Punjab & Pakistan

Arts & Culture Culture, Arts, Literature & Linguistics
1

This article, although about the Sepoy rebellion does an excellent job of analyzing the historical situation of Punjabi Muslims & Sikhs, Pakhtuns and the Mughals. It is common fo Pakistanis to wrongly believe that the Pakistani state is a predecessor of the Mughals. In reality the Mughals virtually ignored the Punjabi Muslims, aggravated the Sikhs and caused the Pakhtuns to actively resist them..now considering the fact that Punjab and Pakhtunkhwa constitute to major provinces of Pakistan, doesn’t it make sense to bring up local heros and dynasties? I have seen and gone through Pakistani textbooks which are as delusionary and biased as their Indian counterparts.

I know the article is quite long so I highlighted (in bold) the points that I thought were interesting or worthwhile. I would really like to hear your thoughts on the matter.

http://www.defencejournal.com/2001/september/analysis.htm

An Analysis
The Sepoy Rebellion of 1857-59

(The first thirteen chapters of this book were serialised in DJ from July 1999 till October last year. This analysis covers the first 150 pages, and is now being serialised in DJ).

Columnist A H AMIN re-interprets the so-called 1857 Indian Mutiny.

Punjab Loyalty

This is a much debated affair. The debate has degenerated in a very ugly manner into an irrational defence of Punjab loyalty by ardent modern Punjabi nationalists and misinterpreted in a very adverse manner by historians and thinkers with an anti Punjabi attitude. The job of the historian is not to defend or to condemn an action which was beyond the control of a nation or a leader at a particular time in history. The Punjabis were as much the prisoners of circumstances as the Madrasi or the Bengali or the Mahratta or the Rajput. The history of Punjab in the period 1707 to 1857 was actually more complex than the history of other parts of India.Leadership as far as the Muslims are concerned did not develop in Punjab because the Punjabi Muslim did not fit anywhere in the political expediency considerations of the Mughals. The Mughals preferred to recruit Muslims of Persian, Turk or Afghan descent. Among the non Muslims their first choice was the Hindu Rajput, particularly those from Rajputana proper since the Rajputs were the most dominant class in Hindu society. Later on, after 1689546 the emphasis shifted to the Mahrattas who were ennobled in large numbers by Aurangzeb as a political bribe to defeat Sivaji’s phenomenal rebellion.

Mughal historical record illustrate that the Punjabis by and large were very peaceful people. The region was prosperous and the weather and climate and fertility of soil contributed in making the inhabitants peace loving and easy to administer like most plain areas of India including the Gangetic plains etc. **But the Mughals went wrong at one place and underestimated the resilience and moral force of a new religion which originated from Punjab in sixteenth century. Jahangir imprisoned the fifth Sikh Guru Arjun who died while being tortured under detention in 1606547. Aurangzeb the mild Stalin of India had the ninth Guru Tegh Bahdur executed in 1675548. Symbolically speaking this excess proved to be a major reason for the burning Sikh desire to destroy Delhi in 1857. But then it is an irony of history that Delhi has been burnt destroyed and looted by Muslims from Afghanistan, Iran and Rohailkhand much more by any non Muslim army except in 1857. Keeping in view the Mughal policy; the Sikh excesses at Delhi were a normal reaction of an aggrieved community. Till 1605 the Sikhs remained a peaceful religious group. But Arjun’s death while in prison turned a basically peaceful religious group into more serious dissidents. Thus Guru Har Govind adopted a more active policy unlike the previous Sikh Gurus. ** Thus the Sikhs brought into Punjab’s history a healthy tradition of manly and righteous resistance which had been missing in the region since Porus last opposed Alexander on the Hydaspes! Har Govind correctly assessed that without recourse to the option of militant resistance the Sikhs would be destroyed by the Mughals. Har Govind militarised the Sikhs and started a series of military actions which subsequently assumed the shape of a low intensity conflict or a guerrilla war against the Mughals. This low intensity war continued till Har Govind’s death in 1645. The Sikh resistance assumed more serious proportions once their Guru (Religions head) Tegh Bahadur was executed by Aurangzeb at Delhi in 1675. This execution proved to be a watershed in Sikh-Muslim relations and Sikhs from 1675 became vehemently anti Mughal and anti Muslim since they identified Mughals with Islam. The Mughals on the other hand were doing little more than manipulating religion for rationalising oppression as all kings of the world of that time did. There is no human passion as powerful as revenge in driving a man! Guru Govind Singh the son of Tegh Bahadur rightly decided to avenge his father’s death. Thus the Sikhs became a truly militarised sect under Govind. It is not our intention to discuss much more of Sikh history. But some background of this remarkable religious group is necessary for the layman.

