WI: Continued Use of the Persian Language in India?

Looking at many Indian historical documents, it is perhaps striking that many of them are in a Persian dialect. This Indian Persian dialect was based upon the Tajik dialect, which was further Arabized and influenced by Indian languages. This language was spoken even by many Hindus, due to the Mughals integrating Hindus substantially into the imperial bureaucracy. Though it fell into a decline with the Mughal Empire, it persisted in the various successor states. Even early British India continued Persian as one of the official languages of the puppet Mughal Empire, until abolishing it entirely as part of a campaign of Anglicizing India. Indeed, English neatly replaced Persian as one of the two official languages of India, and the one generally spoken by the elite. This was so successful that today, Persian is dead in India except in historical contexts. So, how do we get it to survive?

The easiest way is to get the Mughal Empire to survive as a powerful construct. Of course, with such an early POD, you could even keep Hindustani from emerging as an important Indian language outside of the Hindu Belt, and thus ensure that Persian remain the sole lingua franca of the Empire. This, of course, is the very best scenario for Persian that you're going to get

Going for a later POD, save the Sikh Empire. From what I've read, Persian was the high-level language there, taught in their higher institutions, while Punjabi was generally taught in lower-level institutions. The Sikh Empire had an impressive literacy rate, and so if this increases, the result is a Persian-speaking Punjab. But this is not assured, as some sort of switch to Punjabi (if a Persianized register) could easily occur and result in Persian declining in here as well.

If we are to go for a POD that still results in a British India, we need a British India that allies with the Muslims, or rather the Persianized elite (which consisted of both Hindus and Persians - a legacy of the Mughals), and so it naturally supports retaining Persian as an Indian language, even expanding it somewhat. One way of doing this is having the Marathis or the Rajputs rebel a lot more than OTL, through boring dynastic politics exploding in the faces of the British, or something else. This means that Britain is naturally brought closer to the Persianized elites, in opposition to these Hindu rebels. Also, the puppet Mughal Emperor needs to be retained, as his very existence is a giant endorsement of Persianized culture and the Persian language. Here, Persian here won't be the only main language of India. Rather, it'll be one of the two main languages of India, holding English's status as an elite language. But that's clearly survival.

Thoughts?
 
The British may simply decide that, since India already has a widely understood administrative language, they prefer the bother of learning it than the bother of replacing it. This would entrench Persian even more so than in Mughal times, but would require a huge body of trusted translators at some level (politicians in London would want reports in English) and require most or all Britsh personnel in India to learn Persian (it was done to some extent, but mainly dropped). Perhaps the British chose to lean even more on local (primarily Muslim) personnel, so that administrative practice in Persian takes root in the Raj, it would be viable. This would assume that the British are more trusting of Indians (some sections of them at least) and more willing to let them into upper echeleons of administration. The POD should probably precede the Mutiny, which needs to be either butterflied away or changed considerably (only marginal Muslim participation?). For this to work into this day, no Partition* would be immensely helpful (though a prior POD is likely to be needed).
*No Partition would be immensely helpful to the subcontinent at large as well.
 
The British may simply decide that, since India already has a widely understood administrative language, they prefer the bother of learning it than the bother of replacing it.

That's roughly the history of Indonesian Language, which is based on a Malay lingua franca and is only a distant cousin of the Javanese language, once spoken by the large majority of the population.


As for India, was Persian more than a bureaucratic language? Because if you're planning to keep the Brits English will inevitably fill that role (otherwise would be highly ineffective, will the shareholders learn Persian?). Even with a surviving Mughals I'm not sure that would be enough to substitute Hindi/Urdu as a lingua franca. A Meiji Mughal with a national education system? That would make a nice TL.
 
That's roughly the history of Indonesian Language, which is based on a Malay lingua franca and is only a distant cousin of the Javanese language, once spoken by the large majority of the population.


