“Urdu is a mixture of Persian, Arabic and Turkish words formed with the intermingling of invading Muslim armies and local Hindi-speaking Hindus. It’s a Turkish word which means Army camp.”
Almost everyone who knows something about the Urdu language knows this statement, which is logically incomprehensible, historically incorrect and linguistically misleading. Irrespective of the fact as to who made this statement, why it was made and when it was initiated for the first time, one thing can be said with utmost certainty that it has profound socio-political and socio-linguistic impact in the Indian Subcontinent for the last 150 years, i.e., with the advent of British Raj in this region.
One can draw a few inferences from this falsehood which has shaped our perception, consciously and sub-consciously that Urdu is not a native language of the Indian Subcontinent rather it’s a language of foreign invaders. Consequently it must be disowned if not hated.
Historically it is incorrect because the Muslim rulers did not introduce any new language. Instead they gave a new script (Persio-Arabic or Nastaliq), which was comprehendible to the spoken language of India. They even invented and introduced new signs or letters for the new sounds which are utterly local to the existing Persio-Arabic script, i.e., all the aspirated sounds of Bha, Pha, Tha, Gha, Dha, Rha, Lha and retroflexed sounds like Rah, Taa, Daa, etc. Hence all the tens of thousands of words spoken in Urdu containing these sounds have their origin in the early Vedic or middle Vedic era, i.e., 400 to 600BC.
The process of loaning words from other languages is a sign of a living and progressing language. Urdu is one such language. All the speakers of Urdu neither became Muslim by including Persian or Arabic words nor are they now converted to Christianity by including English words. On the contrary, perhaps, some non Urdu speaking elite in the Indian sub continent think that they will become Muslims if they use Arabic and Persian words, so they are making conscious efforts to replace most of these words with Sanskrit words. This policy may have socio-political advantages albeit not without socio-political repercussions. As a student of linguistics only one comment can be made on this current belief that such a policy leads into secluding more people and ethnic groups rather than integrating them.