is not the plural of
> > "rutba" but all I am talking about is the manner of "syntax" ----
> > which is clearly Hindi-vaadi, not Faarsi-vaadi!
> ek baar phir...jii haaN yih Farsi-vaadii nahiiN magar "Urdu-vaadii"
> hai. agar yahaaN ham Farsi awr 'Arabii kaa liHaaz rakhte to yih alfaaz
> "gilah-haa", "shakawaat" awr "rutab" hote.
As I said before, I don't see any sense in calling this structure
"Urdu-vaaadii' ---- bercause, in my dictionary, there is nothing to
suggest that any structure in our usage is "Urdu-vaadii" -------------
it is either "Hindi-vaadii" or "Persian-vaadii"!
> > to address the former)! Josh saahib ka poora farmaan tha:
>
> > "ae Farquve, yeh "Shimla ki aab-o-havaa" kahaaN ki zabaan hai?
> > tum "Shimle ki aab-o-havaa" naheeN keh sakte"?
>
> > yeh sun kar Firaaq saaahib bole, "huzoor, aap to yooN bigaR rahe haiN
> > jaise maiN ne "ghoRe ki dum" ki bajaaye "ghoRaa ki dum" keh diyaa
> > ho"! WOW!!! :) bal-k LOL bal-k ROTFL
>
> bahut KHuub, Raj Kumar Sahib. is silsile meN ek lambhii chaurii baHs
> ALUP par chal chukii hai. mulaaHizah ho..
>
> kalkatte se... mere Ghariib KHaane meN....
>
> http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.language.urdu.poetry/browse_frm...
Oh, yes, I did browse through that link but, frankly speaking, I was
not impressed! :(
> > > rahii baat tan-i-tanhaa kii, to yih emphasis ke liye hai, jaise ham
> > > Punjabi log "kallam-kallaa" kii tarkiib isti'maal karte haiN. At
> > > least, this is how I understand it.
>
> > shukriya, Naseer saahib, aap ke "kallam-kalla" ne to meri sabhi
> > gutthiyaaN suljhaa diiN. nateejatan, ab maiN ba-Khoobi samajhne lagaa
> > hooN k is tarkeeb ke kyaa ma'ani haiN ----------- emphasis on
> > 'loneliness'! Right?
>
> > Khair, jaate jaate, isi baat par Khaaksaar ke biraadar-e-mohtaram
> > (late!) janaab-e-Parvez ka yeh she'r sunte jaaiye:
>
> > yaadgaar-e-Gham-e-ulfat tan-e-tanhaa hooN maiN
> > jis ko sab chhoR chuke haiN, vuhi dunyaa hooN maiN!
>
> bahut achchhaa! bahut KHuub! awr yahaaN "kallam-kalla" fits perfectly
> too.
chaliye, meri is 'post' meiN kam-az-kam aek she'r to aap ko pasaNd
aayaa! ;)
Even so, for you and other ALUPer friends (especially, azeez-e-man
Amit saahib), please allow me to quote another she'r from that Ghazal
of Parvez saahib --- farmaate haiN k
aap rehte haiN mire saath --- safar ho k hazar!
phir bhi mehsoos yeh hotaa hai k TANHAA hooN maiN!!!
Are you around, Amit miyaaN? ;)
R.K.
tanhaa
ji bilkul, I'm around sir. ab kahaaN jaayeiNge aisi mehfiloN ko chhoR
kar.
what a perfect usage of the word 'tanhaa'. I think this sh'er
explains a lot as to what my fascination with the word is. Thank you
for quoting another gem from Parvez Sahib. Though you only shared a
few ghazals of him (or was it only one?), his poetry definitely
interests me a lot.
Thanks & Regards,
Amit Malhotra
Naseer
> maiN bhalaa aap ki is baat ko tanaazo' kyooN na samjhooN? huzoor, aap
> ki to baat baat tanaazo' ka sar-chashma hoti hai! ;)
janaab-i-Raj Kumar Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai.
yaqiin maaniye kih kal hii maiN ne aap ke is KHat ke javaab meN ek
lambaa chauRaa mazmuun likh diyaa. phir sochaa kih aap kaheN ge kih
"Naseer has certainly lived up to his "mutanaaza'a" image". maiN
nahiiN chaahtaa thaa kih Amit Sahib ke "ghar" aa kar is shiiriiN aab-o-
havaa meN kisii qism kii talKHii aa jaae. vaise bhii ShaiKH Sa'dii
farmaa gae haiN..
har kih baa buzurgaaN satezad, KHuun-i-KHud me-rezad
(jo apne baRoN se laRtaa hai, vuh apnaa hii KHuun bahaataa hai). awr
meraa KHuun faaltuu nahiiN hai:) lihaazaa maiN aap ko muKHtasar saa
javaab detaa huuN. umiid hai kih aap merii KHuuN-rezii nahiiN kareN
ge!