The Sikhs were the toughest opponents of the British in battles fought on abs the population of the area they ruled in Ranjit Singh’s time. But being a totally militarised religious group largely composed of the Jat caste of Punjab they were more integrated than the majority Muslims and Pathans of their empire. The Muslims were firstly divided into two distinct races the “Pathans and the Punjabis”. The Pathans although of a better fibre were further sub divided into a watertight tribal society of various tribes. The Punjabi Muslims till 1849 had a negligible role in the elite power groups which controlled Punjab. The Mughals who were ruling Punjab from 1526 to 1748 kept their own hand-picked governors, mostly of Turkish, Persian or Pathan descent.** Merely being Muslim did not qualify the Punjabi for a respectable place in the Mughal hierarchy.** There was no religious oppression since the Punjabis were Muslims by majority, but consequently the Mughals saw no need to cultivate the Punjabis by ennobling them. This was a strange paradox which is common in world history. Without oppression there is little resistance and since there was no “challenge” which the Punjabi Muslim faced unlike his Punjabi Sikh counterpart, there was no “response”. Thus we see two simultaneous trends. Racially the “Punjabi Muslim” and the “Punjabi Sikh” were the same people. The Sikhs belonging to one of the farming caste the “Jats” to which many “Punjabi Muslims” belonged. But their faith united them more closely than the “Punjabi Muslim” since the “Punjabi Muslim” suffered from no religious oppression. Thus the Sikhs who were as plainly Punjabi as the Punjabi Muslims became remarkably militant, while the** Punjabi Muslim remained placidly submerged in his Lassi and routine life, without any religious cohesion or fervour that the vacuum which was left following the decline of the Mughal Empire in the Punjab was filled not by the majority Punjabi Muslim or the Pathan Muslim or the Martial Afghan but by the smaller but more effective Sikh, who was a Punjabi Jat by chance and a Sikh by choice.**

Thus by 1799 the Sikhs were masters of Punjab and by 1823 they had driven the Afghans to where they belonged i.e. out of Peshawar. It may be noted that racially the Afghans and East of Khyber Pathans are one race but there are certain subtle but marked differences in the two as far as culture and history are concerned. The Sikhs were doing exactly what Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan were doing in Mysore. Mysore was a Hindu majority area ruled by Hyder Ali and his son Tipu Sultan. They challenged the EEIC for more than thirty years and effectively led a Hindu majority area from 1769 to 1799 defying all theories and notions about Hindu Muslim differences and rivalry. These two rulers were able to inspire a Hindu majority area into a willing participation in a series of wars which constituted a succession of most serious challenges to the existence of the EEIC in South India. It is an irony of Indo Muslim history that the toughest Muslim challenge to the EEIC came not from any Muslim majority region but from Mysore a predominantly Hindu area! Even the regions between Delhi and Benares which were the heartland of various Muslim Empires in India played no part in resisting the British after the militarily small battle of Buxar in 1764!

2

The Sikhs could not annihilate the Muslims since it was physically impossible but they did suppress them. This does not mean that there was absolutely no Muslim participation in the government or administration of the country. There were many Muslim governors and subsidiary Chiefs but mostly in barren unproductive areas of Khushab Kalabagh etc. There was the Muslim Fakir family of Lahore who provided many ministers to Ranjit Singhs government. **But the Multani Pathans or the Chahttas or the Bhattis who had resisted the Sikhs were persona non grata. Many Muslim mosques were turned into powder magazines and stables. Today many Pakistanis do not know this and in the process of murder of history in Pakistan in order to prove outmoded obscurantist theories about our past history the Mughals are glorified. **But few people know that in actual fact the Mughals were not equal opportunity employers and in this regard the Sikh attitude towards the Punjabi Muslims in connection with distribution of power and patronage was nothing new. The sore point about Sikh rule in Punjab was religious oppression. The Punjabi and the Pathan Muslim for the first time suffered religious oppression during the Sikh time from roughly 1780 to 1849. It is interesting to note that the highly pragmatic and opportunist Muslim Tiwana and Noon Rajputs managed to win Ranjit Singh by sophisticated sycophancy and served him loyally at a time when Muslim mosques were used as stables and magazines! I am convinced that had the Russians captured Pakistan following Afghanistan in 1979 these feudals would have joined the Russian Army also!

