# about Muslim Brahmins of Pakistan and Kashmir



## Nexus

"[Serious]"

I saw this image on reddit few hours ago and do it have sparked number of questions in my mind.







These results the people Indian army have killed in Kashmir. And i hve noticed that majority of them are actually Kashmiri Pundits who converted to Islam.

1) why these brahmins converts to Islam ? And when ?

2) how Muslims view these converted brahmins? Do they get respect in Pakistani or Kashmiri society?

3) how muslims view these muslims who have "pundit" surname specifically?

4) do they intermarry with other muslims ? Do they have their own biradaris?

5) how Muslims brahmins view their heritage? And sanskrit.

6) how Pashtuns,Baloch view these brahmins? And Rajputs?

We dont have muslim brahmins in north india beside kashmir and Pakistani punjab so I posted this in Pakistani history section.

@Mian Babban and @DESERT FIGHTER being a pashtun and Baloch your answers are much needed and highly valuable/ credible for us.

@waz keep this thread clean please.


----------



## PaklovesTurkiye

Pakistanis don't go in such detail that who was converted from which religion/caste. We know that many Pakistanis once belonged to different castes of different religions. But that doesn't make us respect them less or more due to this fact...

Every Muslim is equal for all of us despite various background than others.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## SarthakGanguly

Nexus said:


> 1) why these brahmins converts to Islam ? And when ?
> 
> 2) how Muslims view these converted brahmins? Do they get respect in Pakistani or Kashmiri society?
> 
> 3) how muslims view these muslims who have "pundit" surname specifically?
> 
> 4) do they intermarry with other muslims ? Do they have their own biradaris?
> 
> 5) how Muslims brahmins view their heritage? And sanskrit.
> 
> 6) how Pashtuns,Baloch view these brahmins? And Rajputs?


I think I am qualified to answer.

1. From the 14th to the 18th century. Mostly.
2. Outside Kashmir not very well. But they get good respect in general Pak/Muslim society.
3. Apart from some jokes, they feel pride. For having left 'jahalat'.
4. Not usually. Mostly among Kashmiri Muslims.
5. They run away from it.
6. They consider us as too proud, cunning and shrewd. None are true, except for maybe the pride part.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pakistani E

SarthakGanguly said:


> I think I am qualified to answer.
> 
> 1. From the 14th to the 18th century. Mostly.
> 2. Outside Kashmir not very well. But they get good respect in general Pak/Muslim society.
> 3. Apart from some jokes, they feel pride. For having left 'jahalat'.
> 4. Not usually. Mostly among Kashmiri Muslims.
> 5. They run away from it.
> 6. They consider us as too proud, cunning and shrewd. None are true, except for maybe the pride part.



You are not a Kashmiri Muslim Pandit or descended from them but you are qualified to speak for us? Well then I guess I am qualified to speak for a Brahmin from Kerala.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Bharat Muslim

Nexus said:


>


Are all the kills authentic? Remember Ghazi Baba was 'killed' many times before he was really dead.

I wonder how could so many militants be eliminated so easily and quickly? I hope the news is real.


----------



## Nexus

Bharat Muslim said:


> Are all the kills authentic? Remember Ghazi Baba was 'killed' many times before he was really dead.
> 
> I wonder how could so many militants be eliminated so easily and quickly? I hope the news is real.


nobody cares, @waz please remove this post. as politics have no place in this thread of sub forum.


----------



## Imran Khan

my son no one even dig this deep when they are going to make them relatives

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Zibago

SarthakGanguly said:


> I think I am qualified to answer.
> 
> 1. From the 14th to the 18th century. Mostly.
> 2. Outside Kashmir not very well. But they get good respect in general Pak/Muslim society.
> 3. Apart from some jokes, they feel pride. For having left 'jahalat'.
> 4. Not usually. Mostly among Kashmiri Muslims.
> 5. They run away from it.
> 6. They consider us as too proud, cunning and shrewd. None are true, except for maybe the pride part.


SHould i tell him or not  ?

Son of a converted Brahmin











Nexus said:


> We dont have muslim brahmins in north india beside kashmir and Pakistani punjab so I posted this in Pakistani history section.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmiri_Shaikh

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Nexus

SarthakGanguly said:


> I think I am qualified to answer.
> 
> 1. From the 14th to the 18th century. Mostly.
> 2. Outside Kashmir not very well. But they get good respect in general Pak/Muslim society.
> 3. Apart from some jokes, they feel pride. For having left 'jahalat'.
> 4. Not usually. Mostly among Kashmiri Muslims.
> 5. They run away from it.
> 6. They consider us as too proud, cunning and shrewd. None are true, except for maybe the pride part.