> janaab-e-man, yeh qaa'ide SADIYON pehle Hindi vyaakaran meiN raa'ij
> the, peshtar is ke k Urdu vaaloN ne inheN apnaane ka kashT kiyaa. That
> is what I meant to say here and, believe me, that is ALL I meant to
> say!
jahaaN tak donoN zabaanoN kii 'umr kaa ta'alluq hai to yih donoN
KhaRii Bolii (KB) kii "evolved" shakleN haiN magar in kii parvarish
muKHtalif maaHaul meN huii hai. aap Urdu zabaan ke ek shaa'ir haiN.
aap mujh se ziyaadah bihtar jaante haiN kih Urdu kaa adabii silsilah
kab se shuruu' huaa hai awr kahaaN tak pahuNchaa hai. Stewart McGregor
ne jo kih Cambridge University meN Hindi ke reader the awr jinhoN ne
Hindi Grammar awr Hindi Dictionary likhii hai, apnii dictionary ke
pesh-lafz meN Urdu ko Hindii kii nisbat "an earlier specialisation"
kahaa hai.
> And that is why I often tend to distinguish between Persian sarf-o-nahv and
> Hindi vyaakaran ---- because, to be fair with you, there is
> NO real Urdu graamar and NO real Urdu syntex EXCEPT what I call Hindi
> grammar and Hindi syntax! In case you disagree with me, please give me
agar ham is baat kaa i'tiraaf kar leN kih Urdu awr Hindi KB kii paidaa-
vaar haiN to donoN kii graamar bhii ek hii huii. ab agar aap kahte
haiN kih jo graamar awr syntax Urdu ko KB se viraasat meN milaa hai,
"real graamar" awr "real syntax" nahiiN hai to maiN kyaa kah saktaa
huuN?
> azeez-e-man, I often encounter questions such as ------------- kyaa
> lafz "raNj" Urdu ka hai yaa Hindi ka? Please tell me what, at such a question,
> should I say?
"ranj" ke baare meN aap ne savaal kiyaa hai kih ise Urdu kaa lafz
kahnaa chaahiye yaa kih Hindii kaa. Raj Kumar Sahib, javaab bi_lkul
aasaan hai. agar Hindii adiib pichhle tiin chaar sau saaloN se (yaa is
se bhii ziyaadah) is lafz ko apnii kavitaa/naaTak yaa kisii awr sinf
meN likhte aa rahe haiN to yih lafz Urdu/Hindii kaa hai varnah Urdu
kaa hai. vaise to aap jaante hii haiN kih lafz-i-ranj Farsi-naZaad
hai.
>In any case, my standard response is:
> agar ham Ghaur se dekheN to, hamaari bol-chaal meiN, AEK BHI lafz Urdu
> ka naheeN hota kyooN-k ham "Urdu vaale" jo bhii alfaaz bolte haiN, voh
> beshtar yaa to Faarsi ke hote haiN yaa Hindi ke!
gustaaKHii mu'aaf Raj Kumar Sahib. jis tarH Laatiinii zabaan ne
Ataalvii, FaraaNsiisii awr Haspaanvii vaGHairah ko janm diyaa usii
tarH saNskrit ke batn se bhii kaii zabaaneN vujuud meN aaiiN. shamaal-
maGHribii HindustaaN meN jo zabaan Dehlii ke gird-navaaH meN bolii
jaatii thii use KHaRii boli kahte the. isii bolii se Urdu awr vuh
zabaan jo Hindustaan kii sarkaarii zabaan hai awr jise ham ab Hindii
kahte haiN vujuud meN aaiiN. yih baat zihn-nashiin kar lenaa zaruurii
hai kih Urdu adab meN jahaaN jahaaN Hindii yaa Hindvii kaa zikr aayaa
hai vuh yihh Hindii nahiiN hai jo kih Mahaa-Bhaarat Draame ke kirdaar
bolte haiN bal-kih vuh Urdu hai. use Hindii/Hindvii ke naam se is liye
pukaaraa gayaa kih vuh Hind kii hai awr Iiraan/AfGHaanistaan yaa
"'Arabistaan" kii nahiiN. 'Allamah Iqbal ne apne Faarsii kalaam meN
bhii "Hindii" kaa lafz isti'maal kiyaa hai awr yih merii is daliil kaa
subuut hai kih vuh Faarsii ke muqaabale meN lafz-i-Hindi likh rahe
the. varnah aap sab se yih baat poshiidah nahiiN kih Iqbaal kii Urdu
Duur-darshan kii Hindii nahiiN thii. jahaaN tak mujhe 'ilm hai lafz-i-
Hindii kaa vujuud musalmaanoN kii aamad se pahle Hindustaan ke adab
meN nahiiN thaa.