The EEIC defeated the Sikhs in two wars i.e. the First Sikh War (1845-46) and Second Sikh War (1848-49) and annexed Punjab in 1849. During the First and Second Sikh war both the Punjabi Muslim and the Pathan Muslim actively helped the EEIC since they viewed the Sikhs as oppressors and the EEIC as their liberator. This is a crucial and decisive aspect about the EEIC annexation of Punjab. The annexation was welcomed by the majority of the population since they viewed the EEIC as a liberator who deposed the unjust and tyrannical Sikhs. Hence, the Punjabi and the Pathan Muslim loyalty of 1857 to the EEIC during the near fatal period of the siege of Delhi. On the contrary the annexation of Oudh in 1856 was viewed by the Muslim elite and the Hindu majority population of Oudh as an act of injustice, because in Oudh there was no religious oppression. The Shia Muslim dynasty was benevolent and liberal with its majority Hindu subjects. Oudh had never been invaded unlike Punjab or Frontier or Delhi by any hostile army since 1550. Thus the people of Oudh were in real terms a free people unlike most parts of India of the period 1607-1857.

The annexation of Punjab in 1849 introduced a very stable and efficient government in Punjab after ten years of absolute anarchy which had followed the death of Ranjit Singh. The EEIC administrators were very fair and effective and the province which had witnessed tremendous anarchy and bloodshed for a continuous decade became the most tranquil and prosperous province of India. The Sikhs were chivalrously and benevolently rehabilitated. The disbanded soldiers of the Sikh army were re employed, existing canals were improved and new canals were excavated. The whole country was systematically disarmed and all fortifications dismantled. The various Muslim mosques used as powder magazines and stables were restored to the Muslims. Most significant of these being the famous Badshahi Mosque of Lahore which was restored to the Muslims of Lahore after considerable efforts by John Lawrence the Chief Commissioner of Punjab in 1856.

The estates of many Muslims confiscated by the Sikhs were restored. The Muslims were recruited in the army, police and civil administration which were previously inaccessible to the Muslims. Many Muslims who had switched to the EEIC side were elevated to the status of feudal lords! It may be noted that Sikhs employed loyal Muslims mostly in the artillery only.

Thus when the rebellion broke out in 1857 the populace of the Punjab by and large felt little justification to participate in it. They correctly viewed the EEIC as a liberator as far as the Muslims were concerned and a just neutral party as far as the Sikhs were concerned. What sympathy could the Muslims have with the Mughal eighty two year old Emperor in Delhi whose ancestors had failed to protect the majority Muslim population of Punjab and trans Indus frontier from the depredations and excesses committed by plundering hordes of Persia, Afghanistan and the Sikhs from 1739 to 1849? The Sikhs on the other hand got a golden opportunity to destroy the accursed city of Delhi!

Every region of the Indo Pak subcontinent in 1857 was different. Leaders of one region were viewed as oppressors in another region. The EEIC was viewed as an oppressor in Oudh, Jhansi and in the Bengal, but as liberator in Punjab, Frontier and Rajputana. The India of 1857 was not organised on communal lines as much as the India of 1947 and merely being Muslim or Hindu could not make anyone a traitor by virtue of fighting on the EEIC side. If that was so the Bengal Sepoy was also a traitor for the hundred years before 1857. The word “traitor” does not suit the Indo Pak region because the region consists of various nations and religious groups. A more correct word for the natives fighting on EEIC is “subsidiary Collaborator”. A subsidiary collaborator fought for the EEIC for economic necessity. Speaking in nationalistic terms what “nationalism” could, the Hindustani fighting for the EEIC in the First Sikh war feel for the Sikh. What similarity was there to make the average Punjabi of 1857 identify with the Hindustani soldier of Bengal Army. Nationalism or “Pan Islamism” or any other “issues” came into existence in Indo Pak society once the people of Indo Pak subcontinent read Rosseau and Voltaire in the British created colleges and universities in the late nineteenth century. Even today what is similar between the Punjabi Rangers sepoy or policeman and the common man in Sindh or Karachi?