Sad. Too bad we were not able to save them in past. 

Do these muslims hate real brahmins as well despite being former brahmins?



Deidara said:


> We are discriminated against but we hold massive psychological sway over the general public. Its like a wife in south asian culture who doesnt like her husband but still has to server him with her body whenever he wants. So in the end we get what we want due to the comfortable mental edge we have over all of them even when we are disliked as an extension of the dislike for hindus.



Are u a muslim brahmin ?

What kind of influence you have over general public there ?

And why your ancestors converted to Islam when you are facing discrimination even today ?

Also, please tell me perks (advanadvantages and limitations of) being a muslim brahmin.


----------



## Nexus

Sher Shah Awan said:


> You are not a Kashmiri Muslim Pandit or descended from them but you are qualified to speak for us? Well then I guess I am qualified to speak for a Brahmin from Kerala.


Are u a brahmin muslim as well ? With Awans name ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## xairhossi

I think this was only in Kashmir Valley that Brahmins converted to Islam. Only they have Brahmin clan names like Pandit, Bhat etc. Apart from that, in AJK there are Potohari/Pahari speaking Sudhans who are Brahmin converts as well. But I dont think there are any Punjabi Brahmins that converted to Islam (apart from the Kashmiri Butts, Dars etc. that settled in Punjab in the 18th and 19th centuries).

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Nexus said:


> nobody cares, @waz please remove this post. as politics have no place in this thread of sub forum.


I have a "brahmin" friend from Kashmir , settled in Islamabad.. both his maternal and paternal grandfathers were generals,his father retired as a Lt Col (Surgeons).

There is no difference .. although I sometimes jokingly call him "Pandit sb".. 

But that's about it.

I also have Rajput friend, Muslim ,proud of his heritage (and mostly conservative, marry among their community).. 

All in all, I don't see any difference?

All are Pak, Muslim .. nobody cares.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Deidara said:


> We are discriminated against but we hold massive psychological sway over the general public. Its like a wife in south asian culture who doesnt like her husband but still has to server him with her body whenever he wants. So in the end we get what we want due to the comfortable mental edge we have over all of them even when we are disliked as an extension of the dislike for hindus.


Sounds like Bullshyt!
Makes no sense, when you Panjabis take pride in surnames like Rana,Raja,Sandhu,Chatha,Cheema etc and claim you are discriminated against ? In what way exactly ?



Nexus said:


> Are u a brahmin muslim as well ? With Awans name ?


Awans aren't Brahmins or Jatts... they claim descent from Hazrat Ali... can be found in Panjab and even Afghanistan... a big tribe, nawab of kalabagh being their chief of sorts..

Although no proof of it (their links with Hazrat Ali), but there are no Hindu or Sikh awans..

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## xairhossi

hydrabadi_arab said:


> where are Pakistani muslim brahmins lol? If they exist then believe me they are happy at the fact that they will enter jannat and not hell.
> 
> If true then they are good at hiding their identity, for that reason I doubt there are any advantages associated with being muslim brahmin. Hazrat Bin Qasim abolished hindu caste system in sindh valley.


Bin Qasim didn't abolish 'hindu caste system' in Sindh given that during his time the majority of Sindh was made up of Buddhists who didn't have a varna system.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Burhan Wani

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> I have a "brahmin" friend from Kashmir , settled in Islamabad.. both his maternal and paternal grandfathers were generals,his father retired as a Lt Col (Surgeons).
> 
> There is no difference .. although I sometimes jokingly call him "Pandit sb"..
> 
> But that's about it.
> 
> I also have Rajput friend, Muslim ,proud of his heritage (and mostly conservative, marry among their community)..
> 
> All in all, I don't see any difference?
> 
> All are Pak, Muslim .. nobody cares.


Very appreciated bro. Your post are very amazing.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## xairhossi

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Sounds like Bullshyt!
> Makes no sense, when you Panjabis take pride in surnames like...,Chatha,Cheema etc and claim you


There are no Chattha or Cheema Hindus though. They are either Sikhs or Muslims.


