May 1998 Edition
by Asghar Ali Engineer
Urdu is one of the major languages of India. It finds its place among the languages included in the VIIIth Schedule of the [Indian] Constitution. This north Indian language has made significant contribution to promotion of secularism and secular values in India before and after partition. Its base has been Khadi Boli which was spoken by the people in the North. In fact both Hindi and Urdu have a common base - i.e. Khadi Boli. Its grammar and syntax is common. So much so that many people argue that it is not two but one language with two different dialects. One draws its technical vocabulary (say for philosophy, psychology, science, religion etc.) from Sanskrit and the other from Persian and Arabic. Some linguists even argue that it is the British imperialists who created two languages out of one at the Fort William College, Calcutta in 19th Century by heavily borrowing from Sanskrit and Persian and Arabic languages. Earlier Urdu was often referred to as Hindavi i.e. a language belonging to India as against Persian and Arabic. Even the great Urdu poets refers to it as such. But though grammar and syntax is common, both the languages have different historical identities. The syntax and grammar may be same but both have their own ethos and cultural values. Also, though both have common origin in Khadi Boli both draw their sustenance from different traditions which is what gives a language a specific identity. Urdu literature, specially its poetry, has drawn profusely, at least to begin with, from Persian sources. However, as often argued, that does not make a language foreign. All modern literature in Indian languages, poetry as well as prose, has drawn heavily from English and French literature but it never affected the basic character of these Indian languages. They very much remained Indian. However, what is worthy of note is that Urdu has drawn heavily from secular Persian sources, not religious ones. The Persian ghazal drew its inspiration either from Sufi sources or from secular human values. The great Persian poetry, specially the ghazal, had imbibed liberal humanist values right from beginning. Poets like Hafiz and Sadi always mocked at narrow sectarian approach. They adopted mostly non-religious symbols to promote liberal humanism. Gul-o-bulbul (rose and nightingale) or jam-i-mai (cup of wine) or m'ashuq (beloved) are all non-religious secular symbols through which the major Persian poets fought religious sectarianism. The Urdu poets also followed suit. It will be unfair to describe Urdu literature as drawing its inspiration from foreign sources. As the English literature, being the literature of the ruling class, influenced all Indian languages, so the Persian literature was the literature of the ruling class at that time and influenced most of the Indian languages, particularly Urdu. However, Urdu imbibed the best secular traditions of Persian literature. The Ghazal genre was, particularly the protest poetry, protest against all forms of narrow sectarianism.
Urdu literature is basically inspired by humanistic values, both poetry as well as prose. Ghalib was, and remains, one of its greatest poets. He was highly liberal in his approach. He had several Hindu disciples like Tafta. Ghalib was also deeply influenced by Sufi humanism. In one of his ghazals he says: " We are unitarians and our creed is to wipe out all (faith) traditions; When all communities died down, they became constituents of my faith." Thus it will be seen that Ghalib transcends all narrow boundaries of faith/ communities. He wants to base his faith on universal humanism. Similarly what matters for Ghalib is certain values like loyalty (wafadari) to ones belief and not what is ones belief. The priests of all religious communities stress correctness of their faith whereas Ghalib stresses value of loyalty, and not correctness of ones faith. Stress on correctness of ones faith will obviously result in narrow sectarianism and rejection of all other faiths, while stress on loyalty will promote a fundamental human value. Thus Ghalib says that "The real test of ones faith is his firm loyalty to it ( and not its correctness) and if a Brahmin (obviously a kafir in the sight of a sectarian believer) dies in a temple, bury him in Ka`ba (i.e. the holy mosque at Mecca). Though a Brahmin, though a kafir, he needs burial in the holy mosque of Mecca for his loyalty to his faith. Ghalib also was quite unorthodox in his religious views. He welcomed the new ideas and scientific research. He even was critical of Syed Ahmad Khan for bringing out an edition of Abul Fazl's book. He said in his preface to the book which Syed Ahmad Khan wanted him to write what was the use of publishing that ancient text when new scientific discoveries and inventions were being made in Europe. He also considered Dair-o-Haram (temple and mosque) as 'refuge of the tired mind'. One should perpetually struggle to discover new truths.
It is a tragedy that Urdu is considered the language of the Muslims. Nothing is farther from truth. In fact no language can ever be associated with any religious community. Even Arabic cannot be associated with Muslims alone though the holy Qur'an had been revealed in that language and all classical works on Islam had been written in that language. The Christian Arabs also speak that language in several Arab countries like Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon etc. It is the language of churches in these countries. Their sermons are delivered in it and the Bible has also been translated by them into Arabic. The Christian Arabs are as proud of Arabic language as the Muslim Arabs.