We may conclude that there was nothing abnormal in Punjab loyalty of 1857. The Punjabis were prisoners of their time and it was a twist of fate which placed the EEIC in the role of saviour of Punjabi and Frontier Muslim; and a chivalrous and religiously unbiased and liberal friend of the minority Punjabi Sikh. The Hariana Hindu Jat or Hindu Rajput was more politically aware since he had known more stability by virtue of EEIC rule since 1803. It is but a human characteristic that when man’s basic needs are satisfied, he wants higher things like sovereignty and independence. The Hariana and North West Provinces had know stability and peace since the EEIC annexed them in 1801 and 1803. They also in 1801 and 1803 welcomed the EEIC just like the Punjabi’s welcomed the EEIC in 1849. Because the EEIC in 1801 and 1803 had liberated the North West provinces and the Delhi area from the oppressive and predatory Mahrattas, Jats, Gujars, Mewatis and Rohillas. But that was 1803. In 1857 the people of North West provinces aspired for more. The Bengal Army sowar of 3rd Light Cavalry by resorting to the short cut of armed insurrection then was consciously fulfilling the aspirations of the people South of Ambala. The current of history in 1857 dictated that people of Indo Pak had to wait for nine more decades. There was nothing abnormal in the failure of the rebellion of 1857. The Indo Pak people failed where European subject nations like the brave Boers and the sturdy Irish had also failed. The commendable fact remains that a rebellion was attempted in 1857. On the other side the Punjab loyalty of 1857 had also its reasons. It can be best approached by being understood as it was rather than being despised or defended. The Punjabis squarely speaking cannot be blamed for their attitude in 1857. However, they also must not condemn the Hindustanis both Hindus and Muslims for having rebelled in 1857; as many Punjabis are doing today. Both the groups had different historical experiences and both behaved in an understandable and predictable manner.

The reader may feel that an out proportion attention has been given to the background of the Punjab loyalty of 1857. But this aspect of 1857 is relevant for us even today. We have to understand and digest this fact that belonging to the same religion cannot overcome the differences created by virtue of different perceptions produced due to different historical experiences or because of cultural and ethnic differences. The Muslim leaders of post 1940 Indo Pak sub continent managed to temporarily galvanise the Muslims in 1946 into sinking regional and cultural differences and establish a multi ethnic state but mere rhetoric and euphoria cannot make various ethnic groups a nation unless the political system is based on equality and mutual respect rather than mutual distrust and political manipulation based on ulterior designs.** The result then is nothing but “Bangladesh! And perhaps many more “Deshes” “tans” and “lands” if the Neo Mughals of Delhi and Islamabad do not learn from history. **

3

Was The Rebellion Inevitable

The rebellion was not inevitable but was the result of a series of administrative and policy decisions made in a period of two decades. Dalhousie’s basic policy was sound. He was administratively annexing regions which had been politically and militarily conquered and defeated long ago. But Dalhousie’s pace of annexation was fast. His modus operandi of routine administration and dealing with the Indian native princes as well as the British officials was rash. His treatment of the CinC Charles Napier was unjust. His perceptions regarding Oudh were by and large correct but the manner in which he dealt with Oudh was not correct. Being the man on the spot he should have actively decided that immediate annexation was not the answer. But he suggested to the Directors of EEIC a number of options including annexation which they selected. Thus he made the Directors take a decision about which they had little first hand knowledge. Sleeman had prophetically warned Dalhousie that annexation of Oudh would have a very negative effect on the sepoys who were almost 50 to 60% part of the Bengal Infantry.

Despite all this we must not forget that the foundation of an educated and aware Indian middle class was laid essentially by Macaulay and Dalhousie rather than by any Indian Hindu or Muslim. The three universities of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras were foundations of an Indian educated middle class. The British had resolved to introduce western education in India before 1857 and both Hindus and Muslims were to acquire if, even if Sayyid Ahmad Khan had died fighting for the rebel cause at Bijnor!

The greased cartridges case was an administrative lapse. Here the main fault lay with the Directors of EEIC who did not co-ordinate with the civil and military authorities in India about the religious implications of the cartridges.

The conduct of 3rd Light cavalry troopers was the most decisive factor of the whole affair. Their seizure of Delhi was the most tangible and concrete part of the whole affair. By occupying a militarily and politically crucial city they effectively transformed what was only a military mutiny caused due to an inadvertent lapse on part of the EEIC authorities in introducing a weapon system which was correctly perceived by the soldiers as an attack on their religion. The Oudh factor was important but was overplayed later on. Oudh took two more months after the Delhi affair for going into full rebellion. The crucial factor was the seizure of Delhi. Casualty wise and in number of concentration of rebel regiments; three fourth of 1857 was decided at Delhi in September 1857. If there is any event which may have turned the scales, it was a British defeat at Delhi. The British came very close to it, but perhaps men like Nicholson saved the day; just like Kemal at Gallipoli!