> agar aap ko meri is baat par yaqeen na aaye to aap kisi bhi mustanad
> luGhat ko dekh leejiye ------------- kehne ko to yeh luGhaat Urdu ki
> hoti haiN magar, lafz lafz par, hameN tanbeeh karti haiN k yeh lafz
> Faarsi ka hai, yeh lafz Arabi ka hai, yeh lafz Hindi ka hai, yeh lafz
> Turki kaa hai, etc.
> magar afsos k ko'i bhi luGhat yeh naheeN kehti kl "yeh lafz Urdu ka
> hai'! :(
Raj Kumar Sahib. aap kii yih mantiq paRh kar mujhe ta'ajjub huaa hai.
aap koii "mustanad" angrezii qaamuus khol leN. us me har lafz kaa
ishtiqaaq likhaa ho gaa, masalan Anglo-saxon, Latin, Greek, Hebrew vGH
vGH. to kyaa ham is zabaan ko angrezii kahnaa chhoR deN ge? hargiz
nahiiN. isii tarH, mere is jumle meN chand alfaaz 'Arabii ke haiN, ek
Farsi kaa awr baqiyah KB ke. to kyaa yih jumlah Urdu kaa nahiiN?
> So, my honest opinion is that Urdu is hardly a language on its own ---
> luckily for us, it is a fantaaaaastic compound of Persian taraakeeb
> and Persian sophistication but, structurally, it is 100 % founded on Hindi
> grammar and Hindi syntext.
KHuub, Raj Kumar Sahib. bahut KHuub. aap ek aisii zabaan meN shaa'irii
kar rahe haiN jo "ba-mushkil" ek zabaan hone kaa da'vaa kar saktii
hai!! ek baar phir gustaaKHii mu'aaf, Raj Kumar Sahib. mere KHayaal
meN koii hii aisii zabaan ho gii jo beruunii 'anaasir se muta'asar nah
huii ho. sab se baRii misaal aap ke saamne angrezii kii hai jis kaa
nihaayat hii vasii' zaKHirah-i-alfaaz hai.
> As I said before, I don't see any sense in calling this structure
> "Urdu-vaaadii' ---- bercause, in my dictionary, there is nothing to
> suggest that any structure in our usage is "Urdu-vaadii" -------------
> it is either "Hindi-vaadii" or "Persian-vaadii"!
jaisaa kih maiN uupar 'arz kar chukaa huuN, donoN Urdu awr Hindi kii
ibtidaa KB se huii hai. is mantiq kii binaa par maiN ab bhii "Urdu-
vaadii" par musirr rahuuN gaa.
mu'aaf kiijiye gaa kih yih "muKHtasar" javaab kuchh taviil hii ho
gayaa hai.
yaar zindah, suHbat baaqii.
Khair-andesh,
Naseer
Afzal A. Khan
Naseer Saheb,
I must commend you for your scholarly input.
In all such discussions, IMHO, we seem to forget that Urdu
is more or less an 'artificial' language, that is made up
of so many components. So, if we go back, say, 450 years,
we may not find Urdu language as such in vogue or in use
anywhere --- and still, many or most of these components were
already in existence, and in use, as part of other languages
or dialects. The beauty of Urdu, IMO, lies in the fact that,
despite its recent origin, it has become a distinct entity in
its own right. Urdu speakers today may possibly outnumber
Faarsi speakers. For those of us who do not know Faarsi, the
word "raNj" MAY BE Faarsi nezhaad, but it most definitely is
Urdu !
Afzal
Naseer
janaab-i-Afzal Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai.
> I must commend you for your scholarly input.
Thank you for your kind comment but I am no scholar and am not worthy
of these kind words. What I have learnt is as a result of some
interest in languages in general and no more.
> In all such discussions, IMHO, we seem to forget that Urdu
> is more or less an 'artificial' language, that is made up
> of so many components.