----------



## Burhan Wani

Nexus said:


> "[Serious]"
> 
> I saw this image on reddit few hours ago and do it have sparked number of questions in my mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These results the people Indian army have killed in Kashmir. And i hve noticed that majority of them are actually Kashmiri Pundits who converted to Islam.
> 
> 1) why these brahmins converts to Islam ? And when ?
> 
> 2) how Muslims view these converted brahmins? Do they get respect in Pakistani or Kashmiri society?
> 
> 3) how muslims view these muslims who have "pundit" surname specifically?
> 
> 4) do they intermarry with other muslims ? Do they have their own biradaris?
> 
> 5) how Muslims brahmins view their heritage? And sanskrit.
> 
> 6) how Pashtuns,Baloch view these brahmins? And Rajputs?
> 
> We dont have muslim brahmins in north india beside kashmir and Pakistani punjab so I posted this in Pakistani history section.
> 
> @Mian Babban and @DESERT FIGHTER being a pashtun and Baloch your answers are much needed and highly valuable/ credible for us.
> 
> @waz keep this thread clean please.


By the grace of Almighty number 8 and 10 are still alive Alhamdolillah and fighting against aggressors.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## xairhossi

hydrabadi_arab said:


> where are Pakistani muslim brahmins lol? If they exist then believe me they are happy at the fact that they will enter jannat and not hell.
> If true then they are good at hiding their identity,.


The PM of Pakistan is a Kashmiri Butt...


----------



## Nexus

xairhossi said:


> There are no Chattha or Cheema Hindus though. They are either Sikhs or Muslims.


We have cheema hindus. Cheemaji is widely used nick name here.


----------



## xairhossi

Interesting thing to note is that in most Hindu texts like the Mahabharata, Punjab (called Aratta-Vahika) is described as a mlechha/foreigner like land which is outside the boundaries of 'Brahmavarta' (whose western boundary was at Kurukshetra, Haryana) and where varna and dharma is not practiced and Brahmins are advised not to go. Before entering this region, Brahmins performed purification rites.

_"Where forests of *Pilus* stand, and those *five rivers* flow, viz., the Satadru, the Vipasa, the Iravati, the Candrabhaga, and the Vitasa and which have the Sindhu for their sixth, there in those regions removed from the Himavat, are the countries called by the name of the *Arattas*. Those regions are without virtue and religion. No one should go thither. (VIII.30.36)"_
_




_
Kashmir too would be considered the same and outside the boundary of Brahmavarta which could explain why Kashmiri Brahmins were more liberal and willing to convert to Islam. 

This is also the reason why Punjabis voted for the Muslim League and Pakistan in 1947 (jk )



Nexus said:


> We have cheema hindus. Cheemaji is widely used nick name here.


in Haryana?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

xairhossi said:


> Bin Qasim didn't abolish 'hindu caste system' in Sindh given that during his time the majority of Sindh was made up of Buddhists who didn't have a varna system.



Sindh is diverse AF.

I've met 3rd gen Baluch (my new driver is a Magsi, whose grandfather migrated from jhal Magsi).

Another guy I met is a Sindhi of Pashtun origin.

Than there are Sindhi Baluch like Talpurs,Jatois etc.

Sindhi Rajputs Soomro,Samma (whose dynasties ruled the Sindh state).

Than other tribes like Kalhoros etc.
Memons (sindhis & Gujrati , from Kutch).


Syeds (descendents of Pirs, who are respected madly, even if they are azzholez,exploiting poor).

The Hindus of Sindh (Umer/Amar Kots rulers were Hindu Rajputs, Late Former Minister Rana Chander Singh) are also divided .. Rajputs,Traders and the Dalit Bheels who again are exploited by land owners and high castes).


P.S; Mithi is a Hindu majority city of Pakistan... I believe like 70+% people are Hindu).

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## xairhossi

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Sindh is diverse AF.
> 
> I've met 3rd gen Baluch (my new driver is a Magsi, whose grandfather migrated from jhal Magsi).
> 
> Another guy I met is a Sindhi of Pashtun origin.
> 
> Than there are Sindhi Baluch like Talpurs,Jatois etc.
> 
> Sindhi Rajputs Soomro,Samma (whose dynasties ruled the Sindh state).
> 
> Than other tribes like Kalhoros etc.
> 
> Syeds (descendents of Pirs, who are respected madly, even if they are azzholez,exploiting poor).
> 
> The Hindus of Sindh are also divided .. Rajputs,Traders and the Dalit Bheels who again are exploited by land owners and high castes).


