K.Gajendra Singh
۱٫ The term Hindustan has been used consciously so as to include Pakistan in it, by which name
the Sub-continent was known before its partition in 1947. This paper concentrates mainly on
languages as spoken by the masses, with their natural variations and not so much the written and
the literary forms. We will consider the two major languages, Hindi and Urdu, which are widely
spoken in Hindustan , although claims have been made that Urdu evolved out of Hindi and that
Hindi is only Urdu written in Devanagari script. But the fact of the matter is that both Urdu and
Hindi have evolved from the same colloquial base of Hindustani which was the lingua franca of
Hindustan till its partition. As the well- known scholar and outspoken historian Khushwant
Singh says, since then the Indians have made Hindi more Sanskritised and Pakistanis Urdu more
Persianised, with the result that it is difficult for a common man to understand either Hindi or
Urdu, specially their Radio and TV broadcasts. However, in spite of politically motivated and
necessary corrective measures which new ruling elites usher in to change the complexion of the
official language, if not the language itself, as has happened both in India as well as in Pakistan ,
the lingua-franca spoken by the common man in Hindustan , specially those who are illiterate or
semi-literate has not changed that much since 1947. The best proof of this is the language
employed in Hindustani films made in Bombay ( India ) which really represents the spoken
language of the masses in most of India , and which also remains equally popular in Pakistan .
Whenever the film language became too Sanskritised, the films have not been very popular. At
the same time, when a film on ‘Razia’ (a Turkish Queen of Delhi ) utilised too Persianised Urdu,
its lack of popularity could in some ways be attributed to the difficulty of the masses in
understanding it. Hindustani with its vast vocabulary, form and literary variety provides the lyric
and dialogue writer all the richness, elegance and nuances to express himself. Incidentally,
according to Encyclopedia Britannica (1990 Edition), more than 35 million Indians declared
Urdu as their mother-tongue while in Pakistan the number was less than one- fifth i.e. 6.7
million. (The compilation is old and estimates conservative.) Various forms of Hindustani are
spoken or understood by over 70% of Indian population. The Bombay films have played a major
role in spreading Hindustani in non-Hindi/Urdu speaking areas of South India and North-East.
۲٫ The name Hindustani written as Hindoostanee was coined by an Englishman, Mr. J. B.
Gilchrist (1759-1841), who was the first President of the Fort Christian College , Calcutta which
trained British Civil Servants for service in India . Mr. Gilchrist also wrote a dictionary of
Hindustani and its grammar. As mentioned earlier, from Hindustani have emerged two literary
languages, Hindi in Devanagari script with literary and vocabulary borrowings from Sanskrit
and Urdu in modified Arabic script with borrowings from Persian. Hindustani is much older
form than Hindi or Urdu and many times it referred rather to the region and not so much to the
race or religion. As a matter of fact before the advent of Muslims and others in India , the
languages spoken in Hindustan were known as various Bhashas or Bakhas. Hindustani evolved
out of a score of dialects which are inter-related among themselves and to it. Some of these
dialects and languages are Hindwi, Khariboli, Brij Bhasha, Awadhi, Bagheli, Chhatisgari,
Bundeli, Kanauji, Bhojpuri, Maithili, Gujari, Rajsthani and when it was spoken in South it was
known as Deccani That these languages are dialects of Hindi as claimed by some is not strictly
true. Brij Bhasha was an important literary medium in 15th to 17th century. Both Brij Bhasha
and many other dialects are genetically of different Prakritic origin than Khariboli. All earlier
Hindi literature is in dialects other than Khariboli which became standardised and popular by
the end of the 17th century and language of literature only in 19th century. Brij Bhasha continued
as a medium of poetry till late 19th century. Thus, strictly speaking, the language of modern
Hindi literature is different from that employed in earlier period. The same can be said about the
Urdu which came to be written in the present form from 19th century onwards, although Urdu
poerty flourished much earlier.
۳٫ Turkish language was under the influence of Persian language for centuries One of the earlier writers of Hindustani was Amir Khusarao (1253 – 1325) a remarkable scholar of Persian and Arabic but of Turkish origin. He is claimed both by the Hindi as well as
Urdu protagonists. His dictionary, Khaliq-bari, in verse, of, Persian, Arabic and Hindi words
helped spread Persian and Arabic words and development of Hindustani. In recent times,
writers like Premchand have been claimed both by Hindi protagonists as well as Urdu
spokesmen. The only difference was that the same writer wrote some times in modified Arabic
(Persian) script and some times in Devanagari script. In this paper we would use the word
Hindustani to include Hindi, Urdu and the other forms like Khariboli, Hindvi, etc.
