The Hindi-Urdu debate, a significant issue in colonial India during the

late 19th and early 20th centuries, was much more than a simple
argument about language. It was a complex mix of social, political, and
cultural movements that shaped modern India. This summary explores
the reasons behind the debate, the various factors that fueled it, and its
broader implications, drawing from the provided document. The debate
reflected struggles over identity, power, and influence, involving caste,
class, gender, community, and nationalism, making it a key moment in
India’s history.

The Role of Language in Nationalism

The document begins by referencing Benedict Anderson’s *Imagined
Communities* (1983), which explains how print media and vernacular
languages (like English, French, and German) helped create
nation-states in Europe. These languages unified people and fostered a
sense of national identity. In Europe, nations were often built around a
single language, but in colonial India, the situation was more
complicated. India was a diverse land with many languages, dialects,
and scripts, and the link between language and nationalism wasn’t
straightforward.

In India, the language issue became tangled with other movements,

such as the rise of community identities (Hindu and Muslim), class
distinctions, and efforts to redefine gender roles. The Hindi-Urdu
controversy, which pitted the Hindi language (written in Devnagari script)
against Urdu (written in Perso-Arabic script), emerged in this complex
environment. To understand the debate, we need to look at the specific
historical and social context of colonial India during this period.

Why Language Became a Big Issue

The debate over Hindi and Urdu became prominent in the second half of
the 19th century. Early historians linked it to the rise of Indian
nationalism. In Western nations, every country had a common language
to unite its people, and Indian nationalists wanted something similar.
However, in India, English—a foreign language—served as the common
language for early nationalists. As nationalism grew, Indian intellectuals
began searching for an Indian language to replace English.

Many looked to India’s ancient past, believing it was a “golden age.”

They chose Sanskrit as the ideal language because it was seen as the
root of Indian culture. Hindi, they argued, was closest to Sanskrit and
could serve as its “loyal daughter.” To make Hindi seem more like
Sanskrit, its vocabulary was heavily Sanskritized, meaning Persian and
local words were replaced with Sanskrit terms. This effort was part of a
broader nationalist movement that celebrated India’s ancient heritage.

However, this explanation doesn’t fully capture the complexity of the

Hindi-Urdu debate. Some historians argue that the debate was driven by
liberal ideas of the time. Educated Indians, influenced by Western
democratic ideals, saw Hindi as a “mass language” that could connect
with ordinary people, unlike Urdu, which was associated with the elite
ruling class of the Mughal era. But this idea falls short when we consider
that Kaithi, another script used for the Hindustani language, was more
widely used than both Hindi’s Devnagari and Urdu’s Perso-Arabic
scripts. In 1854, for example, Kaithi primers outnumbered those in
Devnagari and other scripts, yet Hindi supporters ignored Kaithi. This
suggests the debate wasn’t just about finding a people’s language.

Caste and Class in the Debate

Alok Rai, in his book *Hindi Nationalism*, offers a deeper perspective by
highlighting caste and class dynamics. He argues that the preference for
Devnagari over Kaithi was tied to caste rivalries. Kaithi was linked to the
Kayastha caste, which had a tense relationship with Brahmins, the
traditional keepers of knowledge. The new Indian intelligentsia, mostly
Brahmins, favored Devnagari because it was seen as their script. For
example, in 1912, a speaker at the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan called
Devnagari the “script of the Brahmins,” showing its caste connection.

Class also played a role. The Hindi movement was supported by a new
class of educated Indians who wanted to separate themselves from the
old feudal elite, who used Urdu. Urdu was seen as the language of the
Mughal court, tied to a declining aristocratic culture. The new elite,
educated in Western ideas, embraced Hindi to assert their modern
identity. Meanwhile, Urdu supporters, like those writing in the *Muslim
Chronicle*, framed the debate as a clash between the “refined” culture of
Urdu and the “barbaric” culture of Hindi’s supporters. Since most Indians
were illiterate at the time, the Hindi-Urdu debate was largely an elite
conflict between two groups vying for power.

Economic Motives
Economics also shaped the debate, particularly in the North Western
Provinces (modern-day Uttar Pradesh). Expatriate Bengalis, who moved
to this region for jobs, supported the Hindi movement for economic
reasons. They competed with local Muslims, who were well-represented
in administrative jobs that required Urdu and Persian skills. By pushing
for Hindi and Devnagari, Bengalis aimed to reduce Muslim dominance in
these roles.