I will have to disagree with your choice of the word "artificial". I
would put Esperanto in the artificial category. Urdu developed in a
natural way. No one sat down with the ingredients in various
proportions and came up with the final result:) On the contrary,Ralph
Russell refers to modern Hindi as "invented" (Please see article
below, provided by UVR Sahib).
http://www.urdustudies.com/pdf/11/19somenotes.pdf
KHair-Khvaah,
Naseer
UVR
Naseer saahib,
is meN maiN aap ki do baatoN se iKhtilaaf-e-raaye ki ijaazat
chaahooNga. awwal to yeh, k "lafz-e-Hindi kaa wujood
*musalmaanoN* ki aamad se pahle Hindustan ke adab meN
naheeN thaa" aur doyam yeh, k "Urdu adab meN jahaaN jahaaN
Hindi yaa Hindvi kaa zikr hai woh [...] Hindi naheeN, bal-k Urdu
hai."
aap ki pahli baat ki tardeed is "linguistic fact" ki binaa par ki
jaati hai k 'Hindi' lafz 'ahl-e-Faaras ne (na k musalmaanoN ne)
eejaad kiyaa thaa.
ab aap yeh bataaiye k lafz-e-Urdu kisne eejaad kiyaa hai.
aap ki doosri baat ki tardeed is binaa par hoti hai k jis bhaaSha
ko aap aaj "Urdu" kah rahe haiN, huzoor us zubaan kaa bhi us
zamaane meN koi wujood naheeN thaa k jis zamaane ki aap
baat kar rahe haiN (ya'ani this "khaRi boli kaa zamaana")!
aur agar maiN Ghalati par hooN, to kripa kar ke hameN yeh
bataane kaa kasht kareN k what were those distinguishing
features that set that Urdu apart from "khaRi boli" -- mind you
I'm speaking of a particular time in the history of Urdu, not
of today's Urdu.
chand zahn-nisheen kar lene waali baatoN kaa zikr aage
ho chukaa hai, so ek aisi hi baat maiN bhi 'arz kartaa hooN.
jo bhaaSha shri Ramanand Sagar ke television serials meN
sunaa`ee deti hai, woh "Hindi" naheeN hai. agar aap ko is
baat ko qubool karne meN ta'ammul hai, to koi aisa ghar
dikhaa deN jahaaN (aaj se 50-75 saal pahle bhi) koi beTaa
apne baap ko "pitaa shree" kah kar bulaataa ho, yaa
koi pati apni patni ko "priye". (50-75 saal isliye, k aaj ki
taareeKh meN to aisaa ho hi naheeN saktaa). meraa
Khayaal hai aisi baateN sirf aur sirf kitaaboN meN dekhne
ko milti haiN.
sach baat to yeh hai k Ramanand Sagar ke serials ki Hindi
to "kitaabi flavor" ki bhi Hindi naheeN hai! woh to ek maKhsoos
qism ki hi kitaaboN/draamoN meN aap ko milegi. lihaaza
yeh kahnaa k sirf wohi zubaan Hindi hai, sar-aa-sar Ghalat
aur bebuniyaad hai. agar aap is baat se ittifaaq naheeN
karte to phir is par do minaT sarf keejiye k -- agar maiN
kahooN k SIRF kitaabi flavor ki Urdu hi Urdu hoti hai, to?
ek sawaal aur Ghaur talab hai -- kisi zubaan kaa wujood,
uski uniqueness, kyaa us ke "nouns" se ta'e hoti hai, yaa
us ke verbs se? misaal ke taur par, agar "Prime Minister"
ke liye "wazeer-e-a'azam" na kahkar "pradhaan mantri"
kah dene bhar se (yaa isee qabeel ki deegar tabdeeliyaaN
laa dene se) koi zubaan 'Urdu' se 'Hindi' meN badal jaayegi?
agar haaN, to phir agar maiN 'w-e-a' yaa 'p. mantri' na kahooN
aur "prime minister" kaa hi jumlaa ist'emaal karooN, to?
-UVR.
Afzal A. Khan
Naseer Saheb,
Maybe I didn't quite explain what I wanted to say, and that is
of course my mistake.
First of all, I did put the word "artificial" within quotation
marks. Secondly, I also used the words "more or less".
I didn't intend to suggest that someone or a group of persons
decided to sit down one day and "invent" a new language. The
evolution of Urdu has been a gradual process. The language that
Wali used can be called "Deccani" or proto-Urdu or whatever.
Even the language used by the likes of Mirza Mazhar, Khwaaja Meer
Dard and Meer Taqi Meer is a little bit different from the lang-
uage as we use it today. Zauq and Momin were contemporaries of
Ghalib, and yet it is possible to distinguish the "zabaan" used
by them. Over a period of time, different elements came to be
absorbed in the language and some other elements were either
modified or discarded altogether. If we keep hindi aside, Urdu
is arguably the most recent of widely-spoken world languages.
And the perception that it is not quite "original" or "pristine"
is perhaps due to these changes that have taken place in a com-
paratively short span of time, say, 450 years or thereabouts.