Bhils of Sindh are Marwari as they speak Rajasthani dialect rather than Sindhi.

40% of Sindhis are Baloch tribes and the rest are Sammat or native Sindhis.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

xairhossi said:


> Bhils of Sindh are Marwari as they speak Rajasthani dialect rather than Sindhi.
> 
> 40% of Sindhis are Baloch tribes and the rest are Sammat or native Sindhis.


I'm also Baloch, and had always though that Sindhi Baluch are the reminents of Baluch dynasties, like the Sadozais,Khakwanis etc and other Pashtuns of Waseeb,southern Panjab)...


Bheels etc live in thar,border areas so they probably are rajhisthani).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## xairhossi

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> I'm also Baloch, and had always though that Sindhi Baluch are the reminents of Baluch dynasties, like the Sadozais,Khakwanis etc and other Pashtuns of Waseeb,southern Panjab)...


Baloch tribes would have migrated to Sindh at different times, many might have been living there since ancient times. Talpurs are a branch of the Leghari Baloch of South Punjab. In that region ethnic identity is very complex. Brahuis and Balochs are almost interchangeable in Balochistan, with the Kalat state being ruled by Brahuis. After Kalhoro-Kalat wars, the Talpurs came to Sindh. Tribes like Jatoi or Chandio might be old Sindhis as well (Chandio sounds very much like a Sindhi name, its Chandiyah in South Punjab).

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Burhan Wani

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> I'm also Baloch, and had always though that Sindhi Baluch are the reminents of Baluch dynasties, like the Sadozais,Khakwanis etc and other Pashtuns of Waseeb,southern Panjab)...
> 
> 
> Bheels etc live in thar,border areas so they probably are rajhisthani).


I am Sadozai (Sudhan) from Poonch Azad Kashmir .

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

xairhossi said:


> Baloch tribes would have migrated to Sindh at different times, many might have been living there since ancient times. Talpurs are a branch of the Leghari Baloch of South Punjab. In that region ethnic identity is very complex. Brahuis and Balochs are almost interchangeable in Balochistan, with the Kalat state being ruled by Brahuis. After Kalhoro-Kalat wars, the Talpurs came to Sindh. Tribes like Jatoi or Chandio might be old Sindhis as well (Chandio sounds very much like a Sindhi name, its Chandiyah in South Punjab).


What about Joiya Rajputs of southern Panjab ?

One of my best buddies is from the Joiya family of Kehror Paka... Seriki speaking Rajput? 

Before meeting him , I never knew there were Seriki speaking Rajputs ... although according to him, they are natives .. but I doubt they are also settlers ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## xairhossi

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> What about Joiya Rajputs of southern Panjab ?
> 
> One of my best buddies is from the Joiya family of Kehror Paka... Seriki speaking Rajput?
> 
> Before meeting him , I never knew there were Seriki speaking Rajputs ... although according to him, they are natives .. but I doubt they are also settlers ?


In Pakpattan district where most of them are, they are Jatts. It's confusing for many of these Bar tribes, as some of them are called Jatts others Rajputs. Now many of them only identify with their clan e.g Kharrals of Pakpattan/Sahiwal only identify
as Kharral and not Jat or Rajput.
Interesting thing about these Bar tribes is that they were nomadic or pastoral until the 19th century when most of the forested regions of the Bar were cleared by the British.
I think they are the original Sindhi Jats as described in the Chachnama as the population of Sindh was described as mostly made up of Buddhist Jatts or Meds who were nomadic/pastoral. Their clans are usually only Muslim exclusive as well (like Sial, Wattoo, Dogar etc.)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## hydrabadi_arab

Nexus said:


> Sad. Too bad we were not able to save them in past.



Stupid hindu still think they needed saving. There are 3 million hindus in Pakistan. As far as I know after Hazrat Bin Qasim, Pakistan region was always ruled by muslims and with muslim majority. Despite that even today there are millions of hindus in Pakistan who didn't need any saving. Even when Pakistan was made in the name of Islam. Not to forget all those hindus who left Pakistan for India in 47.

