תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

पुत्र कहाओं मुझे अपने बनिहारों मेसे एकके समान बनाइये। २० तब वुह उठके अपने पिता पास आया परंतु जव वुह दूरही था

उसके पिताने उसको देखा और दयाल हुआ और दैोडा और २९ उसके गले में गिरके उसे चूमने लगा। और पुत्रनेउसको कहा कि

हे पिता मैंने स्वर्गका और तेरा अपराध कियाहै और अब २२ इस योम्य नहो कि तेरा पुत्र कहाओं। तब पिताने अपने

सेवकोंको कहा कि असे अछे बस्त्र लामो और इसको पहि २३ नाओ और उसके हाथ में अंगुठी और पाओंमें जूती पहिनाओ।

और वुह मोटा बछडा इधर लाओ और मारी कि हम खावें २४ और आनंद करें। क्योंकि मेरा यह पुत्र मरगया था और फेर

जोताहे वुह खोगया था और मिल गया है तब वे आनंद करने लगे ।

The above, in Roman character. 11 Kisi manukhyake do putra the%; ; 12 Un-men-se chhutkene pitáse kahá, ki he pitá, sampatti-men-se jo

meri bhāg howe, dijiye; tab usne unhen upajivan bant diya. 13 Aur bahut din na bítne paye, chhutká putra sab kuchh ekathá karke,

pardeshko chal niklá, aur wahán kukarmamen apní samasta sampatti

nashta kii. 14 Aur jab wuh sab kuchh uțhá chuká, us deshmen bará akál pará; aur

wuh daridra hone laga. 15 Tab wah jáke, us desh ké ek prajáká sebak baná ; aur usne usë apne

kheton men bhejá ke súroz ko charáwe. 16 Aur wuh lálasá rakhtá thá ki un chhilkonse jo súr kháte the apná pet bhare ; aur koí use na detá thá.

. 17 Aur jab wuh upne chetmen áyá, usne kahá, ke mere pitáke kitne

banihár hain jinkí roți bach rahti hai, aur maiņ bhukhse martá hon. 18 Main uthonga aur apné pitá pás jáunga, aur use kahonga, ki he pitá,

main stargake aur tere áge aparadhí hon. 19 Aur ab main jogya nahí ki terá putra kaháon; mujhe apne baniharon

men-se ek ke samán banáiye. 20 Tab wuh uth ke upne pitá pás áyá ; parantu jab wuh dúrhí thá, uske

pitáne usko dekhá, aur dayál huá, aur daurá, aur uske galemen girke, use chumne lagá.

. 21 Aur putra ne usko kahá, ki he pitá, main ne syurgaká aur terá aparádh

kiyá hai, aur ab is jogya nahiŋ ki terá putra kaháon. 22 Tab pitáne apne sebakon ko kahá, ki achchhese achahhe bastra láo, aur

isko pahinio; aur uske hath men anguthi, aur pāon men juti pahinio. 23 Aur wuh motá bachhrá idhar láo, aur máro; ki ham kháwen aur ánand

karen : 44 Kyonki merá yih putra margayá thá, aur pher jitá hai; wuh kho gays

thá, aur mil gaya hai ; tab we anand karne lage.

HINDU'STA'NI'.

PARABLE OF THE PRODIGAL SON.

In Persian character.

LURE Yv. 11-94.

[ocr errors]

میں

ما اور جب وہ سب

ایک شخص کے دو ہوئے تھے ، ان میں سے ۱۳ چھوتے نے باپ سے کہا کہ ای باپ ال سی ہو میرا

حصہ ہو مجھے دیکھے تب اسنے بقدر معاش

بانك وياه ۱۳ اور بہت روز نہ گذرے تھے کہ چھت کے بیٹے نے سب کچھ جمع

کر کے ایک ملک بعید کا سفر کیا وہاں بد معاشی میں اپنا مال برباد کردیا ہ

کچھ زچ کرنا اس سر زمین میں سنت کال پڑا اور وہ بے مایہ ہو چلا • ها تب وہ جا کے اس ملک کے ایک متوطن کا نوکر بنا