Equally crucial and decisive was the indecisiveness of General Hewitt and Brigadier Archdale Wilson at Meerut. These two individuals were the only two Britishers who could have prevented the Meerut Sepoys from capturing Delhi, keeping in view the means at their disposal and the time and space factors as on 10 and 11 May 1857. If this could have been successfully done and 3rd Light Cavalry effectively annihilated by the Meerut European units the Delhi garrison could have been disarmed and Delhi secured by the British. Without Delhi in rebel hands more sepoy units may still have mutinied but would have had no safe haven to withdraw to. Thus the EEIC could have effectively contained the sepoy units within four or five months. The loss of Delhi was the green signal for the Bengal Army to be bold, audacious and to perform the heroic act of rebellion, armed insurrection etc.!

There is nothing inevitable in history. There is by and large no good or bad luck or fate or destiny but consequences. The fall of Delhi was not an act of historic destiny but a simple result of a spinster like behaviour on part of two senior and responsible British senior military commanders! It is not the office but the man who holds it that matters ! Or, conversely it was an act made possible by the supreme elan and audacity of the sowars of 3rd Bengal Native Light Cavalry!

Rebellion or Mutiny

Pedantic historians have debated for long and devoted a considerable amount of energy to prove that the rebellion of 1857 was a mutiny of soldiers. We understand the British point of view in calling it a mutiny just like the Turks called the Greek war of independence the Greek revolt. But we are surprised that many Indo Pak historians are convinced that the rebellion of 1857 was a mutiny or an event of limited significance. Some historians don’t like it because the Bengalis did not participate in it, some are rabidly condemning it because the Punjabis played no part in it. The Britishers were the most disturbed because the rebellion proved that the Indians were not as docile as the British wanted them to be. The Indian historians who are against the rebellion and who dismiss it as an insignificant act forget that had it succeeded whole of India may have benefited. Even in its failure the rebellion influenced British perceptions in such a way that the process of introducing local self government etc. was speeded up. Just because all the nationalities of India did not join the rebellion still does not reduce its significance. For that matter even the subsequent elections in 1935 were an illusion since only 10% of the population of India was eligible to vote and out of these less than half did not vote549! The sepoy of 1857 was more politically aware and less docile than the Indian Army soldier who fought in the First or Second world war! Religion was used to galvanize the people in 1857 but against the white colonial ruler, not against each other as in the holocaust of 1947 massacres. The so called resistance campaigns of 1919 or 1920-21 or 1930-31 or 1942 were pin pricks compared with the great battles fought at Delhi, Lucknow or in rural Oudh. Today the official historians and commercial historians who write for their livelihood are trying very hard to portray the achievement of acquiring independence as the outcome of a physical struggle against the British! The Indians should instead thank Kaiser Willhelm II and Hilter for starting the two world wars and the British liberal traditions of parliamentary democracy!

The simple fact is that when the Sepoys seized Delhi and set up Bahadur Shah Zafar as their head; a mutiny had been transformed into a war aimed at making Indo Pak sub continent an independent country. The fact that the rebellion was confined to certain areas still does not reduce its magnitude to that of a mutiny or a local outbreak. If this is the yardstick then how should historians define the French revolution of 1789 which was initially only an affair confined to the Paris mob! The Russian revolution of 1917 succeeded because the mutiny of the Imperial Russian army succeeded and it took four years of civil war before the Bolsheviks succeeded in controlling whole of Russia. ‘Failure is an orphan but success has many fathers!’ The Independence that both India and Pakistan gained in the year 1947 had many fathers including Kaiser Willhelm II, Adolf HItler and British war exhaustion !! But official propaganda in both the countries wants people to believe that there were only three fathers, and all three of these were from the Indian Sub Continent!!

Impact on Future Indo-Pak History

The rebellion failed but it decisively convinced the British about the need for reform and of bringing the Indians as junior partners in the higher decision making process.

A carefully conceived policy regarding respect for the various religions followed in India was adopted. Non interference in religious matters and careful consideration in not interfering with the religious rituals were enforced as a strict policy. In the short term the Indians suffered immediately in the first decade following 1857 but in the long term their position improved. All inspiration was provided to all future movements directed towards independence and the British also became conscious about the Indian aspirations about political freedom and equal rights.