Which put your stupid propaganda of forcing anyone to rest. If muslims wanted they could have exterminated hindus in muslim majority areas long time ago.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

xairhossi said:


> In Pakpattan district where most of them are, they are Jatts. It's confusing for many of these Bar tribes, as some of them are called Jatts others Rajputs. Now many of them only identify with their clan e.g Kharrals of Pakpattan/Sahiwal only identify
> as Kharral and not Jat or Rajput.
> Interesting thing about these Bar tribes is that they were nomadic or pastoral until the 19th century when most of the forested regions of the Bar were cleared by the British.
> I think they are the original Sindhi Jats as described in the Chachnama as the population of Sindh was described as mostly made up of Buddhist Jatts or Meds who were nomadic/pastoral. Their clans are usually only Muslim exclusive as well (like Sial, Wattoo, Dogar etc.)


Once I was travelling by motorway to gujranwala from Lahore.
Gave lift to a motorway police inspector ... during our chitchat.. he revealed that he was from Pindi bhattian and a Kharral...
Asked him the same question.. he replied that they are Rajputs but many others call themselves Jatts.. probably because they have been marrying among Jatts and living with them since ages.

Coming back to the Kharrals , of Kamalia, the area of the famous Ahmed Khan Kharral ... well they are proud of being Rajputs rather than Jatts etc...

Id personally think that there are several sub clans that either have same names to other clans ... or have some have intermingles with other groups..

For example the Khokars.

Half of them claim to be Rajputs, others claim to be Jatts and than some claim to be a seperate tribe..

Now the friend I'm talking about is from a well off political,(large) landowning family... PML Q... so I doubt that they just migrated to the region,claimed to be Rajputs and adopted Seriki.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## xairhossi

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Once I was travelling by motorway to gujranwala from Lahore.
> Gave lift to a motorway police inspector ... during our chitchat.. he revealed that he was from Pindi bhattian and a Kharral...
> Asked him the same question.. he replied that they are Rajputs but many others call themselves Jatts.. probably because they have been marrying among Jatts and living with them since ages.
> 
> Coming back to the Kharrals , of Kamalia, the area of the famous Ahmed Khan Kharral ... well they are proud of being Rajputs rather than Jatts etc...
> 
> Id personally think that there are several sub clans that either have same names to other clans ... or have some have intermingles with other groups..
> 
> For example the Khokars.
> 
> Half of them claim to be Rajputs, others claim to be Jatts and than some claim to be a seperate tribe..
> 
> Now the friend I'm talking about is from a well off political,(large) landowning family... PML Q... so I doubt that they just migrated to the region,claimed to be Rajputs and adopted Seriki.


Rai Ahmed Khan Kharral was from Jhamra (district Lyallpur/Faisalabad) not Kamalia.
The British account of the 1857 rebellion describes them as thus
"_“In the district around are numerous Mohammedan tribes of Jut origin, at present degenerated into cattlefeeders and cattle-stealers, who nevertheless retained somewhat of their ancestral love of war and plunder; hundreds and thousands oh whom wanted only the opportunity and encouragement to spring up armed—for though nominally disarmed, what Punjabee does not know where to lay hands on his weapon in time of need?---and at the first sound of the war—cry, “Deen! Deen! (religion), in Moslem fanaticism, they would have made Mooltan their rallying-point._”
http://pu.edu.pk/images/journal/HistoryPStudies/PDF-FILES/13-Saeed_V28_no2.pdf

Mirza of Mirza-Sahiban was also described as Kharral Jat (Wanjhal Khan Kharal was his name).
The Joiyas of Lodhran/Vehari region are Lakhwera or Daultana and they were part of the nomadic Bar tribes who were pastoralists until the 19th century when canal irrigation in the dry Bar tract was started by the British and they settled down.



DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Once I was travelling by motorway to gujranwala from Lahore.
> Gave lift to a motorway police inspector ... during our chitchat.. he revealed that he was from Pindi bhattian and a Kharral...
> Asked him the same question.. he replied that they are Rajputs but many others call themselves Jatts.. probably because they have been marrying among Jatts and living with them since ages.
> 
> Coming back to the Kharrals , of Kamalia, the area of the famous Ahmed Khan Kharral ... well they are proud of being Rajputs rather than Jatts etc...
> 
> Id personally think that there are several sub clans that either have same names to other clans ... or have some have intermingles with other groups..
> 
> For example the Khokars.
> 
> Half of them claim to be Rajputs, others claim to be Jatts and than some claim to be a seperate tribe..
> 
> Now the friend I'm talking about is from a well off political,(large) landowning family... PML Q... so I doubt that they just migrated to the region,claimed to be Rajputs and adopted Seriki.