۴٫ The general perception is that Hindustani and its earlier forms evolved out of interaction,
since 11th century AD, between persian speaking Muslim invaders, rulers, traders and religious men and others
who had come and settled in Hindustan from the north-west and the local Indian population.
Persian was then the language brought by sophisticated Muslim ruling elite from abroad, which
was used for administration, courtly intercourse, etc.
Nader Shah Iranin turkic ruler in Indian war
Thus the main interaction was between Persian and the Apbhramsa variation of Prakrit in North and West India , in particular the
Suraseni variety spoken around Delhi and later with the Dravidian languages in Deccan , out of
which Hindustani evolved and developed slowly and unevenly. Many of the books on the
evolution and development of Hindustani were written by the Englishmen in 18th/ 19th century,
who learnt and used it for administration as officers of the East India Company and the British
Empire. It is doubtful if any of them knew Turkish as by the time they arrived on the scene, the
pre-ponderence of Persian during the latter stages of Mughal empire was well established,
although some Turkish was still taught in some Medrasas and households. Persian and Arabic
continued to be taught at universities and schools during the British rule.
Therefore, no credit at all except for some vocabulary is given to Turkish languages in the history of development of
Urdu, Hindi or Hindustani. It is, of course, conceded that the word Urdu (Ordu in Turkish) itself
is of Turkish origin and it means army or military establishment, which was inducted into
Persian by Il -Khanid historians and accepted in India by Sayyed ruler Khizr Khan for use by
his army and the Court, under the Timurid influence. By 17th century, during the Mughal rule, the
term, Urdu was generally applied to the imperial camp. The language Urdu/Lashkar
Bhasha/Hindustani perhaps started developing seriously as a means of communication from
end-12th century AD between the incoming Muslim rulers, soldiers, traders etc. and local
population, for use in administration, for trading with native shop-keepers, in harems, where
women and attendants were mostly of Hindustani origin. While Turks yielded to Persian words
in matters of administration, poetry and social intercourse, they retained many Turkish words for
military titles, weapons, military commands and organisations. Turkish derivations also exist in
the hunt and hunting, also in terms expressing relationships and conduct in court among the ruling
classes. We must not overlook the role played by Sufi saints in spreading Islam among the
masses by using the new evolving Hindustani. Even today, tombs of Sufi saints are revered
equally among Hindus. The objective of the paper is to advance the view that the Turkic
languages apart from vocabulary, have contributed much more than is acknowledged, both in the
basic structure as well as in the development of Hindustani languages.
۵٫ The vast stretch of area comprising Central Asia , Iran , Afghanistan , north-west Hindustan ,
Anatolian Turkey, Northern Iraq etc. has seen intermingling of various races, cultures and
languages throughout history. At least since the days of Mauryan Empire in India (4th century
BC) many rulers with their capital in Hindustan had Afghanistan and parts of Central Asia in
their domains. Therefore, the language of these rulers and their religion spread into Afghanistan ,
Central Asia and Eastern Iran . Mauryan Emperor Ashoka and others sent Buddhist preachers up
to Central Asia and many of the tribes there became Buddhists. Turkic tribes like Sakas,
Kushanas, when they settled on India ‘s borders and inside it also adopted languages and
religions of Hindustan . They also adopted Indian scripts which were also transferred to Central
Asia, specially Eastern Turkistan . The way for exchanges was well-known, through the valley of
Kabul river, Peshawar , Jalalabad and through well known routes to Tarim basin. As a matter of
fact this area provided links for commercial, cultural and political exchanges between China on
one hand and India , Central Asia and Western Asia on the other, where intermingling of people
with diverse culture, race, ethnicity, religion such as Indians, Turks and others took place. In this
area, Budhist stupas and shrines, a large number of Bhudhist writings in Prakrit and writings in
Sanskrit as well as in local languages of Central Asia , in Indian scripts like Brahmi and
Devanagari have been discovered, apart from a large number of secular documents, written on
wooden tablets, leather, paper and silk. There are also translations from Sanskrit in Kharosti
script. Translations include astronomical and medicinal subjects. Documents discovered in 10th
& 11th century from Turfan region which can be seen in Berlin cover subjects like medicines &
calendar based on Indian sources. Of course, the Turkish in these documents is quite different
from the present day Turkic languages (Uighur and Cagtai group) spoken in Eastern Turkistan i.e
Kazakhstan, Kyrghystan , Uzbekistan and the Sinkiang region of China . As many philosophical,
spiritual and religious terms of Bhudhism and even Hinduism did not exist, they were inducted
from Pali & Sanskrit into Turkish. Thus Turkish acquired many words of Pali and Sanskrit
origin, some of which have even gone into other languages; Ratan becoming Ardhani is an
example. An example how words change is illustrated from the Budhist word Dhyan
(meditation), which became Jhan in Chinese and Zen in Japanese.