This economic angle was amplified after the 1857 uprising, when the
British colonial government began documenting everything in detail,
creating what’s called an “Ethnographic State” or “Document Raj.” The
increased use of paperwork made the language of administration crucial.
Knowing the official language opened doors to jobs as clerks and
scribes. In 1900, the British responded to pressure from Hindi supporters
by granting equal status to Devnagari and Perso-Arabic scripts in
administration, a major victory for the Hindi movement.

Bengalis also had other economic concerns. In East Bengal, Muslim

peasants were prospering due to the jute trade, which made the Bengali
middle class feel insecure. This insecurity fueled their support for Hindi,
even though the Muslim peasants of East Bengal and the Urdu-speaking
landlords of Awadh had little in common. The Bengalis’ push for
Sanskritized Hindi, associated with upper-caste Brahmins, was a way to
align themselves with a prestigious identity, not to champion the
common people.

Gender and Social Ideas

The Hindi-Urdu debate also reflected new social ideas, especially about
gender. After 1857, the British labeled Bengalis as “effeminate” and
weak, contrasting them with “martial” groups like Sikhs and Rajputs. This
colonial stereotype pushed Bengalis to prove their masculinity, including
through language. Hindi was portrayed as a strong, masculine language
of the masses, while Urdu was seen as poetic, romantic, and tied to the
“decadent” Mughal court, even associated with dancing girls and
prostitutes. This gendered framing extended to dialects: Khari boli, a
Hindi dialect, was favored over Braj, which was seen as feminine due to
its link to the poetic Krishna cult.

The debate also touched on ideas about women’s roles. Groups like the
Arya Samaj argued that Hindu girls should learn Hindi, not Urdu, to
remain “chaste.” Hindi was tied to purity and loyalty, reinforcing
traditional gender norms through language.

Community Identity
The debate was closely linked to the rise of Hindu and Muslim
community identities in the late 19th century. Factors like British census
reports, the growth of the press, and religious reform movements
strengthened these identities. Language became a way to mark
community boundaries. Hindi became associated with Hindus, and Urdu
with Muslims, leading to slogans like “Hindi, Hindu, Hindustan.”

In earlier times, Urdu (also called Hindavi or Rekhta) was a syncretic

language, blending Persian and local Indian languages. It was used by
both Hindus and Muslims and wasn’t tied to one community. But by the
late 19th century, Urdu was increasingly seen as a Muslim language,
while Hindi was linked to Hindus. To emphasize these differences, Hindi
was Sanskritized, and Urdu was Persianized, removing shared
elements. For example, Persian words were removed from Hindi, and
Sanskrit words were purged from Urdu. Bharatendu Harishchandra, a
key figure, promoted Hindi’s Sanskrit heritage, emphasizing its “high
status” and distancing it from local traditions.

This process redrew the “family tree” of languages. Hindi was positioned
as the “daughter” of Sanskrit, related to other Indian languages like
Bengali and Gujarati, but completely separated from Urdu, its closest
linguistic relative. Alok Rai describes this as an “elective affinity” with
Sanskrit and an “elective disaffinity” with Urdu, driven by identity politics.

The Shared Origins of Hindi and Urdu

Despite their later separation, Hindi and Urdu share a common origin. In
medieval India, Persian was the court language, but rulers interacted
with locals in vernacular languages like Braj, Awadhi, and Khari boli.
This interaction created a syncretic language called Hindavi, Urdu,
Dehlavi, or Rekhta. It spread through Sufi saints to southern India, where
it developed into a variant called Dakhini.

For centuries, this language was used for everyday communication,

lacking the polish of Persian. In the 18th century, as regional kingdoms
emerged, rulers who were rooted in local culture patronized
Hindavi/Urdu, leading to a golden age for its literature. The only
difference between Urdu and Hindavi was the script—Persian for Urdu,
Devnagari for Hindavi. But the identity politics of the 19th century turned
them into separate languages tied to rival communities, creating the
Hindi-Urdu divide.

Conclusion
The Hindi-Urdu debate was not just about choosing a language. It was a
battleground for larger issues—nationalism, caste, class, gender,
economics, and community identity. Language became a way to assert
power, define social roles, and shape India’s future. The debate showed
how colonial India was a place of competing visions, where ideas about
tradition and modernity clashed. By understanding the Hindi-Urdu
controversy, we gain insight into the forces that shaped modern India,
from the rise of communal identities to the struggle for social and political
dominance.