What constitutes a language – I would have said words and how they are used. That is the core of the language. Spelling, pronunciation and such like help in standardization and create dialects...but they don’t create a different language.
There is another aspect to a language; script – how it is written? Is that critical?
More than one language is written using the Latin script as is more than one language written using the Devnagri script. It is less common to find one language written in multiple scripts...but more of that in a minute. However, clearly there can be no one-one linkage between a language and a script. That, in itself is not a watertight argument - there can be no one-one linkage between words and a language- but if sufficient number of words are common, one is perhaps not looking at two different languages but dialects of the same languages. But, of course, the words are still going on to define the language (or the dialect); does script in any way define a language – at least in one direction (many languages may be written in script X but language A can only be written in script X)?
I have never considered script to be an integral part of a language. But over the last few weeks, I have come across a few things which suggest that not everyone thinks that way, and that intrigues me?
I was speaking to an old friend the other day about Urdu poetry and where to read some of it from. I suggested to her that the best place to start was urdupoetry.com. She had heard of the site but did not like it because it was in the Roman script- while she cannot read Nastaliq, she at least wanted to read in Devnagri. Now, I couldn’t understand that – perhaps because I have been used to reading/writing Hindi in Roman script for over 25 years - but she was quite vehement about it. She also added that she simply did not like many of the ads nowadays which wrote Hindi and Marathi words in the Roman script. It did not “seem” right. Again, I could not follow why the script made a difference - there is obviously a question of ease of reading but beyond that – why is it wrong when the same thoughts, indeed the same words are being expressed.
Now, this might seem, at the end of the day, a fairly minor thing but in the Indian context it has one very important outcome – the distinction between Hindi and Urdu. Quite independently of the discussion on script, I recently had a discussion with another friend over the basic difference between Hindi and Urdu. I am not going to go over the details of that argument, but broadly put I argued that these are both dialects of the same language – Hindustani or Khadiboli- which over the past century have diverged; whereas he argued, as I understood it, that they are historically 2 different languages which having co-existed for so many centuries have developed many similarities. Each of you can have his own view on this- I am not going to belabour this point.
But I do strongly believe that, for most people in India today, the biggest difference in their minds between Hindi and Urdu is the script. That, more than anything else, defines the difference. In speech one can’t easily identify the difference. How many people would really care to consciously make the difference between “mushkil” and “kathin” – they will probably say what they are used to saying. And if the person in front uses the other form, they would, without any effort, understand. Ditto for “mitr” and “dost”. Or “upyog” and “istemaal”. I remember Vajpayee’s speech during the 1996 confidence vote; he ended by saying some thing like –“adhyaksh mahoday, main rashtrapati ji ko apna tyaagpatr dene ja raha hoon”. I don’t think till that day I even knew that a word called “tyaagpatr” existed- it was always “istifa”. But at the same time “tyaagpatr” was immediately intelligible. The borders between the spoken languages are very fluid and it is personal context which would define one’s choice of words.
But when you see something written, in black and white in front of you, the difference in the script cannot be missed. Remember that Nastaliq is very similar to the Arabic alphabet while Devnagri is used for Sanskrit as well – and since these 2 languages have religious significance from an Islamic and a Hindu viewpoint there immediately develops a religious context to Hindi vs Urdu. One becomes a Hindu language while the other becomes a Muslim one. Suddenly script takes on a much more serious dimension –one, which frankly it should not be capable of taking on.
Unfortunately, this dimension has existed in India for sometime now. Many people think that Hindi is India’s national language. It isn’t- it is actually India’s official language. However, the sub committee (of the constituent assembly) on fundamental rights recommended that “Hindustani, written either in Devnagri or Nastaliq script, at the option of the citizen, shall, as the national language, be the first official language of the Union”. Southern opposition meant that the “national language” bit was dropped but Hindu opposition, including from many in the Congress, meant that Hindustani became Hindi and Nastaliq was dropped altogether. Add to this the fact that Pakistan chose to adopt “Urdu”, a language quite alien to most of its citizens, and wrote it in Nastaliq has meant that the “script-religion” linkage and distinction has perhaps became much more etched for many people.
And so script has played its part – not so much in defining a language but in defining a culture, maybe even in defining a nation; indeed two nations.
But it doesn’t make sense to me. After all...”what’s in a script, that which we read from left to right, if read right to left would mean the same”
No comments:
Post a Comment