۶٫ Although the influence of the Turkic languages on Indian languages began in all seriousness
from 11th century AD onwards to which we will come to later, various Turkic tribes began their
interaction with Hindustan much earlier than that. After the collapse of Mauryan Empire in 3rd
century BC, a number of Central Asian Turkic tribes, and others like Sakas in India and Scythians in
West, came to Hindustan and settled down there. Sakas were actually forced towards Hindustan
by Central Asian tribes, Yueh-chih, who also later entered Hindustan . Sakas ruled from Mathura
(South East of Delhi) and their well-known Kings in 1st century BC were Rajuvala and Sodasa.
They then shifted west to Rajasthan and Malwa. Yueh-chih’s chief, Kujula-kara Kadphises
conquered North India in 1st century AD. He was succeeded by his son Vima, after whom came
famous Kanishka. Kanishka’s tribe is known as Khushanas in Indian history. Their kingdom
based with Peshawar as capital extended as far as Sanchi in Central India and Varanasi in East
and also included large parts of Central Asia . Not surprisingly, administrative and political
terms from north and west India influenced similar terms in Central Asia . Kushanas became
Budhists and Kanishka spread this religion in Central Asia and elsewhere.
Other major tribe which entered later in 6th Century AD were Huns, a branch of Hephthalis or white Huns, whose first king came to be known as Toramana in early 6th century and whose son Mihirakula was a patron of Shavism, a branch of Hinduism. It has been said that these and other tribes which had
come earlier moved into Western and Central India i.e. in Rajasthan, Gujarat and Western
Madhya Pradesh, especially after the break-up of the Gupta Empire. Many historians claim that
by virtue of their valour and other qualities, these tribes were able to get themselves
incorporated into the hierarchy of the Hindu caste system i.e. Khatriyas and are known as
Rajputs (sons of Kings). It is no wonder that the Mongols and other Turkic speaking people
were able to form relationships with Rajputs so very easily.
Persian poem in Delhi mosque
It is possible that some words of Turkic languages might have been then absorbed in dialects or languages spoken in Rajasthan,
Gujarat and Central India , where these tribes settled. A common word is ‘kara’ which in Turkish
means ‘black’ and used for the same colour in West India and as ‘Kala’ in the rest of the country.
It is a moot point whether the word ‘bai’ which is written in Turkish as ‘baci’ and pronounced as
‘baji’ which means sister or elder woman has persisted from those days. But it was in areas of
Rajasthan and nearby, closer to Delhi where the seeds for the development of Hindustani
languages were sown.
۷٫ After the expansion of Islam into Iran this religion soon spread to Central Asia . The Turks as
they advanced towards Anatolia and Hindustan via Iran and Afghanistan were also Islamised.
Being a simple but hardy people from the Eurasian steppes, where life was austere and without
frills, once the Turks acquired kingdoms, they also acquired along with it symbols and ways of
culture and civilisation, including the use of more sophisticated Persian (and Arabic), the
language of the people they conquered. (To begin with Omayands had also taken over Byzantine
system lock stock and barrel in Damascus ). It is noteworthy that except in Central Asia , which
remains the home of Turks and Anatolia i.e. Republic of Turkey (and Azeri areas), in most of the
other areas they ruled, the Turks adopted the language of the ruled, albeit they introduced some
of their own vocabulary and influenced the grammar of the language of their subjects.
۸٫ In the medieval history of Hindustan , the Turkic tribes played a major role among the Muslim
conquers and rulers who came and made India their home. The Turkic raids began in the first
half of 11th century starting with Sabuktgin and the process of establishment of their kingdoms in
North & West of Hindustan started from late 12th century. Although Sindh was conquered by the
Arabs, soon after the establishment of the Abbassid Khalifate in 8th Century AD, this played
directly only a marginal role in influencing the culture and civilisation of Hindustan . It is
interesting that in Malayalam (language of Kerala), Hindustani is known as Tuluk Bhasha and the
word Tulukan used for Muslims and Tulukachi for Muslim woman. The languages spoken by the
people of Turkey is called Tuluk Bhasha. This is interesting because the relations between the
Kerala coast and the Arab world predate Islam and there has been constant interaction between
the Malabar coast of Kerala and the Arab world but still the word for a Muslim is Tulukan.