Chances of Success

There is a school of thought who is convinced that the Sepoys were bound to fail. But again there is nothing that is inevitable in history. Before 11 May 1857 no one could have believed that one regiment composed of Ranghars and Hindustani Pathan troopers could seize Delhi and wind up the EEIC hold on India for good! No one before 10 May 1857 would have believed that “2028” European soldiers at Meerut could not effectively disarm “2057” Native Sepoys. The layman reader should not underestimate what “2028” Europeans meant in India in 1857. the EEIC forces consisting of some 2300 native sepoys and just about 500 European troops from HM 22 Foot captured Sind in 1843550! In September 1842 General Nott using just about two European infantry battalions and some seven Bengal and Bombay Army native units captured Kabul the capital of Afghanistan.

4

Those who understand Indo Pak military history of 19th Century were thus naturally surprised the way the British at Meerut behaved. Even the 3rd Light Cavalry troopers were surprised to witness such masterly inaction on part of the European troops at Meerut. It was only when they were convinced that the Europeans had sunk into absolute inertia and inactivity that they regained enough resolution to move towards Delhi. The sepoys had a fair chance of success till September 1857. Had they destroyed the British force at Delhi they would have gained moral ascendancy and the British position may have become more critical. We have already seen that the British position at Delhi was never comfortable till the city was finally captured.

The fact that the rebellion was confined to certain areas still does not dismiss it as a mutiny, revolutions never breakout simultaneously to cover whole of a country. The French Revolution of 1789, 1830 and 1848 was largely the work of the Paris mob but were called the French Revolution. The Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 was initially confined to Petersburg but ultimately by 1921 the Bolsheviks were controlling whole of Russia.

**
The only real hope for the sepoys lay in simultaneous uprising all over India. But this was too ambitious a possibility and since no deliberate conspiracy seems to have been at work this was a very utopian and nearly impossible possibility.

Intervention by Afghanistan and Nepal may have seriously tilted the balance against the EEIC. In NWFP at least there would have been a general uprising in case Afghans had decided to invade India. But Nott and Ochterlony had taught such a lesson to Afghanistan in 1842 and Nepal in 1816 that both the countries rulers were too keen to please the EEIC to the best of their ability!. India was not a country and it was this on ground reality which made the British task very simple. The rebellion remained regionalised and the people of the sub continent as a whole lost a very good opportunity to become independent. **

Done! :)

5

hmm interesting..thanks for the post.
i havent read the whole thing yet cause it's too long. i did read the bold portions. our history is such a confusing issue. ive been facing this distressing problem for the past few years too, whatever we are taught in schools or are told by our elders or what we read in other books doesnt match. i wonder how and when we'll ever be able to know what actually happened and how our history was actually shaped. what the people were like, who was good, who was bad? i recently read an article somewhere about the character of Ahmed Shah Abdali and his raids on India. someone wrote he was a pios muslim, and in the next issue of that periodical someone wrote the oppositte and presented facts about Abdali's cruelty etc.
even this book that you're quoting from, we can never know how much the writer is biased or knowledgable. its all very confusing.

regarding the mention of TipuSultan in the last paragraph of your first post : "It is an irony of Indo Muslim history that the toughest Muslim challenge to the EEIC came not from any Muslim majority region but from Mysore a predominantly Hindu area!"

i think that was not because muslims in other areas were less devoted to the cause of freedom from alien oppressors, or that hindus were more devoted than muslims, but because of Hydr Ali and Tipu Sultan's superior leadership qualities and brave personalities.

ill comment more later when i read the whole post.
thanks.

6

Interesting, I did'nt realize the history between Punjabi muslims and the Mughals. It seems that Punjabi muslims were very peacefull people throughout most of these times. So where did we get the whole martial race label from? Was that during WW 2?
And if Pakhtuns actively resisted the mughals why did so many of them relocate to central India to serve the Mughals in these areas.