نے اسے اپنے کھیتوں پر بھیجا کہ سور چرایا کرے ۱۶ اور اسے آرزو تھی کہ ان چھلکوں سے جو سور کھاتے تھے اپنا

پیٹ بھرے سر بھی کسی نے اسے نہ دئے ه ، اور جب وہ اپنے ہوش میں آیا تو کہا کہ میرے باپ کے کتنے ہي مزورے ہیں جنھیں روٹیاں وافر ہیں اور میں جوکھر ے تا ہوں •

19

مزروں میں

هي ۱۸ میں اتر کر اپنے باپ پاس جاؤنگا اور اسے کہونگا کہ

ای باب میں آسمان کا اور تیسرا گنہگار ہوں • وا اور اب اس لائق نہیں کہ تیل پینا کہلاوں مجھے اپنے

ایک کے ماتد بناۓ ۳۰ تب وہ اٹھ کر اپنے باپ پاس آیا اور وہ ہنوز دور تھا

کہ اسکے باپ نے اسے دیکھا اور رحم کیا اور دور کے آسکے

گردن پر جا لیتا اور اسکی مچھیاں لیں • ۳۰ تے نے اسے کہا کہ ای باپ میں نے آسمان کا اور

تیرا گناہ کیا ہی اس لائق نہیں کہ تیرا بیتاک لاو • ۲۳ تب باپ نے اپنے نوکروں کو کہا اچھی سے اچھی

پوشاک لاؤ اور اسے ملبس کرو اور اسکے ہاتھ میں

اور پاؤں میں جوتی پاره ۳۳ اور وہ پالا ہوا پھر اکے نہ کرو کہ یہ کھادیں اور استہ کریں۔ ۳۳ کیونکہ میری بیتا مرگیا تھا اب زندہ ہرا کر دیا گیا تھا سو ملا

بے عیش کرنے

The above, in Roman character. 11 Ek shakhs ke do bete the; 12 Un-men-se chhutke ne bápse kahá, kih ái báp, málse jó merá þíạşah

ho, mujhe dijie ; tab usne baqadari maash unhen bant diya, 13 Aur bahut roz nah guzre the, kih chhutke betene sab kuchh jamą

karke, ek mulk bạídka safar kiya, wahán bad masshímen apná mál

barbád kar diya. 14 Aur jab wuh sab kuchh kharch kar chuká, us sar-zamin mey saķht kál

pará, aur wuh bemáyah ho chalá. 15 Tab wuh jáke us mulk ke ek mutawattin ká naukar baná; usne use apne

kheton pur bhejá kih súr charaya kare.

16 Aur use árzu thí kih un chhilkoņ se jo súr kháte the apná pet bhare;

so bhí kisíne use nah diye. 17 Aur jab wuh apne hoslımeņ áyá to kahá, kih mere báp ke kitne hí ma

zúre hain jinhen roțian wáfir hain, aur main bhukhse martá hún. 18 Mail uthkar apne bán pas jáúngá, aur use kahúngá, Kih ái bán, main

ásmánká aur terá gunah-gár hún, 19 Aur ab is láyiq nahiy kih terá bețá kahlaún ; mujhe apne mazúron men

se ek ke mánind banáye. 20 Tab wuh uthkar apne báp pás áyá. Aur wuh hanoz dúr thá, kih uske

bapne use dekha aur raḥm kiyá, aur daurke uske gardan par já liptá, aur

uskí machhiyáu lín. 21 Betene use kahá, Kih ái báp, maiņ ne ásmánká aur terá gunah kiya hai,

is láyiq nahin kih terá betá kahláún. 22 Tab bápne apne naukaroņko kahá, achchhí se achchhí poshák lau, aur

ise mulabbas aur uske háthmen angúthí, aur páoạ men jútí pahnau. 23 Aur wuh pálá húá bachhhrá láke, zabaḥ karo kih ham kháwen aur ánand

karen; 24 Kyunkih merá yih betá mar gayá thá, ab zindah húá; khoyá gaya

thá, so milá: Tab we aish karne lage.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

