, , , ,

Here is an article by Omair Ahmed, published in the OPEN Magazine. It highlights the dichotomy, that those who reject Urdu today are rejecting their own legacy – the origin of Urdu as a language was not religious, but more practical – as a language of the army / military (ordu/urdu in Turkish).

An excerpt from the article:
Life and lettersAcross North India, another visible effort is the trend of renaming old Urdu Bazaar areas of small cities ‘Hindi Bazaar’. Unfortunately for these rewriters, the ‘Urdu’ in Urdu Bazaar has nothing to do with language. In Turkish, the word for military is ‘ordu/urdu’. These Urdu Bazaars were cantonment markets set up during the Sultanate and Mughal eras. Their civilian equivalents were the Sadar Bazaars. As far as I can tell, the British continued this tradition with their cantonment markets and Civil Lines, which we still follow.

The name of the Urdu language comes from the term ‘zubaan-e-urdu-mualla’ (language of the noble army), a name it only truly acquired in the 18th century. In its early days as a popularly spoken language, it was an eclectic mix of Turki, Farsi, Braj, Khadi Boli and other local dialects that emerged during the Sultanate era in Delhi and its environs from the 12th century onwards.

Click here for the entire article: Wilful Ignorance: Open Magazine