I haven't really studied "linguistics", but I daresay that KhaRi
Boli and Faarsi/Arabic vocabulary have practically nothing in
common, and yet both are such essential components of Urdu.
It was only in this context that I had used the word "artifi-
cial".
The same thing has happened, I believe, in the case of English.
The type of English used in the Tudor Age, for example, is not
quite the language we read today. Even the English written and
used at the turn of the (twentieth) century seems comparatively
different.
{Incidentally, I haven't yet seen the link referred to by you.
Maybem it is the same that was furnished by Shri UVR some six
months back.}
Afzal
Kali Hawa
>
> - Show quoted text -
It is quite intimidating to say anything in presence of such
erudition, therefore I am writing this to seek clarification rather
questioning any assertion. Isn't 'KhaRi Boli' the language we speak
even today. Some 40 years back when in school ( 6th/7th class) I was
told in my Hindi class that 'Modern Hindi' is 'KhaRi Boli" while Hindi
is actually sum total of Avadhi/Braj Bhasha and other dialects of
North India. In fact in my Hindi Text book most of the poetry was in
Avadhi/ Braj Bhasha (Tulsidas/Kabir/Surdas/Rahim/Raskhan/Jaayasi etc.)
Naseer
> Isn't 'KhaRi Boli' the language we speak
> even today. Some 40 years back when in school ( 6th/7th class) I was
> told in my Hindi class that 'Modern Hindi' is 'KhaRi Boli" while Hindi
> is actually sum total of Avadhi/Braj Bhasha and other dialects of
> North India. In fact in my Hindi Text book most of the poetry was in
> Avadhi/ Braj Bhasha (Tulsidas/Kabir/Surdas/Rahim/Raskhan/Jaayasi etc.)-
janaab-i-Kala Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai.
The answer to your question, very broadly, is YES.
Naseer
Naseer
yih merii KHush-nasiibii hai kih maiN us anjuman meN Urdu kii Himaayat
meN kuchh likhne kii jasaarat kar rahaa huuN jahaaN ke log nah sirf
muHibbaan-i-Urdu haiN bal-kih un meN se chand to us zabaan se itnaa
pyaar karte haiN kih us kii shaa'irii meN tab'-aazmaaii bhii kar rahe
haiN.varnah, kisii awr bazm meN, jahaaN kaa maaHaul itnaa KHush-gavaar-
o-dost-aanah nah hotaa,nah jaane mujh jaisoN kaa kyaa Hashr hotaa!!
>is meN maiN aap ki do baatoN se iKhtilaaf-e-raaye ki ijaazat
>chaahooNga. awwal to yeh, k "lafz-e-Hindi kaa wujood
*musalmaanoN* ki aamad se pahle Hindustan ke adab meN
>naheeN thaa"
>aap ki pahli baat ki tardeed is "linguistic fact" ki binaa par ki
>jaati hai k 'Hindi' lafz 'ahl-e-Faaras ne (na k musalmaanoN ne)
>eejaad kiyaa thaa.
>ab aap yeh bataaiye k lafz-e-Urdu kisne eejaad kiyaa hai.
maiN ne alfaaz kii "iijaad" ke baare meN to kuchh nahiiN kahaa. vujuud
ba-ma'nii "existence" isti'maal kiyaa hai.
Now, let us see in what context I wrote...
jahaaN tak mujhe 'ilm hai lafz-i-Hindii kaa vujuud musalmaanoN kii
aamad se pahle Hindustaan ke adab meN nahiiN thaa.
The context was this paragraph from janaab-i-Raj Kumar Sahib's posT.
>In any case, my standard response is:
> agar ham Ghaur se dekheN to, hamaari bol-chaal meiN, AEK BHI lafz Urdu
> ka naheeN hota kyooN-k ham "Urdu vaale" jo bhii alfaaz bolte haiN, voh
> beshtar yaa to Faarsi ke hote haiN yaa Hindi ke!
Here one does not need to be Einstein to work out what is being
implied. My humble understanding is this.There is no such language as
Urdu. What is termed as Urdu is no more than Hindi with an admixture
of Farsi and other bits and pieces. In chemical terms, this so called
Urdu, does not become a homogenous entity (a compound) with it's own
seperate identity but remains a mixture clearly defined by its
component parts. duusare lafzoN meN duudh, chaaval, shakkar, baadaam,
kishmish, za'faraan vaGhairah se yih laziir khiiZ nahiiN banii bal-kih
abhii tak duudh-chaaval hii hai awr chaaval bhii gale nahiiN!!!