Answers to Objections. Having thus illustrated the particular mode in which the Roman Alphabet may be substituted in place of the principal alphabets in Gangetic India, it seems desirable, though not necessary, to take a brief review of objections that have been advanced against the general substitutionary scheme. Not necessary, because many of them have been already auticipated and answered, and to the answer no reply has yet appeared, and no new ones have been adduced of a nature sufficiently momentous to counterbalance even one of the manifold advantages previously detailed. But desirable, inasmuch as total silence may be misconstrued by some into total incompetency to meet the objector on his own chosen field

The only objections which have appeared in a tangible form, so far as we know, are those brought forward by a correspondent of the Gyananneshun. And as the author has written in a style eminently characterized by freedom from controversial virulence, or offensive personality, he is justly entitled to the most candid hearing. His remarks, therefore, shall be noticed seriatim, together with a few others. And in the thoughtful Editor of the Gyananneshun, himself, we doubt not, will be found a most powerful ally.

1. It is alleged, that “the whole native population of India will disapprove of the measure.”

This, in fact, seems to be the gravamen of all those charges to which our opponents usually appeal. But to what does it amount? To a baseless assumption. No: says the objector, it is not a base

less assumption. But how can this second baseless assertion support the first baseless assertion ? We may assert, that sugar is bitter ; that fire is cold ; that the sun is black; but what is the use of assertion without proof *? Has the objector proposed to offer the shadow of a proof? Not he: a bare, naked, unsubstantiated assertion is all that he favours us with. But this the author must be aware cannot satisfy an ingenuous mind. We feel impelled to push the matter, and ask, Where is the proof of so sweeping an assertion to be found ? From what data can any living creature, with the insignia of truth before his eyes, make a declaration that is universal,- without limit, and without qualification ? How, where, or when, have “the whole population of India” expressed such decided disapprobation? In what mode have their suffrages been obtained ? What meetings, public or private, have been held to discuss this national question? What journals, or pamphlets, have been made the organs of announcing the unanimous verdict ? But really thus to press for proof of that which admits of none may seem like forcing a man to make bricks without straw. Suppose we allow, that there may be this universal hostility, we must still be permitted to ask, How, or by what means, has it been ascertained actually to exist ? Is not the utmost that can be said with any semblance of truth simply this,—that several natives have manifested dissatisfaction at the measure ? And how can this amount to a proof, that all the natives of Hindústán have done, or will

We can hardly suppose that the objector seriously meant for proof what he states respecting the fabulous origin of the Indian characters. “ They,” (the Hindús,) says he, “will think, nay feel it sacrilegious to abandon their native characters, which they suppose to have been invented by God, &c.” Now, it is not true that theIndian characters generally are believed to be “invented by God." The only character, in regard to which this superstitious belief prevails, is the Deva Nágarí. And that the Hindús have not thought it “ sacrilegious” to depart from a form supposed to be communicated by the gods, is demonstrated beyond all possibility of doubt, by the notorious fact, that the natives of every province have actually departed from that formhave actually invented, substituted, and employed a new and widely differen! form of their own :--hence the Bengalí, the Uriya, character, &c. &c. Besides, have not multitudes of Hindús actually adopted the Persian character to express Indian words, i. e. a foreign character-the character of their hated Mussulman conquerors ? Farther still, though the Sanskrit is believed to be the language, even as the Deva Nágari is thought to be the character of the Gods, strange to say, the natives generally will not read the divine language, if written or printed in the divine character. They prefer writing and reading the Sanskșit in the common character that is employed in the province to which they belong. Thus, in Bengal, the natives will not, unless constrained, even learn the Deva Nágarí; neither will they purchase Sanskrit works printed in that character. They write Sanskrit in the Bengali character; and Sanskrit works printed in it are eagerly sought after, and obtain a speedy, and extensive circulation. After hearing all this, who can any more give heed to the absurd and foolish fable, respecting “ the sacrilegiousness” of departing from the alphabetic character of the gods?

« הקודםהמשך »