I think they are best described as their own thing, the dialect that they speak too is Lahnda similar to Jhangochi, as well as being nomadic/pastoral and having curious traditions e.g
"The Lakhwera, Bhadera, Ghazi Khanana,Kulhera, Daulatana, Kamera and Manghersepts and a few others, observe the _vinayak _ceremony. This consists in slaughtering two rams (_ghattas_) and making a _pulao_ (with rice cooked in ghi) of the flesh. This is given in charity in the name of their ancestor *Allahditta* who single-handed resisted a party of 50 Baloch who tried to raid the cattle he was tending in the Cholistan. *Allahditta* was killed, but his bravery is commemorated in the _winaik_ and his tomb in the *Taj-Sarwar* is greatly frequented by the tribe."
This is somewhat similar to jathera/ancestor worship.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## -blitzkrieg-

Most of the pandits have changed their family names from 'pandit' to 'sheikh' (a muslim clergyman)
e.g. Sheikh Rasheed a prominent Pakistani politician.


----------



## Sam.

xairhossi said:


> In Pakpattan district where most of them are, they are Jatts. It's confusing for many of these Bar tribes, as some of them are called Jatts others Rajputs. Now many of them only identify with their clan e.g Kharrals of Pakpattan/Sahiwal only identify
> as Kharral and not Jat or Rajput.
> Interesting thing about these Bar tribes is that they were nomadic or pastoral until the 19th century when most of the forested regions of the Bar were cleared by the British.
> I think they are the original Sindhi Jats as described in the Chachnama as the population of Sindh was described as mostly made up of Buddhist Jatts or Meds who were nomadic/pastoral. Their clans are usually only Muslim exclusive as well (like Sial, Wattoo, Dogar etc.)


When animosity is finished between Pakistan and India,i would surely visit my jat brothers.


DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Once I was travelling by motorway to gujranwala from Lahore.
> Gave lift to a motorway police inspector ... during our chitchat.. he revealed that he was from Pindi bhattian and a Kharral...
> Asked him the same question.. he replied that they are Rajputs but many others call themselves Jatts.. probably because they have been marrying among Jatts and living with them since ages.
> 
> Coming back to the Kharrals , of Kamalia, the area of the famous Ahmed Khan Kharral ... well they are proud of being Rajputs rather than Jatts etc...
> 
> Id personally think that there are several sub clans that either have same names to other clans ... or have some have intermingles with other groups..
> 
> For example the Khokars.
> 
> Half of them claim to be Rajputs, others claim to be Jatts and than some claim to be a seperate tribe..
> 
> Now the friend I'm talking about is from a well off political,(large) landowning family... PML Q... so I doubt that they just migrated to the region,claimed to be Rajputs and adopted Seriki.



I am at work but when I get back I will add some points. You would be fascinated to hear as some surnames are same in jata and Rajputs such as Rana,Tanwar etc



xairhossi said:


> Rai Ahmed Khan Kharral was from Jhamra (district Lyallpur/Faisalabad) not Kamalia.
> The British account of the 1857 rebellion describes them as thus
> "_“In the district around are numerous Mohammedan tribes of Jut origin, at present degenerated into cattlefeeders and cattle-stealers, who nevertheless retained somewhat of their ancestral love of war and plunder; hundreds and thousands oh whom wanted only the opportunity and encouragement to spring up armed—for though nominally disarmed, what Punjabee does not know where to lay hands on his weapon in time of need?---and at the first sound of the war—cry, “Deen! Deen! (religion), in Moslem fanaticism, they would have made Mooltan their rallying-point._”
> http://pu.edu.pk/images/journal/HistoryPStudies/PDF-FILES/13-Saeed_V28_no2.pdf
> 
> Mirza of Mirza-Sahiban was also described as Kharral Jat (Wanjhal Khan Kharal was his name).
> The Joiyas of Lodhran/Vehari region are Lakhwera or Daultana and they were part of the nomadic Bar tribes who were pastoralists until the 19th century when canal irrigation in the dry Bar tract was started by the British and they settled down.
> 
> 
> I think they are best described as their own thing, the dialect that they speak too is Lahnda similar to Jhangochi, as well as being nomadic/pastoral and having curious traditions e.g
> "The Lakhwera, Bhadera, Ghazi Khanana,Kulhera, Daulatana, Kamera and Manghersepts and a few others, observe the _vinayak _ceremony. This consists in slaughtering two rams (_ghattas_) and making a _pulao_ (with rice cooked in ghi) of the flesh. This is given in charity in the name of their ancestor *Allahditta* who single-handed resisted a party of 50 Baloch who tried to raid the cattle he was tending in the Cholistan. *Allahditta* was killed, but his bravery is commemorated in the _winaik_ and his tomb in the *Taj-Sarwar* is greatly frequented by the tribe."
> This is somewhat similar to jathera/ancestor worship.


