Language, like culture, thrives on diversity and inclusion. No language belongs to a particular religion—Sanskrit is not inherently Hindu, nor are Arabic and Persian exclusively Muslim. Urdu, as much a product of India’s linguistic heritage as Hindi, has long been misrepresented and misunderstood. This makes the Rajasthan government’s recent decision to remove Urdu terms from police and court vocabulary a deeply regrettable move that reflects intolerance rather than progress. Historically, neither Urdu nor Hindi existed during the Mughal era when Persian was the court language. Tulsidas’s Ramcharitmanas, revered in Hindu tradition, was written in Awadhi, a language that is now more or less extinct.
During British rule, linguists, officials, and missionaries collaborated to standardise Hindi and Urdu, borrowing heavily from Sanskrit, Awadhi, Persian, and Arabic to make them accessible to the masses. Tragically, post-Independence India failed Urdu, labelling it a “Muslim language” and depriving it of state patronage, even though it was spoken by millions across religions.
Rajasthan’s plan to eliminate terms like chashmadeed (eyewitness), ilzam (allegation), and mulzim (accused) not only erases Urdu’s contributions but also undermines the natural evolution of language. A language grows when it embraces words from other cultures and dialects. English, with its million-plus words, thrives because of its openness to borrow. Urdu, once a vibrant bridge between communities and the second official language in states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, is already in decline due to decades of neglect and communal biases. To treat it as foreign is to deny India’s rich multicultural identity. The Rajasthan government’s decision reeks of bigotry and is a disservice to both linguistic and cultural history. It should reconsider this misguided step, which exposes a narrow, divisive mindset. Embracing Urdu’s contributions would not only honour India’s heritage but also strengthen the bonds that unite us as a nation.
