२१

का

पुत्र कहाओं मुझे अपने बनिहारों मेसे एकके समान बनाइये । २० तब वुह उठके अपने पिता पास बाया परंतु जब वुह दूर ही था उसके पिताने उसको देखा और दयाल हुआ और दौडा और उसके गलें में गिरके उसे चूमने लगा । और पुत्र ने उसके। कहा कि पिता मैंने स्वर्गका और तेरा अपराध किया है और ब २२ इस योग्य नही कि तेरा पुत्र कहाओं । तब पिताने अपने सेवकोंको कहा कि इसे कई बस्त्र लाओ और इसको पहि २३ नाओ और उसके हाथ में अंगुठी और पाओं में जूती पहनाओ । और वुह मोटा बछडा इधर लाओ और मारो कि हम खावें २४ और आनंद करें। क्योंकि मेरा यह पुत्र मरगया था और फेर जीता है 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 pitase kahá, ki he pitá, sampatti-men-se jo merá bhág howe, dijiye ; tab usne unhen upajivan bant diyà.

13 Aur bahut din na bítne paye, chhutká putra sab kuchh ekathá karke, pardeshko chal niklá, aur waháṇ kukarmamen apní samasta sampatti nashta kií.

14 Aur jab wuh sab kuchh uṭhá chuká, us deshmen bará akál pará; aur wuh daridra hone lagá.

15 Tab wah jáke, us desh ké ek prajáká sebak baná; aur usne use apne kheton men bhejá ke súron 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 roțí bach rahtí hai, aur main bhukhse marta hon.

18 Main uthonga aur apné pitá pás jáúnga, aur use kahonga, ki he pitá, main swargake aur tere áge aparádhí hon.

19 Aur ab main jogya nahí ki terá putra kaháon; mujhe apne baniharon men-se ek ke samán banaiye.

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 swurgaká aur terá aparádh kiya hai, aur ab is jogya nahín ki terá putra kaháon.

22 Tab pitáne apne sebakon ko kahá, ki achchhese achahhe bastra láo, aur isko pahináo; aur uske hath men angúṭhí, aur páon men jútí pahináo. 23 Aur wuh motá bachhrá idhar láo, aur máro; ki ham kháwen aur ánand karen :

24 Kyonki merá yih putra margayá thá, aur pher jitá hai; wuh kho gaya thá, aur mil gayá hai ; tab we ánand karne lage.

ایک شخص کے دو بیتے تھے . اُن میں سے

۱۲ چھٹکے نے باپ سے کہا کہ ای باب مال سے جو میرا حصہ ہو مجھے دیکھے تب اُسنے بقدر معاش

بانت دیا *

انھیں

۱۳ اور بہت روز نہ گزرے تھے کہ جھٹکے بیٹے نے سب کچھ جمع کر کے ایک ملک بعید کا سفر کیا وہاں بد معاشی میں اپنا مال برباد کر دیا *

۱۴

10

اور جب وہ سب کچھ خرچ کر چکا اُس سر زمین میں

سخت کال پڑا اور وہ بے مایہ ہو چلا •

نب وہ جا کے اُس ملک کے ایک متوطن کا نوکر بنا اُسنے اُسے اپنے کھیتوں پر بھیجا کہ سور چرایا کرے ١٦ اور اُسے آرزو تھی کہ اُن چھلکوں سے جو سور کھانے تھے اپنا پیٹ بھرے سو بھی کسی نے اُسے نہ دئے .

اور جب وہ اپنے ہوش میں آیا تو کہا کہ میرے باپ کے کتنے ہی مزورے ہیں جنھیں روتیاں وافر ہیں اور میں

بھوکھ سے مرتا ہوں .

اُٹھکر اپنے باپ پاس باپ پاس جاؤنگا اور اُسے کہونگا کہ ای باپ میں آسمان کا اور تیرا گنہگار ہوں 19 اور اب اس لائق نہیں کہ تیسرا بیٹا کہلاؤں مجھے اپنے مزروں میں سے ایک کے مانند بنائے

*

۲۰ تب وہ اتھکر اپنے باپ پاس آیا اور وہ ہنوز دور تھا کہ اُسکے باپ نے اُسے دیکھا اور رحم کیا اور دور کے اُسکے گردن پر جالیتا اور اسکی مجھیاں لیں .

رحم

۲۱ ملیتے نے اُسے کہا کہ ای باپ میں نے آسمان کا اور تیرا گناہ کیا ہی اس لائق نہیں کہ تیرا بیٹا کہلاؤں •

۲۲

*

پوشاک لاؤ اور اسے ملبس کرو اور اسکے ہاتھ میں انا ، باپ نے اپنے نوکروں کو کہا اچھی تنگ تھی

اور پاؤں میں جونی پاؤ

۲۳ اور وہ پالا ہوا بچھرا لا کے ذبح کرو کہ ہم کھاویں اور انند کریں وہ لا ۲۴ کیونکہ میرا یہ بیتا مرگیا تھا اب زندہ ہوا کھویا گیا تھا سو ملا تب دے عیش کرنے لئے "

The above, in Roman character.

11 Ek shakhs ke do bețe the ;

12 Un-men-se chhutke ne bápse kahá, kih ái báp, málse jó merá þíssah ho, mujhe dijie; tab usne baqadari maásh unhen bánt diya.

13 Aur bahut roz nah guzre the, kih chhutke bețene sab kuchh jamą karke, ek mulk bạídka safar kiyá, wahán bad maáshímen apná mál barbád kar diyá.

14 Aur jab wuh sab kuchh kharch kar chuká, us sar-zamín men sakht kál pará, aur wuh bemáyah ho chalá.

15 Tab wuh jáke us mulk ke ek mutawaṭṭin ká naukar baná; usne use apne kheton pur bhejá kih súr charáyá kare.

16 Aur use árzu thí kih un chhilkon se jo súr kháte the apná pet bhare; so bhí kisíne use nah diye.

17 Aur jab wuh apne hoshmen áyá to kahá, kih mere báp ke kitne hí mazúre hain jinhen rotíán wáfir hain, aur main bhúkhse martá hún.

18 Main uthkar apne báp pás jáúngá, aur use kahúngá, Kih ái báp, main ásmánká aur terá gunah-gár hún,

19 Aur ab is layiq nahín kih terá bețá kahláún ; mujhe apne mazúron men se ek ke mánind banaye.

20 Tab wuh uṭhkar apne báp pás áyá. Aur wuh hanoz dúr thá, kih uske bapne use dekha aur raḥm kíyá, aur ḍaurke uske gardan par já liptá, aur uskí machhiyán lín.

21 Betene use kahá, Kih ái báp, main ne ásmánká aur terá gunah kiya hai, is layiq nahin kih terá bețá kahláún.

22 Tab bápne apne naukaronko kahá, achchhí se achchhí poshák lau, aur ise mulabbas karo, aur uske háthmen angúțhí, aur páon men jútí pahnau. 23 Aur wuh pálá húá bachhhrá láke, zabaḥ karo kih ham kháwen aur ánand karen;

24 Kyúnkih merá yih bețá mar gayá thá, ab zindah húá; khoya gayá thá, so milá: Tab we aish karne lage.

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 anticipated 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 the Indian characters generally are believed to be "invented by God." The only character, in regard to which this superstitious belief prevails, is the Deva Nagarí. 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 form-have actually invented, substituted, and employed a new and widely different 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 Nagarí 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 Sanskrit 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 Bengalí 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?