Urdu was never the language of Muslims alone, nor of all Muslims in India. In the South, except in a few pockets in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, few Muslims know Urdu. They speak Malayalam, Tamil, Telugu or Kannada. The Qur'an has also been translated in these languages and their Friday and other sermons are also given in their regional languages. In Western India too, Muslims speak Gujrati or Marathi except those who have migrated from U.P. or Bihar and settled there. Similarly the Muslims of the Konkan region speak Marathi as their mother tongue. In the same way millions of Hindus and Sikhs from North spoke Urdu until recently. The largest circulated papers in Punjab were in Urdu. Even the pro-BJP paper in Punjab - Pratap is published in that language. It is only lately that Urdu is being given up in favour of Hindi. Some of the greatest writers and poets have been non-Muslims. Munshi Premchand was a celebrated Urdu writer. His masterpiece Gaudan was written in Urdu. It was only in the later phase of his life that he also wrote in Hindi. His celebrated short story Kafan is also in Urdu besides several other novels. Urdu literature will ever be grateful to Munshi Premchand for his rich contribution to Urdu literature.
There are several other celebrated non-Muslim writers and poets who have pride of the place in Urdu literature. Raghupati Sahai Firaq Gorakhpuri, was one of the great Urdu poets who won Janpeeth Award in early seventies. He was so proud of Urdu that he described Hindi as the 'language of the rustics'. Chakbast, Dayashankar Nasim, Tilakchand Mehroom were all great Urdu poets. Jagannath Azad, son of Tilakchand Mehroom, is considered an expert on the celebrated poet Iqbal, and himself is a noted Urdu poet. There have been several other great Urdu novelists and short story writers who were non-Muslims like Krishna Chandra, Bedi and others. Both have written several novels and short stories in Urdu which can make anyone proud. Even today when many people are switching over to Hindi there are several non-Muslim writers and poets who are making worthwhile contributions to Urdu literature. And it is by no means an insignificant contribution. As pointed out above, Urdu poetry has been essentially protest poetry. It has always been highly critical of narrow-mindedness and sectarianism. The great literature in Urdu was produced by those who are known as progressive writers. The progressive writers movement started with great enthusiasm in the thirties. It produced great writers and critics. They were all committed to secularism and composite culture and fought against orthodoxy, religious bigotry and traditionalism. Many of them were Marxists and others nationalists. All the great names of Urdu literature in twentieth century belong to this group who set great value for secularism. Faiz Ahmad Faiz, Majaz, Sardar Jafri, Majrooh Sultanpuri, Jan Nisar Akhtar, Kaifi Azmi, Sahir Ludhyanvi , Firaq Gorakhpuri and others among poets; and Munshi Prem Chand, Krishan Chandra, Bedi, Saadat Hasan Manto, Hayatullah Ansari and others among fiction writers, all belonged to this progressive movement. All of them wrote poems, short stories or novels which were highly critical of the creation of Pakistan and dividing the people of India on the basis of religion. The best stories on the subject were of course written by Saadat Hasan Manto. His story Toba Teksingh on partition is a classic and no one has been able to write a better story on this subject. It is a great satire on the creation of Pakistan. Similarly Krishna Chandra's Tai Esri is also an important story. In view of all this the charge that Urdu is the language of Pakistan and that it promoted the idea of Pakistan is baseless and cannot be sustained by objective scrutiny. In fact Urdu has been instrumental in fighting communalism and the idea of the two-nation theory.
Also, it was in Urdu that great persons like Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani wrote. Maulana Azad's Al-Hilal in the early twenties had stirred the nationalist feelings among Muslims. It was read by lakhs of Muslims in North and Central India. If any single journal can be given credit for creating a strong nationalist consciousness among the Muslims, it was Al-Hilal. The Britishers, of course, confiscated its security deposit. Al-Hilal rendered a yeoman service for the nationalist cause. The Maulana always wrote and spoke in Urdu. His speeches after the Independence instilling confidence among Muslims and exhorting them to accept secular values were all in Urdu. Similarly, Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar edited an Urdu paper called Hamdard which also was a great champion of nationalism in those days. It is true that Muhammad Ali's views changed later but he never gave up his anti-British campaign.
Similarly Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani, who was Rector, Darul Ulum, Deoband, the great Islamic seminary, wrote his book Muttahida Qaumiyyat Aur Islam (Islam and Composite Nationalism) in Urdu. In this book he argued with great force that Islam fully supports composite nationalism and does not uphold the concept of two nation theory. Maulana Ubaidullah Sindhi, another revolutionary and great opponent of British imperialism also wrote large number of essays urging people of India to fight against British imperialism in Urdu.
Thus it will be seen that Urdu can in no way be held responsible for the partition of India, as some people maintain. It is a language which is representative of the composite culture in India and it has been instrumental in promoting secularism and secular values.
Also see Sufi Currents and Civilization in the Islamic Courts
For other selections relating to the history of India and the sub-continent, also visit South Asian History .
Also see other essays concerning Secularism in India and the subcontinent
Back to the main page for South Asian Voice
Click here to contact South Asian Voice
