To decolonise Hindi, embrace its many voices

On Hindi Diwas, the need arises to reconsider how we view the concept of "Hindi". Currently, it appears as a fixed language, based on Standardised Khari Boli written in Devanagari script and linked to the vocabulary derived from Sanskrit. However, the original Hindi landscape was much more diverse. In the pre-colonial India, northern regions thrived with multiple linguistic mediums - each suited to different situations, be it the marketplace, the court, the temple, or home.

People did not possess a singular "mother tongue". Literary works traversed various scripts - Devanagari, Kaithi, Gurmukhi, and Perso-Arabic. This linguistic fluidity was disrupted by the colonial government's desire to categorize, quantify, and simplify administration. This disruption began in the 1830s when the East India Company replaced Persian with local languages in lower courts, sparking a contest between Hindi and Urdu registers.

The 1900 court ruling in United Provinces, which allowed Devanagari alongside Persian script, further politicized these languages, turning them into symbols of communal identity. A definitive split occurred with the Piggott Commission of 1912-13. When the concept of a 'common language' failed, the colonial administration introduced separate standardized supplementary readers for Hindi and Urdu in 1916, discrediting vibrant oral traditions and languages like Bhojpuri, Awadhi, and Braj Bhasha.

Early nationalist bodies, such as the Nagari Pracharini Sabha and Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, vigorously advocated a highly Sanskritized, Devanagari-based version of Khari Boli as the sole 'pure' national language. Under Mahavir Prasad Dwivedi's editorial direction, the journal Saraswati played a significant role in language regulation, standardizing grammar and removing Arabic and Persian loanwords.

The words for white (safed) and angry (naraz) were replaced with Sanskrit equivalents shvet and kruddh. To give this artificial language credibility, these authors combined historical reinterpretation with contemporary exclusion. They expanded the definition of "Hindi" when discussing the past - asserting that all medieval poetry, ranging from Prithviraj Raso’s Apabhramsa to Surdas’ Braj and Tulsidas’ Awadhi - while simultaneously limiting its present-day form to one standardized Khari Boli version.

This process created a clear order: the past was plural, enabling a singular present. This resulted in severe linguistic hierarchies; Braj Bhasha was deemed didactic and erotic, while popular forms like nautanki and ballads were undervalued. Urdu was sidelined. Real cultural decolonization necessitates dismantling these linguistic control mechanisms.

The linguistic framework of North India was formed through interactions, borrowings, and adaptations. The true essence of Hindi's history lies in its strength in absorption, not purity. On this Hindi Diwas, we must acknowledge that languages flourish not through barriers, but by embracing their diverse influences. A stronger Hindi future will not be achieved by forgetting its Persian, Urdu, Braj, and Awadhi legacies, but by incorporating them into its history.

Decolonizing Hindi is not about making it purer; it's about making it historically complete, reflecting the essence of unity - not the sameness, but the harmonious coexistence of our various voices. The author is a PhD scholar from the History Department, University of Delhi.