7

even now the there is a fear in punjabis of northereners since they were closer geogrhaphicaly

8

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Haris Zuberi: *
hmm interesting..thanks for the post.
i havent read the whole thing yet cause it's too long. i did read the bold portions. our history is such a confusing issue. ive been facing this distressing problem for the past few years too, whatever we are taught in schools or are told by our elders or what we read in other books doesnt match. i wonder how and when we'll ever be able to know what actually happened and how our history was actually shaped. what the people were like, who was good, who was bad? i recently read an article somewhere about the character of Ahmed Shah Abdali and his raids on India. someone wrote he was a pios muslim, and in the next issue of that periodical someone wrote the oppositte and presented facts about Abdali's cruelty etc.
even this book that you're quoting from, we can never know how much the writer is biased or knowledgable. its all very confusing.

regarding the mention of TipuSultan in the last paragraph of your first post : "It is an irony of Indo Muslim history that the toughest Muslim challenge to the EEIC came not from any Muslim majority region but from Mysore a predominantly Hindu area!"

i think that was not because muslims in other areas were less devoted to the cause of freedom from alien oppressors, or that hindus were more devoted than muslims, but because of Hydr Ali and Tipu Sultan's superior leadership qualities and brave personalities.

ill comment more later when i read the whole post.
thanks.
[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the reponse Mr. Zuberi. Indeed we have to look at the truth in history not something that is tainted. Sure there will always be a bias in the writer, but looking at various codified sources will get you to a certain truth.

In regards to Abdali, would you actually believe that he was both? We as human beings are quite complex at time so his alleged piety and cruelty should be taken in that context.

I fully agree with your statement regarding Tipu Sultan & Haider Ali. I don't believe for a second that Muslims of then India were some sort of "ghulam" types. The problem was our leadership which was corrupt and decrepit (sound familiar?). We know the Mughal story, the Punjabis were oppressed to the core, with a few exceptions, the Sindhis in the twilight and the Baluch and Pakhtun tribals in disarray...Such was the state of Muslims of that period. Tipu Sultan was indeed a beacon.

9

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by elahi: *
Interesting, I did'nt realize the history between Punjabi muslims and the Mughals. It seems that Punjabi muslims were very peacefull people throughout most of these times. So where did we get the whole martial race label from? Was that during WW 2?
And if Pakhtuns actively resisted the mughals why did so many of them relocate to central India to serve the Mughals in these areas.
[/QUOTE]

Elahi, the Punjabis were called a "martial race" by the brits during the WWII period. Punjabi Muslim Jatts and Arians were agriculturalists, Gujjars were sheep and other livestock herders and even the most militant Rajputs were either landowners or statemen, so the tribal occupation division were pretty peaceful. Also consider the fact that the Mughals never recruited Punjabis in the military and virtually ignored them as "lesser Muslims."

Elahi, read Khushhal Khan Khattaks poetry and sayings, invariably most of them involve trying the unify the Pakhtun tribes agains the Mughals. Pakhtuns migrated to India mostly for business opportunities and don't forget that the Lodhis, Abdali, etc were Afghan dynasties and kingdoms, so many came as soldiers. To this day, I would be hard pressed to find an Afghan/Pakhtun who praises the Mughals...and why should they? When the Mughals considered Pakhtuns as uncivilized tribals.

Again, I have to come back to the main question here: The Mughals, ones we Pakistanis mistakenly consider to be our kin, did absolutely nothing to improve the lives of Punjabis and Pakhtuns forget Baluchis and Sindhis, so can anyone tell me why Pakistan history glorifies Babars progeny??

10

Thanks for teh post man, an interesting read indeed.
Although I gotta question, who are these muslims of Turkish or Persian descent in India. I would be vey surprised to find such a group. As far as I know most muslims of the subcontinent are converted hindus. I can imagine at one point a very small number of Turkish or Persian people may have settled in South Asia but this number would be infinitly small when compared to the local population that converted.
Also, how can one say that Punjabi muslims and Sikhs are racially the same people when most Sikhs are Jats while a minority of Punjabi Muslims are Jats.

11

Elahi,

Out of 24 million sikhs roughly 13-14 million are Jatts. Rest are from other lower hindu castes or Rajputs, Gujjars, Kashmiris etc. If I am not wrong there are about 15-20 million jatt muslims in pakistan.

There are plenty of questions on who are jatts, what they were before they became Sikhs or Muslims etc but one this is sure all Muslim, Hindu and Sikh jatts are racial same people. Jatts were also semi-nomadic people like Gujjars until 200/300 years ago. Of course there is lot of race mixing in Punjab and there are more people of mixed races than of purely one race and same goes with Jatts. Jatts traditionally don't marry within tribe (meaning a Cheema jatts will marry their kids only with non-Cheema jatts) and did not marry outside of jatts either. This rule is strictly followed by Hindu and Sikh jatts even today and from what I know many of the Muslims jatts in Pakistan also stick to this tradition inspite of opposite social trends there.

12

Chann ji, it's a shame that it'd take a thread with the word "Punjab" in it to drag your sorry ass to gupshup. You won't come otherwise, or would you?

