7.1 Discussion

As discussed in the introduction of this book, Hindi has a rich history with a great deal of influence from Persian and Arabic as well as the Indic languages from which it has evolved. Again, until the 19th century there was one lingua franca known by the names Hindi, Hindvi, Hindustani, Rekhta, Urdu, and others. Without getting into too much detail, scholars such as Christopher King (2006) and Tariq Rahman (2011) have described how in the 19th century Hindi and Urdu began to be intentionally divided due to complex sociopolitical factors emerging from British colonial rule. Gradually the term Hindi became associated with the Devanāgarī form only and the term Urdu became associated with the Perso-Arabic script. A more heavily Sanskritized vocabulary was adopted in Hindi while a more Perso-Arabic influenced vocabulary became increasingly characteristic of Urdu. Because language is inextricably linked with politics and identity, these languages took on a communal character as well. However, at the level of everyday speech the two are nearly the same. There is often as much variation within the two languages as between them, and in fact some scholars continue to use the term Hindustani when discussing linguistic features of Hindi and Urdu because they are largely shared.

Because of this history, Persian and Arabic derived vocabulary is quite common in Hindi, and several characters of Devanāgarī have been modified to represent sounds from these languages. There are five[1] such sounds, and all use an existing akṣar with an added bindu (dot) to differentiate them:

Although historically these sounds have been distinct in urban, formal registers, many speakers of Hindi:

• Do not produce these sounds and instead would read क़ q as क k, ख़ k͟h as ख kh, ग़ g͟h as ग g, ज़ z as ज j, and फ़ f as फ ph
• Pronounce फ़ f and ज़ z, particularly in English words, but pronounce the others as their undotted counterparts
• Freely alternate between the dotted and undotted variants

As with many other elements of language, how speakers pronounce these letters can have an impact on the perception of their social identity. Some educated Hindi speakers, especially those highly conscious of linguistic nuances or sociocultural identity, may overcorrect the pronunciation of certain words when they perceive them as being strongly tied to Urdu or Muslim heritage. This typically happens in formal, poetic, or religious contexts where they want to sound authentic or refined. For instance, the following examples have each been observed multiple times by this author: the Muslim name ऐजाज़ Aijaz overcorrected to ऐज़ाज़ Aizaz, poetic words such as फ़लक falak or रिवाज rivāj being pronounced as फ़लक़ falaq or रिवाज़ rivāz, and शाह नजफ़ इमामबाड़ा Shah Najaf Imambara, a significant site of Shia worship in Lucknow, routinely referred to as शाह नज़फ़ Shah Nazaf by non-Muslims unfamiliar with the reference to the Iraqi city of Najaf for which it was named.

Such overcorrection may be a backfiring attempt to show cultural fluency or respectful pronunciation, or to show the speaker’s mastery of Urdu as a poetic or “refined” register of language. It may also be an expression of subconscious stereotypes or cultural assumptions about what “correct” pronunciation sounds like in a Muslim or Urdu context. In any case, anyone studying Hindi or learning about India should engage thoughtfully with the intertwined histories of Hindi and Urdu, recognizing how deeply language, power, and identity are connected. These dynamics carry a complex legacy and remain highly sensitive—especially given their far-reaching political and cultural consequences in recent years.