On top of this, in the Hindi/Urdu controversy, others have said the
following.
a) Urdu is not of India but it is alien.
b) It's written in a foreign script with a foreign name.
c) It is the language of Muslims only who themselves are foreign.
This is of course in contrast to...Hindi.
Now, you as an Urdu lover and Urdu poet know that its roots are
exactly the same as the national language of India, Hindi, which came
into official circles a long time after Urdu had been around. But this
point is irrelevent here. What is relevent is that if Delhi/the
Deccan/ Lukhnow etc are in India, then the language
is Indian. If these places are on Mars, then we, the Urdu lovers, have
n't a leg to stand on.
A script does not make a language foreign. The Latin alphabet used to
write Turkish does not make it foreign, neither does Tajik in Cyrillic
make it alien. Sanskrit has been written in Brahmi, Bengali and other
scripts before it
began to be written, almost universally, in Devanagri. Sanskrit still
remained Sanskrit in any of these scripts.
The name Urdu is normally explained as coming from Turkish/Mongol
sources meaning a place/city/encampment where the centre of government
is seated and people connected with its governance reside.Indeed, it
has even been suggested that it comes from the Sanskrit word
"hrday" (heart). But,UVR Sahib, if for sake
of argument we say that we can trace your ancestory, as a Telagu
speaker, back 10,000 years and today you become Naseer Qureshi would
that make you foreign to the Indian soil?
Urdu being the language of Muslims only is of course not true. One
only needs to look at the varied "membership" of ALUP. I think this
concept of being foreign is a rather stupid one. As I have indicated
in another thread to Shrii Piyush
Jii that we are all human beings with DNA count compatible with homo-
sapiens. We are all Earth-dwellers and we, throughout the ages have
moved for various reasons from one place to another. My family are now
in England. Most of
ALUPers are in Canada and the USA.In terms of people who brought
Sanskrit to India, they too came from an area of Western Turkey
millenia ago. If this is true, then all of us who speak a Sanskrit-
based language
Urdu/Hindi/Punjabi/Gujarati/Bengali/Marathi etc) are all foreign.The
only non-foreign people in the sub-continent might be people who speak
a Dravidian language!!
Now coming to the point. If Urdu language, its name, its script, its
speakers are all foreign, then please don't forget that the name of
the language against which Urdu is being so unfavourably compared,
namely Hindi, is also foreign.
Yes, the words "Hind" and "Hindi" are of "ahl-i-Faaris" origin..or in
simpler terms of Iranian/Farsi origin. I don't know the date when
these people called the land Hind and the language spoken by the
people of Hind as Hindi but it
was a long time ago. If it was before the advent of the Iranian
muslims, so be it. Religion is not central to my argument. What I am
saying is that the people who have fought against Urdu so ferociously,
ought to remember that the name of their language too is not home
grown.
To put an icing on a cake, when the above named arguments against Urdu
have not anihilated the language altogether one hears that Urdu and
Hindi are one language crouched in two scripts. What a joke? If this
is indeed the case, then
Sarwar Sahib, Raj Kumar Sahib and you UVR Sahib, Amit Malhotra Sahib,
Zoya Sahiba, Sat pal Sahib et al... are all writing their poetry in
Hindi! Manohar jii and Sat Pal jii are learning Urdu. Why learn Urdu
if they already know it in the form of
Hindi? But, more important why oh why do I not see words such as
vaataavaraNR, pratiikshaa,kripa, kashT, dhanyaavaad,prasann,samachaar,
padhaariye...you get my gist,in their shaa'irii. Or should I say
kavitaa?
If Hindi and Urdu are indeed one language, what was the purpose behind
the Hindi Movement of 1867? What was the reason behind the deliberate
"cleansing" policy of Farsi and Arabic words from Urdu?
The sounds f, q, KH, GH, z are not part of the Hindi sound system.
Hindi grammar groups tabulate the consonants but these are listed
seperately,denoted by a dot below ph,k, kh, gh and j respectively. If
both languages were the same
they would both have the same consonants. Without these
consonants,hamaarii khuub-suurat jindagii meN khushii nahiiN rahe gii
bal-kih gam hii gam aa jaae gaa. kasam khudaa kii ham to phanaa ho
jaaeN ge:)
>aur doyam yeh, k "Urdu adab meN jahaaN jahaaN
>Hindi yaa Hindvi kaa zikr hai woh [...] Hindi naheeN, bal-k Urdu
>hai."
>aap ki doosri baat ki tardeed is binaa par hoti hai k jis bhaaSha
>ko aap aaj "Urdu" kah rahe haiN, huzoor us zubaan kaa bhi us
>zamaane meN koi wujood naheeN thaa k jis zamaane ki aap
>baat kar rahe haiN (ya'ani this "khaRi boli kaa zamaana")!