۹٫ The impact and embedding of Islam and Islamic and Turkish culture into Hindustan took place
during the Turco-Afghan period of India ‘s history from end-12th century to early l6th century
(and continued during the Mughal period). Even if some of the Sultans and rulers claimed
Arabic or Afghan descent, the majority of the elite consisted of people of Turkic & Turanian
origins ( not many of these tribes and individuals came from the Rumi Seljuk or Ottoman
territories.) Many of them came as simple soldiers and some period chieftains. From the very
early days of the Islamic history (second half of Abbassid period), many non-Turkish kings and
Sultans maintained Turkish households of slaves brought over from Central Asia which
provided them loyal soldiers and military leaders. Many of them rose by hard work and merit
and reached the top ranks of the ruling elite and King makers. Some even became Sultans.
۱۰٫ Some of the prominent names of Turkish rulers in Hindustan are Mahmud of Ghazni,
Muhammad Gori, Kutubuddin Aybak, Iltutmish, Balban, and of course, Khiljis (known as
Halach, in Turkish kh becomes h) and Tughlaks. According to some estimates, the Turks
comprised up to 60% or more of the ruling elite during the medieval period of Indian history. It
should also be noted that Timurid King, Babar, founder of the Mughal dynasty, was a Cagtai
Turk and wrote his Babarname in Cagtai and not in Persian. So did his sons Humayun and
Kamran write poetry in Turkish. However, by the time of Akbar’s reign the percentage of Turkish
chieftains in the ruling elite had been reduced to one-fourth. It was a conscious political
decision, as Turks and specially Mongols, nomad by life style, are more independent by nature
and believe in equality and freedom. The Turanian/Mongolian concept of ruler ship is vested in
the family and not in an individual. Humayun and Akbar had great trouble in subduing and
disciplining their Turanian/Mongol origin nobles. Preference was given to Persians, Afghans &
converts.
۱۱٫ It has been rightly claimed by many scholars in South India that a considerable process of
development and even preservation of Hindustani took place in Deccan where it came to be
known as Deccani, although the seeds of the birth of the language had been sown in North India
from where it was taken to Deccan by Muslims conquers starting with Turkish Khilji (Halac)
rulers and later Tughlak (again Turkish) rulers; Muhammed Tughlak even shifted his capital to
the South for some time. Later a large number of kingdoms by Turkic tribes, in which they
formed a fairly large proportion of the elite, were established in South India , i.e Bijapur,
Golcunda, etc. When Allaudin Khilji conquered Deccan , the appointed Turks as chiefs for each
villa e to look after its security, safety and administration. Most of them called their relatives to
assist them. Thus both in the beginning of the evolution of Hindustani in the North and later in its
further development in Deccan , a majority of the elite was of Turkic origin who while using
Persian for administration must have used Turkish at inter-personal level and thus helped
continue evolution of Hindustani in its various forms. The Deccani period also saw influx into
Hindustani of not only Dravadian words but also its influence on its grammar and syntax and
vice versa. We might even say that the Deccani period probably saved Hindustani from
becoming totally Persianised as perhaps happened to it at many places in North India ,
۱۲٫ It has been estimated that Hindustani and Turkish have thousands of words in common,
mostly from Persian and Arabic, Some estimates put them around three to four thousand, with
over five to six hundred words of Turkish origin in Hindustani. The comparison is basically
with the Republic of Turkey ‘s Turkish (of Oguz family), which since 1930s has been purged of
many Arabic and Persian words. Perhaps the number of common words between Hindustani and
Turkish as spoken in East, i.e. Uzbekistan and East (Uighur and Cagtai family) could, perhaps,
be more. Some examples of Turkish(some may be persian) words in Hindustani are: Top, Tamancha, Barood, Nishan,
Chaku, Bahadur, Begum, Bulak, Chadar, Chhatri, Chakachak, chikin (embroidery), Chamcha,
Chechek, Dag, Surma, Bavarchi, Khazanchi, Bakshi (accountant), Coolie, Kanat, Kiyma, Kulcha,
Korma, Kotwal, Daroga, Koka, Kenchi, Naukar, etc. Obviously, the number of Turkigh words in
Hindustani is not as large as that of Persian and Arabic, because, the latter was the language of
the Holy Koran (although Seljuk Turk rulers in Asia Minor and Iran had discouraged use of
Arabic except for religion), which exercised influence over all believers and the former was the
language of administration and aristocracy.
۱۳٫ Hindustani has surprising similarity in Grammar and Syntax structure with Turkish, though
origins of both the languages are from different language families. For example, normally both in
Hindustani and in Turkish first comes the subject, then the object etc. and finally tie verb, i.e.
