(Following is the text of a speech by Dr. Rajendra Prasad delivered in 1940 at All India Radio and reprinted in National Language for India (A Symposium) edited by Z. A. Ahmad in early 1941.)
I would define Hindustani as that language which is understood by all the inhabitants of Northern India, whether they be Hindus or Muslims. It is written in both the scripts, Nagri and Persian. The Congress has recognised it as the national language of India, and attempts are being made to popularise it in those parts of the country where it is not understood. This has given it an added prestige.
What should be the real character of this language? A good deal is being said and written on this question. We can, however, maintain that there are two forms of Hindustani. One, which is called Hindi, includes a large number of Sanskrit words. The other is called Urdu and is characterised by an abundance of Persian and Arabic words. Although both have the same grammar, yet, when written, they tend to diverge a good deed from each other, and this divergence is steadily increasing. For, Sanskrit words are often used according to the rules of Sanskrit grammar, instead of Hindi grammar, while Arabic or Persian grammar is sometimes employed when using words belonging to those languages. There are some orthodox writers who under the influence of certain prejudices deliberately exclude from their writings all Persian and Arabic words if they happen to be the devotees of pure Hindi, and all Sanskrit words if they happen to have an excessive fondness for pure Urdu. These writers, as a rule, employ too many Sanskrit, Arabic or Persian words. It is this tendency which is mainly responsible for the ever-widening gap that separates Hindi and Urdu from each other. Hindustani takes the middle course. It neither eschews Sanskrit, nor Arabic and Persian words. It has its own grammar and does not unnecessarily follow the rules of Arabic, Persian or Sanskrit grammars. It not only absorbs the words it borrows from these languages, but also lends these words its own peculiar character and colour.
I think there is only one way of settling the Hindi-Urdu controversy. We should deliberately include in Hindustani all those Persian and Arabic words which are used by good Hindi writers and all those Sanskrit words which are used by good Urdu writers. Besides, the criterion for or the suitability of new words to be taken into Hindustani should not be their derivation from one particular language, but the facility with which they have been or are likely to be accepted by the people. If they can easily get popular currency it would be a mistake to exclude them, for that would be weakening the Hindustani language.
Under the stimulus of new ideas, many new words are being coined these days. The existing stock of Hindi and Urdu words is in several cases, not able to provide us with suitable expressions; hence new words have to be made from Sanskrit, Arabic or Persian. The major consideration in such cases should be whether or not the new words can be readily understood and used by the people. We may have to employ some English words too. We shall not thereby in any way impoverish our language. But in any case we shall have to abide strictly by our own grammar. Thus we may not render the plural of station as stations but as stationon (اسٹیشنوں स्टेशनों) or stationenen (اسٹشنیں स्टेशने).
I therefore believe that while retaining the purity of our own grammar, we should freely take into Hindustani words from any language provided they have already found popular acceptance or are likely to be easily understood and adopted by the people. If we do so we shall be enriching Hindustani by incorporating in it many words from different languages which will serve as synonyms in the beginning but which, with the growing replenishment of the treasury of words and expressions, will be eventually distinguished from each other by finer shades of thought. It is for this reason that I do not approve of any attempt to discard some words deliberately from our language.
Literary language usually differs a good deal from the spoken language. Therefore, in spite of having a common grammar, Hindi and Urdu literatures have diverged considerably from each other and are getting further and further away. It is quite obvious that one who has studied Sanskrit or highly Sanskritised Hindi will be inclined to write a language which has a considerable element of Sanskrit in it, even as one who has read more of Persian and Arabic will use a larger stock of words derived from these two languages.
This is a natural tendency which cannot be easily checked. And yet Hindustani, which claims to be the national language, shall have to remain such as may be easily recognised and owned by all and to the development of which everyone may be able to make his contribution.
We do not consider Hindustani to be different from Hindi or Urdu. As I have said above, the real distinguishing feature of a language is its grammar, and the grammatical differences that exist between Hindi and Urdu today are unimportant. Hindi and Urdu differ from each other primarily in respect of vocabulary. If the words used by both become universally accepted and enter into common parlance, not only will the total stock of words be enriched, but it will also be possible to give expression to finer and more delicate shades of meaning. Hindustani, which always strikes the mean, attempts to popularise such words as can easily acquire currency among the people. In fact, even in the dialects of the village, there are many words which are so apt and significant that it would be difficult to render them adequately into Hindi or Urdu. There are several things which are used only in the villages and they have their rustic names which cannot be easily translated. We know that educated people often consider it uncultured or below their dignity to use words and expressions which are popular in the villages, and try to improvise crude and difficult Sanskrit, Arabic or Persian substitutes for them, which are often very unsatisfactory translations lacking in precision of meaning. We shall have to counteract this tendency by including in Hindustani, Hindi or Urdu, a considerable number of apt rustic words and expressions.
If Hindustani instead of remaining the language of a small educated class, is to reach the vast illiterate masses of the villages; if it is to descend from the isolated glory of courts and palaces to the tragic poverty and wretchedness of peasant huts, it shall have to grow and develop by nourishing itself, not on Sanskrit, Persian and Arabic, but on the everyday language spoken in the homes of the common people.
I have already observed that Hindustani is now recognised as our national language. India is a big country, with several provinces, each one having its own language. There are, however, a number of provincial languages in which the Sanskrit element predominates. For instance, in Bengali, which is spoken by all the communities inhabiting Bengal, the number of Sanskrit words is definitely larger than those of Arabic or Persian. It is obvious that if in that province Hindustani is orientated too much in favour of Persian or Arabic, it would not be popularly understood or spoken by the people. On the other hand, Hindustani would be far more easily learnt if a larger number of Sanskrit words were used. Similarly, in the North-Western Frontier Province a Sanskritised Hindustani would not find popular acceptance, while a language having more of Persian or Arabic element would be understood, spoken and learnt with great ease and facility. Thus, there is ample scope for the development of both the forms of Hindustani.
One who seeks to know Hindustani well should take an equal interest in Hindi and Urdu, and should so use Sanskrit, Persian and Arabic words as to make his speech or writing most intelligible to the people whom he is addressing.
To this end, I consider it necessary to prepare a dictionary which gives the meanings of all Sanskrit, Persian and Arabic words that are being used in Hindustani. About two or three thousand such ordinary Hindi and Urdu words have become popular, and should therefore be known and understood by all, may be selected for purposes of school and college education. Take, for example, two words which are now being very commonly used, कार्यकारिणी समिति and مجلس عامله .Both mean the same thing, (namely, Executive Committee) but the former is Hindi, while the latter is Urdu. A knowledge of both is, however, necessary. It may be that, in time, a slight shade of meaning may differentiate the two. If that happens, Hindustani will be all the richer for it and will have two good words for more subtle and precise expression. It is in this manner that we shall be able to reduce the intensity of many of the present controversies and shall proceed to develop Hindustani as a living and powerful common language of our country.
India is like a garden overflowing with plants bearing beautiful flowers. If all the plants grow and blossom without encroaching on each other’s nourishment, the garden will rise in splendour. If a few start living at the expense of others, they may themselves blossom more, but they will render many branches barren and ugly. Even so, if we want the garden of our language to flourish and to remain evergreen, we shall have to keep bringing into it new plants and new flowers, allowing all of them to grow in beauty side by side. This is the mission of Hindustani. Let us all try to crown it with success.