>aur agar maiN Ghalati par hooN, to kripa kar ke hameN yeh
>bataane kaa kasht kareN k what were those distinguishing
>features that set that Urdu apart from "khaRi boli" -- mind you
>I'm speaking of a particular time in the history of Urdu, not
>of today's Urdu.
is ke javaab ke liye baraa-i-mihr-baanii duusarii "qist" kaa intizaar
kiijiye.
>chand zahn-nisheen kar lene waali baatoN kaa zikr aage
>ho chukaa hai, so ek aisi hi baat maiN bhi 'arz kartaa hooN.
>jo bhaaSha shri Ramanand Sagar ke television serials meN
>sunaa`ee deti hai, woh "Hindi" naheeN hai. agar aap ko is
>baat ko qubool karne meN ta'ammul hai, to koi aisa ghar
>dikhaa deN jahaaN (aaj se 50-75 saal pahle bhi) koi beTaa
>apne baap ko "pitaa shree" kah kar bulaataa ho, yaa
>koi pati apni patni ko "priye". (50-75 saal isliye, k aaj ki
>taareeKh meN to aisaa ho hi naheeN saktaa). meraa
>Khayaal hai aisi baateN sirf aur sirf kitaaboN meN dekhne
>ko milti haiN.
>sach baat to yeh hai k Ramanand Sagar ke serials ki Hindi
>to "kitaabi flavor" ki bhi Hindi naheeN hai! woh to ek maKhsoos
>qism ki hi kitaaboN/draamoN meN aap ko milegi. lihaaza
>yeh kahnaa k sirf wohi zubaan Hindi hai, sar-aa-sar Ghalat
>aur bebuniyaad hai. agar aap is baat se ittifaaq naheeN
>karte to phir is par do minaT sarf keejiye k -- agar maiN
>kahooN k SIRF kitaabi flavor ki Urdu hi Urdu hoti hai, to?
merii muraad yih hargiz nahiiN thii kih yahii Hindi kaa vaaHid
namuunah hai.
awr namuune aakaash-vaaNRii awr BBC Hindi Service par mil sakte haiN.
haaN ek awr baat jaan_naa laazimii hai. Bollywood kii aksar filmoN awr
besh-tar gaanoN meN aap ko Hindi nahiiN mile gii!! awr agar mile gii
to chand gine chune
alfaaz meN. kirdaar "ye, ve" nahiiN kaheN ge awr nah hii "meraa
sir".gulu-kaar
un consonants ke saHiiH talaffuz kaa KHayaal rakheN ge chaahe aaj kal
ke
nau-javaan is kii tamiiz nah hii kareN.
>ek sawaal aur Ghaur talab hai -- kisi zubaan kaa wujood,
>uski uniqueness, kyaa us ke "nouns" se ta'e hoti hai, yaa
>us ke verbs se? misaal ke taur par, agar "Prime Minister"
>ke liye "wazeer-e-a'azam" na kahkar "pradhaan mantri"
>kah dene bhar se (yaa isee qabeel ki deegar tabdeeliyaaN
>laa dene se) koi zubaan 'Urdu' se 'Hindi' meN badal jaayegi?
>agar haaN, to phir agar maiN 'w-e-a' yaa 'p. mantri' na kahooN
>aur "prime minister" kaa hi jumlaa ist'emaal karooN, to?
sirf af'aal se to kaam nahiiN chale gaa UVR Sahib. makaan sirf iiNToN
se nahiiN bantaa.gaaraa, rang rauGHan,lakRii, vaarnish bhii dar-kaar
hotii hai. yih baat sach hai kih ek jumle meN pradhaan mantri yaa
vaziir-i-a'zam hone se vuh jumlah Hindi yaa Urdu nahiiN kahlaae gaa.
lekin agar maiN kahuuN kih "bhaarat/Hindustaan ke vaziir-i-a'zam, kal
shaam ko ba-zarii'ah
havaaii-jahaaz daaru_lHukuumat Islaam-aabaad meN tashriif laa rahe
haiN" to yih yaqiin-an Urdu kaa jumlah samjhaa jaae gaa.awr agar koii
kahe kih "bhaarat ke pradhaan mantri kal saaNjh ko vimaan-dvaaraa(?)
raj-dhaanii Islaam-aabaad meN padhaar rahe haiN" to yih kisii kii
nazar meN bhii Urdu nahiiN ho gii.agar yih GHalat Hindi hai to maiN is
kii ma'zarat chaahtaa huuN.