SOV order unless emphasis is to be given, with somewhat similar stem endings. There are
considerable resemblances in the declensions of the verb in Turkish and Hindustani. But,
Turkish has only one gender while Hindustani has two. As I know some Arabic, I can say that
there appears no similarity at all between Hindustani and Arabic syntax and grammar. I know
little Sanskrit or Persian grammar, but both languages belong to the same family of Indo-Iranian
group and my feeling is that their syntax is also closer to Hindustani. While Persian like Turkish
has one gender, Sanskrit has three, i.e. male, female and neuter. Sanskrit also allows more
flexibility in the placing of subject, object, etc. It may be admitted that human beings while
evolving speech patterns did not have much choice in shuffling subject, object, verb, etc. Still
that Sanskrit/Persian syntax is somewhat similar to Turkish, is a somewhat strange coincidence,
the latter belonging to the Ural-Altay group of languages. With Hindustani the similarity is
further accentuated. It may also be noted that the areas from where Turkish and Indo-European
languages emerged in Central Asia were not far from each other. Some similarities with Sanskrit
are: dvihyrdaya (carrying two hearts, pregnant), in Turkish “iki canli” means, the same, two
lives. In Hindi/Sanskrit, we have Chitrakar (painter) , Murtikar in Persian Negar kar. In Turkish we have “Sanatkar”
(Artist), Curetkar (courageous). Sun in Sanskrit/Hindi is Dinesha, while in Turkish it is
“Gunes.” First segment in both “din” and “gun” means day – perhaps linked with sunrise in cold
climate. We may also note that the syntax of Germanic languages is quite different from Sanskrit
and Persian, which are supposed to belong to the same family of Indo-European languages. We
may now look at more similarities between Hindustani and Turkish. (Please note that in Turkish
C is pronounced as J and C as Ch, G is silent when placed between vowels, which it
accentuates. H: stands for Hindustani and T: for Turkish.)
۱۴٫ There are no articles or declensions in Turkish or Hindustani; the relationship of the words
are expressed through ‘case endings’ as well as post-positions. (It would be interesting to study
if Turkish helped speedy change-over from declensions to post-positions from Apbhramsh to
Hindustani). The infinite noun functions as nominative and as indefinite. The accusative has thus
two forms: the definite (with accusative ending) and the indefinite (the same as the nominative).
Thus, “call a girl” – H: “ek larki bulao” T: “bir kiz çagir” but “call my servant”, H: “mere naukar
ko bulao”- T: “Benim hizmetciyi çagir”. The word order in Turkish and Hindustani is same
(This is also so in the following examples).
۱۵٫ The genitive comes before the agent e.g. ‘the son of the teacher’ T: ‘ustanin oglu’ H: ‘ustad ka
beta’. The genitive also expresses possession: ‘whose house is this?’ T. “Bu ev kimindir?”, H:
‘Woh ghar kiska hai?’. If a noun is in present, it goes into the genitive. It must therefore be
constructed as: ‘the man(he) has a house’, T: “Adamin bir evi var”, H: “Adami ka ek ghar hai”.
Also ‘to have’ as incidental possession is similarly expressed: “I have a book”, T: ‘Ben de bir
kitab var’, H: ‘mere pas ek kitab hai’. The ablative is also used to express the comparative case:
‘the elephant is larger than the horse’ T: ‘Fil attan buyuktur’, H: ‘Hathi ghore se bara hai’. For
emphasis both languages use the Arabic adverb ‘ziada’ – for more. ‘In addition it can be rendered
as in T: ‘daha’ or in H: ‘bhi’. The adjective is before the active or passive voice and does not
change except in the case of (in H) adjectives ending with a. “The/a good girl, T: “iyi kiz”, H:
Achhi lardki”. The adjective can be strengthened in both languages through simple repetition as
well as through the adverb “very much ” T:( pek çok); H:( bahut).In H:’ Ahista ahista’ (slowly),
T:’ yavas yavas’. Quickly becomes, T: “çabuk çabuk”, H: ‘Jaldi Jaldi’( not used in Arabic and
Sanskrit perhaps). Sometimes alliteration is used, for example, H: ‘ulta multa’ mixed up. The
alliterations are found especially in the passive or active voice (substantive) e.g.;. H: “kitab
mitab” – books and suchlike and “bartan wartan”- dishes and suchlike, “Hara bhara”(Green),
“Chota mota”(small). In Turkish, ‘kötu mötu’ (so-so), ‘çocuk mocuk’(children etc), ‘tabak mabak’,
(plates and suchlike). Popular in both languages are doubled substantives: Turn by turn or “again
and again”, becomes in T: “dizi dizi” and in H: ‘ bari bari ‘.
۱۶٫ Distributive are also thus expressed: “each man”, T: “bir bir (or tek tek) adam,” H: “ek ek
adami”, the interrogative further contains the meaning of the indefinite: “whoever”, T: “kim kim”,
H: “jo jo”. With number it is, T: “iki defa” H: “do dafa” (twice); 40 doors, in H: “Chalis
darwaza”, T: kirk kapi. In both languages numbers are preferably expressed without ‘and/or’ e.g.
