Urdu/Hindi: An Artificial Divide: African Heritage, Mesopotamian Roots, Indian Culture & Britiah Colonialism

Front Cover
Algora Publishing, 2006 - Foreign Language Study - 400 pages
0 Reviews
Reviews aren't verified, but Google checks for and removes fake content when it's identified
In a blow against the British Empire, Khan suggests that London artificially divided India's Hindu and Muslim populations by splitting their one language in two, then burying the evidence in obscure scholarly works outside the public view. All language is political -- and so is the boundary between one language and another. The author analyzes the origins of Urdu, one of the earliest known languages, and propounds the iconoclastic views that Hindi came from pre-Aryan Dravidian and Austric-Munda, not from Aryan's Sanskrit (which, like the Indo-European languages, Greek and Latin, etc., are rooted in the Middle East/Mesopotamia, not in Europe). Hindi's script came from the Aramaic system, similar to Greek, and in the 1800s, the British initiated the divisive game of splitting one language in two, Hindi (for the Hindus) and Urdu (for the Muslims). These facts, he says, have been buried and nearly lost in turgid academic works. Khan bolsters his hypothesis with copious technical linguistic examples. This may spark a revolution in linguistic history! Urdu/Hindi: An Artificial Divide integrates the out of Africa linguistic evolution theory with the fossil linguistics of Middle East, and discards the theory that Sanskrit descended from a hypothetical proto-IndoEuropean language and by degeneration created dialects, Urdu/Hindi and others. It shows that several tribes from the Middle East created the hybrid by cumulative evolution. The oldest groups, Austric and Dravidian, starting 8000 B.C. provided the grammar/syntax plus about 60% of vocabulary, S.K.T. added 10% after 1500 B.C. and Arabic/Persian 20-30% after A.D. 800. The book reveals Mesopotamia as the linguistic melting pot of Sumerian, Babylonian, Elamite, Hittite-Hurrian-Mitanni, etc., with a common script and vocabularies shared mutually and passed on to I.E., S.K.T., D.R., Arabic and then to Hindi/Urdu; in fact the author locates oldest evidence of S.K.T. in Syria. The book also exposes the myths of a revealed S.K.T. or Hebrew and the fiction of linguistic races, i.e. Aryan, Semitic, etc. The book supports the one world concept and reveals the potential of Urdu/Hindi to unite all genetic elements, races and regions of the Indo-Pakistan sub-continent. This is important reading not only for those interested to understand the divisive exploitation of languages in British-led India's partition, but for those interested in: - The science and history of origin of Urdu/Hindi (and other languages) - The false claims of linguistic races and creation - History of Languages and Scripts - Language, Mythology and Racism - Ancient History and Fossil Languages - British Rule and India's Partition.

From inside the book

What people are saying - Write a review

We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.

Contents

Foreword
3
Acknowledgments
9
List of Tables and Illustrations
11
Chapter I Mesopotamian Roots and Language Classification
13
Chapter II Phonetics Linguistics and Genetics DNA
33
Source of Semitic Dravidian and IndoEuropeanSanskrit
59
Chapter IV AustricMundaDravidian and Oldest HindiUrdu
83
Chapter V SanskritPrakrit and OldUrduHindi
109
British Bengal
225
Chapter XI Partition of Language Land and Hearts
253
Chapter XII Urdu through the 20th Century
275
Chapter XIII Hindis Evolution through the 20th Century
295
A Show Biz Power
315
Chapter XV UrduHindi of America and the World
333
Common Origin
347
Chapter XVII Mesopotamian Realism and ReClassification
363

New Substrates from the Middle East
133
Chapter VII Language of Saints and Sultans
153
Chapter VIII Secular Moghuls and Secular Language
171
Official Language of British India
197

Other editions - View all

Common terms and phrases

Popular passages

Page 17 - Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity both in the roots of verbs and in the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists...

Bibliographic information