This Hindi/Urdu controversy will go on long after we are dead and
buried/cremated. Let's agree to disagree regarding these matters and
join our hands and hearts in humanity where we all agree.
KHair-Khvaah,
Naseer
UVR
Naseer saahib,
I have promised Amit saahib that I will not discuss this matter
further on ALUP; I cannot go back on that promise. The points
you make above have all been made by others previously and
have also been responded to by various people -- in other words,
this is a discussion that has been going on for a long time with
people on either side not being able to convince each other of
their points of view. Still, if you would like a reply from me to
your
post, I will be happy to give you one via email. Please let me
know (via email).
Let us agree not to "pollute" Amit saahib's thread with this topic.
Since there may be other ALUPers who wish to participate in this
discussion, I request you to start a wholly new thread under
which to discuss this.
Regards,
-UVR.
Afzal A. Khan
> UVR Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai.
>
> yih merii KHush-nasiibii hai kih maiN us anjuman meN Urdu kii Himaayat
> meN kuchh likhne kii jasaarat kar rahaa huuN jahaaN ke log nah sirf
> muHibbaan-i-Urdu haiN bal-kih un meN se chand to us zabaan se itnaa
> pyaar karte haiN kih us kii shaa'irii meN tab'-aazmaaii bhii kar rahe
> haiN.varnah, kisii awr bazm meN, jahaaN kaa maaHaul itnaa KHush-gavaar-
> o-dost-aanah nah hotaa,nah jaane mujh jaisoN kaa kyaa Hashr hotaa!!
Ek mohavara hai : "Qabl~az~marg~waavela". If we reverse the
sense, mujhe lagta hai ke aap bhee "qabl~az~waqt" KHushiyaaN
mana rahe haiN !!
Aage aage dekhiye hota hai kya !
Mera ek mashwira hai : KyoN na ek naya silsila shuroo' kiya
jaye ? Computer ke zariye Shri UVR kee post ke cheeda~cheeda
iqtibaasaat shuroo' men darj kiye jaayeN aur phir aap ka jawaab
(do~baara) naql kiya jaaye. Agar aisa na huwa to yeh behs
Janaab-e-Tanhaa kee ghazal kee laRee men dabi~ki~dabi reh
jaayegi.
Afzal
> Naseer
Naseer
> I have promised Amit saahib that I will not discuss this matter
> further on ALUP; I cannot go back on that promise. The points
> you make above have all been made by others previously and
> have also been responded to by various people -- in other words,
> this is a discussion that has been going on for a long time with
> people on either side not being able to convince each other of
> their points of view. Still, if you would like a reply from me to
> your
> post, I will be happy to give you one via email. Please let me
> know (via email).
janaab-i-UVR Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai.
aap ne mujh se ba-raah-i-raast isii laRii meN chand savaal puuchhe.
javaab nah detaa to aap ise ravaa nah samajhte. aap ne Amit Sahib ko
zabaan dii hai kih aap is mauzuu' par do-baarah ALUP meN baHs nahiiN
kareN ge. maiN aap ke va'de kii qadr kartaa huuN awr yih kabhii nahiiN
chaahuuN gaa kih aap va'dah-shikanii kareN.
agar aap ke KHayaal meN tarafain ne jo kuchh kahnaa thaa kah diyaa hai
awr maziid guftuguu kii zaruurat nahiiN to fa-bihaa.
> Let us agree not to "pollute" Amit saahib's thread with this topic.
> Since there may be other ALUPers who wish to participate in this
> discussion, I request you to start a wholly new thread under
> which to discuss this.
jahaaN tak Amit Sahib kii laRii ko "aaluudah" karne kii baat hai to
janaab-i-'aalii yahaaN yih mauzuu' pahle hii se chal rahaa thaa.
maziid-bar-aaN, " kyooN baaGh-e-tamannaa ko is tar'h ujaaRaa hai?" meN
Amit Sahib ne yih farmaayaa thaa.
"Now on the topic. I used to have this idea that Urdu and Hindi are
two distinct languages, but discussions on ALUP have made me change my
opinion. I have to say that Hindi and Urdu are one language only, and
as wikipedia so elegantly put it, two standardized versions of
Hindustani. But I'll leave the discussion to all you learned folks
out there."
is binaa par maiN ne sochaa kih in kii is baat kaa bhii yahiiN javaab
ho jaae. KHair, ab is baHs meN jin jin logoN ne Hissah lenaa thaa,
unhoN ne le liyaa hai. naii laRii shuruu' karne kii maiN ab zaruurat
nahiiN samajhtaa.
KHair-andesh,
Naseer