‘five or ten’, H: panch das, T: bes on. Post positions are characteristic in both languages; ‘for the
dog’in H: ‘kutte ke vaste’, T: ‘köpek için’; and towards the house’, H: ‘ghar ke taraf’, T: ‘evin
tarafina’. As mentioned earlier, the verb is always found at the end of the sentence. The normal
sentence structure SOV is illustrated as follows: ‘I give this thick book with pleasure to that
good child’, T: ben sevincle, o iyi çocuga bu kalin kitabi veriyorum, H: ‘main khushi se us achhe
bacche ko yeh moti kitab deta hun’. In Turkish, verbs are often used with a Substantive or
Participle e.g. ‘etmek’ to make and ‘olmak’ to be, in H: ‘karna’- to do, and ‘hona’ -being. For
‘search’ T: ‘telaÿ etmek’, H: ‘talas karna’. Or ‘be present’, T: ‘dahil olmak’ H: ‘dakhil hona’.
Factual verbs are also similarly constructed. H: ‘bana’ (made), ‘banana’ (make), ‘banwana’ ( have
it made); in T: ‘Yapmak’ (make), ‘yaptirmak’( have it made), ;yapilmak’(to bo made); H:
‘Badalna’(to change oneself), ‘badlana’(changing), badalwana (to have it changed) becomes in T:
‘degismek’ (to change onself), ‘degistirmek’ (to change) and ‘degistirtmek (to have it changed).
۱۷٫ Indirect speech is made direct ‘tell him to come here’, H: ‘Idhar ao usko bolo’, T: ‘buraya
gelsin diye ona söyleyin’. The verb root ending – ip in Turkish and the simple verb root in
Hindustani attached to the principal verb show the order of occurrence of an event. For example,
‘they saw the thief and held him fast’, H: ‘chor ko dekh umon ne usko pakra’, T: ‘Hirsizi görup
yakaladilar’. The constructed verbal form (in Turkish)- arak and (Hindustani)-kar, -arke serves
in the rendering of Subordinate or dependant clauses – ‘in which, during’ e.g. ‘taking a vessel, he
went to the well’ H: ‘bartan lekar kuan par gaya , T: ‘Canak alarak kuyuya gitti’. Also common
adverbial expressions such as ‘he came running’, T: ‘Kosarak geldi’, H: ‘daurkar aya’. As in
Turkish the twice repeated verb root plus e shows repeated or continuous action, as does the
twice repeated verb of the present participle, H: ‘main tairte tairte thak gaya ‘, T: ‘Yuze yuze
yoruldum’. Both languages have a number of vowel compositions, (in Hindustani) as when the
root as well as the (in Turkish) root plus a are set together with the declenated infinitive e.g. ‘to
be able to speak’ T: ‘konusabilmek’, H:’bol sakna’, ‘he began to say’ H: ‘woh bolne laga’, T:
‘Söylemege basladi’. Some similarities in idiomatic expressions are: the showing of suffering is
pointed out through the expression of ‘eating’- e.g. H: ‘lakri or mar khana’; T: ‘Sopa yemek’ – to
eat the stick – to get a beating. Endure suffering or to grieve, becomes in T: ‘Gam yemek’, H:
‘gham khana’. (Note: Many of the above mentioned examples have been taken from a 1955
article by Otto Spies on the subject – the only paper on the subject I have come across since I
published my earlier paper on 1.6.1994.)
۱۸٫ The examples quoted above on the similarities of syntax, vocabulary, etc. Between Turkish
and Hindustani are based on comparison with the Ottoman and the present- day Turkish i.e. Oguz
branch as spoken in the Republic of Turkey . Syntax etc. of Turkish is quite similar to Eastern
Turkish i.e. Uighur branch although there are variations. But certainly the Eastern Turkish must
be closer to Hindustani as most of the Turkic tribes who came to Hindustan belonged to that
area. It may also be mentioned that of the common words in Turkish and Hindustani, whether of
Turkish origin or otherwise, 20% have quite different meanings and nuances when used in
Hindustani. This, of course is, true of even languages which have developed and evolved in
separate regions and are influenced by the environment and other factors and become quite
different from the original. Even in Turkic countries, the same words have different meaning e.g.
in Turkey or say in Sinkiang , Kazakhstan or Kyrgyzstan . It is for this reason that the Turkic
governments have set up Commissions consisting of scholars from Turkic speaking countries of
Central Asia, Turkey and Azerbaijan to prepare a comparative dictionary and grammar. (last
such attempt was made by Mahmud AI Kashghari in the 11th century AD.) The newly
independent countries in Central Asia feel that they must harmonise the syntax, grammar and
vocabulary of their languages. This has been the objective of many get togethers of Turkic
people, scholars and academicians, which have started taking place. Perhaps some Sanskirt,
Hindustani and Persian scholars could also join and discover further resemblance between
Turkish and Hindustani languages.