As for India, was Persian more than a bureaucratic language? Because if you're planning to keep the Brits English will inevitably fill that role (otherwise would be highly ineffective, will the shareholders learn Persian?). Even with a surviving Mughals I'm not sure that would be enough to substitute Hindi/Urdu as a lingua franca. A Meiji Mughal with a national education system? That would make a nice TL.

Persian was the language of Muslim high culture in India, though Urdu was used as well ("Urdu" means roughly "Court language" after all). So it was used in literature, esp. poetry, as well as administration. Indonesia however indeed shows it is possible: the VOC shareholders did not learn Malay, but the Dutch administration used it extensively and trained its native clerks in it. Difference is, Malay was a trading language (Persian too, to a point) much more than an administrative one, in pre-colonial times.
 
As for India, was Persian more than a bureaucratic language?

Yes. It was also a cultural language, and it was widely spoken throughout the Mughal Empire by Hindus and Muslims. Even the Rajputs, who allied quite strongly with the Mughals and were well-absorbed into their bureaucracy spoke Persian, though they obviously spoke Rajasthani more.

But in terms of trade, Hindustani, or some form of it, was always the dominant tongue except in Islamicized cities like Delhi and Lucknow, where Persian was the main tongue in all aspects.

Even with a surviving Mughals I'm not sure that would be enough to substitute Hindi/Urdu as a lingua franca.

Hindustani as a lingua franca only emerged in the eighteenth century, when the Mughals saw their devastating decline. Prior to that, they saw Hindustani, and even other Indian languages like Braj Bhasha, as unrefined languages only suited for love poetry.

And any sort of Mughal Survives TL is going to need to have a POD before the eighteenth century.
 
Persian was the language of Muslim high culture in India, though Urdu was used as well ("Urdu" means roughly "Court language" after all). So it was used in literature, esp. poetry, as well as administration. Indonesia however indeed shows it is possible: the VOC shareholders did not learn Malay, but the Dutch administration used it extensively and trained its native clerks in it. Difference is, Malay was a trading language (Persian too, to a point) much more than an administrative one, in pre-colonial times.

Yes. It was also a cultural language, and it was widely spoken throughout the Mughal Empire by Hindus and Muslims. Even the Rajputs, who allied quite strongly with the Mughals and were well-absorbed into their bureaucracy spoke Persian, though they obviously spoke Rajasthani more.

But in terms of trade, Hindustani, or some form of it, was always the dominant tongue except in Islamicized cities like Delhi and Lucknow, where Persian was the main tongue in all aspects.

So, if I understood it corretly, Persian usage in India was much more like Latin than French, if we put it in Western European terms. We need to make it a true lingua franca, but how? Wouldn't Urdu inevitably fill that gap? Perharps if we can maintain OTL Afghanistan and the rest of Greater Iran closely connected with India?
 
So, if I understood it corretly, Persian usage in India was much more like Latin than French, if we put it in Western European terms. We need to make it a true lingua franca, but how? Wouldn't Urdu inevitably fill that gap? Perharps if we can maintain OTL Afghanistan and the rest of Greater Iran closely connected with India?

Well, it was a bit of both. Depending on which part of India we are talking about, and when, a foreigner (including someone from a linguistically different part of India) would often use Persian in order to be understood. This was more especially the case in the northwestern parts of course. British officers would use Persian to interact with Himalayan rajas for instance (you can't really expect them to know Hunza anyway).
 
Isn't Urdu essentially Hindi with Persian ans Arabic loans?

Yes, and in the vernacular, Urdu and Hindi are essentially identical. However, the grammar is almost entirely Indic, and the pronunciation of Persian loanwords in Hindustani is immensely different from the original pronunciation.
 
Yes, and in the vernacular, Urdu and Hindi are essentially identical. However, the grammar is almost entirely Indic, and the pronunciation of Persian loanwords in Hindustani is immensely different from the original pronunciation.
So Hindustani =/= Hindi.
That'd be why i'm getting confused!
Cheers.
 
Top