13

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by elahi: *
Thanks for teh post man, an interesting read indeed.
Although I gotta question, who are these muslims of Turkish or Persian descent in India. I would be vey surprised to find such a group. As far as I know most muslims of the subcontinent are converted hindus. I can imagine at one point a very small number of Turkish or Persian people may have settled in South Asia but this number would be infinitly small when compared to the local population that converted.
Also, how can one say that Punjabi muslims and Sikhs are racially the same people when most Sikhs are Jats while a minority of Punjabi Muslims are Jats.
[/QUOTE]

Elahi: I hope Channji answered your questions regarding Jatts. An estimated 10-20% of South Asian Muslims are descended from Turks, Persians etc..Most Muslims are converts from Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and other pagans.

I just wanted to add that the converts to Islam from what is now Pakistan are largely from non Hindus, as the Indus Valley people had various pagan beliefs, many were Buddhists. Most of the Hindus that converted or are still converting to Islam were of lower castes and are from what is now known as India. I am not saying this with a particular bias because if you look at just Punjab there are more Sikh and Muslim Jatts than Hindus, More Muslim Rajputs than Hindu, Gujjars are heavily Muslim. Arains, Khatris and other sub tribes may still be heavily East Punjabi hindu. The people of the Indus Valley, Sikhs included, were never into the Aryan based Hinduism...that is why in Punjab alone religions like Sikhism, Ahmadis, Arya Samaj took hold.

Many Pakistanis live in a delusional world of believing that their ancestors were Persian this or that...What is wrong with having non-Muslim ancestors..Muslims didnt grow from trees...We are all converted from one time or another.

14

The Pashtuns both served, defeated and were defeated by the Mughals, a love hate relationship which pretty much connects them with every ruler of the sub continent and to a certain extent defines our relationship with Pakistan. There are two famous stories about what pashtuns/pakhtuns/pathans thought of the Mughals. The first one would probably be Sher Shah Suri, his falling out with the Mughals can be traced to the story of Mughal nobles laughing at him because he had his elbows on the table while eating. In case of Khushal Khan Khattak, he said
-” the dust of the hoofs of the Mughal cavalry might not light upon his grave ;“ and that “they should carefully conceal his last resting-place, lest the Mughals might seek it out, and insult the ashes of him, at whose name, whilst in life, they quailed; and by whose sword, and that of his clansmen, their best troops had been scattered like chaff before the gale.”

15

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Roman: *
Chann ji, it's a shame that it'd take a thread with the word "Punjab" in it to drag your sorry ass to gupshup. You won't come otherwise, or would you?
[/QUOTE]

It is because I have sorry ass Punjabi friends like yourself.

16

But Chann ji admit it, even if it's sorry, you do love the ass, don't you?

17

Roman, don't know how you translate english but my translation of "sorry ass" is "bewakoof khotay".

18

Jatts traditionally don't marry within tribe (meaning a Cheema jatts will marry their kids only with non-Cheema jatts) and did not marry outside of jatts either. This rule is strictly followed by Hindu and Sikh jatts even today and from what I know many of the Muslims jatts in Pakistan also stick to this tradition inspite of opposite social trends there.

Chan Bhai, didn't you mean Jatts traditionally **do **marry within tribe?

And is it the case with Jatts living abroad too or is it only in India?

Pakistani Muslim Jatts have tried to grow out of the inter-tribe marriage, though some still do, especially in rural Punjab.

Is it true that 'JattaN di nani aiko hundi ayy'?

19

ahmadjee: first of all apologies for something from 3/4 weeks ago. I got caught in something very unexpected.

secondly jattaN di naani ikko hundi ay is true. My theory is if 3 jatts picked randomly are put in a room and they can't find out a common relationship within 15 minutes..one of them might be lying of being jatt.:-)

Sikh jatts don't marry within their tribe but marry within jatts...meaning marriages are only inter-tribal not intra-tribal.. ..e.g. we are XYZs and none of paternal uncles, aunts, my father, my siblings is married to a XYZ. This is true in most of the arranged marriages even in USA or else. Only exceptions are when couples chose each other..in that case it could be same tribe or different tribe, country, race whatever.

Since in Islam marriage within family is legit, the jatts who converted to Islam started following it..meaning marrying within family hence within tribe. But not all..from what I know many of them tried to stick to the old tradition for generations and even today some of them consider marrying within family a sin.

20

Chann ji, considering what you'd like in a khota, that's what I meant too.