۱۹٫ We will leave it to linguists and philologists to work out how Hindustani languages evolved
and developed but to a layman it is clear that people learn or try to learn the ruler’s language or
of a dominating power. It is for this reason that we see the dominance of English and French in
their former colonies and the lasting influence of these languages on the languages of the latter.
And it is for this reason alone that English continues to dominate international communications,
earlier because of the British influence and now on account of ths USA . I believe that even
whene languages were imposed, it is not as such the movement of races, as claimed, but only of
the powerful elites; military, political or economic. There were Copts and Berbers in North
Africa when the Arabs came and Byzantine Christians when Turks entered Asia Minor . Turkey
sent over 1.5 million Christians to Greece in 1920s out of a population of over 11 million, in
exchange for Muslim Turks; this was after 6 centuries of Islamisation and Turkification.
(Ironically, these included many thousand Christian Turks, who had come to Asia Minor earlier
than the Muslim Turks and had remained Christians.) Moldova ‘s Turks called Gagaoz are
Christians. Thus the languages and religions of the ruled do not change quickly and continue to
interact and affect each other. So was the case in Hindustan and elsewhere.
۲۰٫ According to linguists the evolution of Hindustani or any other language is a result of contact
situation in which more than two languages interact on the basis of belonging to the ruler and the
ruled. The socio-linguistic forces give power and prestige to the languages of the ruler with the
result that it begins to exercise linguistic influence on the language of the ruled. First in the field
of vocabulary and later on in some vulnerable areas of syntax. But linguistic resemblance, apart
from common parentage, can also be based on geographical and physical proximity. Essentially
different but geographically and physically proximate languages are often known to exhibit
shared linguistic features. This probably explains similarities in Sanskrit and Turkish as these
languages originated around Central Asia . This also explains the similarities between
Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages or Persian, Turkish and Hindustani. This feature was
studied in detail by Mr. Emeneau, which led him to develop the concept of linguistic areas.
perhaps Central Asia , Anatolia , lran, Afghanistan and North Hindustan could be said to belong
to overlapping linguistic areas, where languages belonging to different families have acquired
common traits following interaction, as a result of which, this vast area shows shared linguistic
features like word-order, reduplication, inter-relations, negations, compound words etc. This
also explains similarities between Deccani Hindi and Telgu in certain areas of syntax.
۲۱٫ It is noteworthy that except for some inscriptions near Orhon river, which are in Turkish
Rhunic script, which itself was derived from Aramaic (a fact contested by many experts), the
mother script of Semitic languages, Turkish has been mostly written in the script of the ruled
people. Brahmi, Kharoshti and Devanagri scripts, though not of the ruled, are perhaps the
earliest of scripts used for writing Turkish as spoken by Uighur Turks in Eastern Turkistan . They
were used in spite of many difficulties in expressing the Turkish vowels (not easier to write in
Persian or Arabic script either) which do not exist in Hindustani languages. Brahmi script is of
Indian origin; it might have been inspired by the Aramaic script, but is not related to it and was
used widely in Hindustan even before the Budhist era and was used by Mauryan King Ashoka
for inscriptions in India and elsewhere. It was taken to Central Asia and other neighbouring
countries. Out of Brahmi have evolved most other North Indian scripts like Devanagari, Bengali,
Gujarati etc. Apart from the modified Arabic script, the other scripts used for writing Turkish
are Cyrillic, introduced by the Russians in what are now Central Asian Republics , although at
one time it was written in the Latin script. This change-over to Cyrillic perhaps took place both
because the Turkish Republic had adopted it in early 1930s and for reasons of state, i.e.
maintaining a scriptal cohesiveness. The Russians wanted its citizens in Central Asia to use the
same script as of the dominant Russian language for easy switch over. It has been alleged that
during the Soviet days, differences in meanings of Turkish words in different republics were
encouraged. Thus Turkic languages have evolved differently in Eastern Turkistan , i.e.
Uzbekistan, Kyrghystan Kazakhstan etc . Sinkiang Turkish with reduced contacts has perhaps
developed peculiarities of its own. To remedy the situation, the Government of Turkey has
granted tens of thousands of scholarships to students and teachers from Turkic Republics . A
large number of Turkish teachers have also gone to teach at schools and universities in these
countries. Students coming from Uzbekistan , Kazakhstan , Kyrghystan, etc. take a few months
before they can fully master the Turkish as spoken in the Turkish Republic . The Turkic
Republics have considered the question of change over from the Cyrillic to the Latin script.
Azerbaijan has already done so after adding three more alphabets to the script used by Turkey .
Turkmenistan had decided to switch over to the Latin script with some modifications from 1st
January 1995. Others have not decided yet. The choice is not easy as switch-over to Latin script
while opening a window to Turkey and all that Turkey has done through translations and
assimilation of knowledge from the West, would cut these Republics from their immediate past,
written in the Cyrillic script. Switch over to the Arabic script would be a political decision, as
it will make access to the Persian-Arab Islamic world easier. Those responsible for the
decision for the change-over have to consider political, cultural, religious, economic and other
ramifications.
۲۲٫ It would appear that the Turkic rulers were much more statesmen-like and liberal in
interaction with those whom they ruled. They did not insist on their language being imposed on
the new subjects, notwithstanding the fact that the languages of some of the ruled were much
more developed than Turkish. (For beautiful, like, love; for example, Turkish has very few
synonymous, unlike say Persian, Sanskrit, Arabic, etc.) It has also been suggested that many
Turkish rulers became Muslim for political and state-reasons. It automatically combined the
powers of the Sultan and the Khalifa, thus making it easier to rule the domains. Of course, as
regards Turkish expansion of Ottoman Empire and into Hindustan , being a Gazi provided great
incentive and booty. Some have even raised doubts whether Ertugrul, father of Osman who
established the Ottoman (Osmanli) dynasty in Asia Minor ( Anatolia ) was Muslim by birth. It has
been suggested that he converted to Islam when he married the daughter of a powerful Islamic
Sheikh to strengthen his position. But there is no conclusive proof for this, notwithstanding the
fact that many Turks like Gagaoz and others have remained Christians. Some suggestions have
been made recently (Prof. Julian Raby of Oxford has done a PhD thesis on this subject) that
Fetih, the Conqueror of Constantinpole, even seriously considered in 1450s embracing Orthodox
Christianity, as Westwards the population was mostly Christian and even in Asia Minor a fairly
large percentage of population might still have been Christian. lt was nearly 15% in as late as
1920s. The generosity of the Turkish rulers and their political wisdom and acumen is proved by
the fact that they allowed people of other religions i.e. Christians, Jews, Armenians to have their
own millets. As long as they paid their taxes, they were allowed to run their own affairs and
even contribute to the economic well-being of the state. As regards Turkey , then known as Asia
Minor, it was part of the Byzantine Empire and the Turkish blood (if one can measure it?) among
the residents of the present day Turkey may not be more than 20%. It may be recalled that the
Ottoman rulers themselves used the slave households system called Devsirme, through which,
for hundreds of years, they recruited young non- muslim Christian boys, mostly from Balkans.
Out of them emerged the Janissary corps and high level military and civilian leaders, including
grand veziers. Only one-third of grand veziers could claim Turkish descent. Barring a few,
mothers of most of the Ottoman Sultans were non-Turkish, a large number of them Christians.
The former were allowed to have their religious entourage and many Ottoman princes were
brought up almost as Christians. These examples have been given to state that Empires did not
change their religious, ethnic or linguistic character suddenly. There were long periods of
interaction between various religions, races, languages and cultures, one affecting the other. No
wonder, in Istanbul , Ankara and elsewhere in Turkey , many resemble the peoples of Balkans
and Yugoslavia who dominated the Ottoman elite. In fact, anthropologists have counted more
than 20 ethnic groups in Turkey .
۲۳٫ Similarly in India , once the Turks had decided to settle down, they started inter-mingling and
inter-mixing. Allaudin Khilji and his sons married daughters of Hindu Kings and from the
earliest period set an example. Hindus occupied positions of power in his court. The practice of
marriages with families of Hindu Kings, especially in Rajasthan became very common after
Mughal Emperor Akbar. Akbar and his descendents gave full honour and positions to their
in-laws. Many of them were Mughal Commander-in-Chiefs and high officials. Accountants and
many Veziers like Birbal were Hindus. If Mehmet, the Conqueror, thought of embracing
Christianity, Akbar conversed with the sages of all religions, of which his populace consisted of
and even evolved a new religion ‘Din-e-Elahi’. In contrast, Aurangzeb following fanatic policies
virtually destroyed the empire, built up by his forefathers. The inter-mixing and respect for
others’ languages, religions and culture co-existed with some equality and were able to influence
each other.
۲۴٫ The objective of this paper is to start discussions and further research on the question of
influence of Turkic languages on Hindustani languages, especially on Hindi and Urdu and their
various forms. Except from late 18th century till first half of 20th century there was constant
exchange and interaction between the peoples of Hindustan and Central Asia .
آخرین دیدگاهها