Yes sir we follow jathera.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

xairhossi said:


> Rai Ahmed Khan Kharral was from Jhamra (district Lyallpur/Faisalabad) not Kamalia.
> The British account of the 1857 rebellion describes them as thus
> "_“In the district around are numerous Mohammedan tribes of Jut origin, at present degenerated into cattlefeeders and cattle-stealers, who nevertheless retained somewhat of their ancestral love of war and plunder; hundreds and thousands oh whom wanted only the opportunity and encouragement to spring up armed—for though nominally disarmed, what Punjabee does not know where to lay hands on his weapon in time of need?---and at the first sound of the war—cry, “Deen! Deen! (religion), in Moslem fanaticism, they would have made Mooltan their rallying-point._”
> http://pu.edu.pk/images/journal/HistoryPStudies/PDF-FILES/13-Saeed_V28_no2.pdf
> 
> Mirza of Mirza-Sahiban was also described as Kharral Jat (Wanjhal Khan Kharal was his name).
> The Joiyas of Lodhran/Vehari region are Lakhwera or Daultana and they were part of the nomadic Bar tribes who were pastoralists until the 19th century when canal irrigation in the dry Bar tract was started by the British and they settled down.
> 
> 
> I think they are best described as their own thing, the dialect that they speak too is Lahnda similar to Jhangochi, as well as being nomadic/pastoral and having curious traditions e.g
> "The Lakhwera, Bhadera, Ghazi Khanana,Kulhera, Daulatana, Kamera and Manghersepts and a few others, observe the _vinayak _ceremony. This consists in slaughtering two rams (_ghattas_) and making a _pulao_ (with rice cooked in ghi) of the flesh. This is given in charity in the name of their ancestor *Allahditta* who single-handed resisted a party of 50 Baloch who tried to raid the cattle he was tending in the Cholistan. *Allahditta* was killed, but his bravery is commemorated in the _winaik_ and his tomb in the *Taj-Sarwar* is greatly frequented by the tribe."
> This is somewhat similar to jathera/ancestor worship.


No Jatt uses "Rai" as a surname, only Rajputs do;

*
By caste, the Kharals are Rajput of the Agni-Kula descent. They link up their genealogy with Karan, a chivalrous character from Ramayana and were converted by Makhdoom Jahanian Shah Shareef. Saadat Ali Khan, a prominent Kharal, was granted a fiefdom in this locality by Aurangzeb *.

Same article:

https://www.dawn.com/news/802754

They themselves claim to be Rajputs and use a Rajput surname.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Radio Mirchi

hydrabadi_arab said:


> Hazrat Bin Qasim *a**bolished hindu caste system in sindh valley*.



Jhooth ki bhi hadd hoti hai. See whats mentioned about Bin Qasim s administration in Sindh. He protected Brahminism by allocating 3% of state revenues to them. So your claim about Bin Qasim abolished caste is as good as rubbish.

*Administration by Muhammad bin Qasim[edit]*
After the conquest, Muhammad bin Qasim's task was to set up an administrative structure for a stable Muslim state that incorporated a newly conquered alien land, inhabited by non-Muslims.[15] He adopted a conciliatory policy, asking for acceptance of Muslim rule by the natives in return for non-interference in their religious practice,[15] so long as the natives paid their taxes and tribute.[4] In return, the state provided protection to non-Muslim from any foreign attacks and enemies. He established Islamic Sharia law over the people of the region; however, Hindus were allowed to rule their villages and settle their disputes according to their own laws,[4] and traditional hierarchical institutions, including the Village Headmen (_Rais_) and Chieftains (_dihqans_) were maintained.[15] A Muslim officer called an _amil_ was stationed with a troop of cavalry to manage each town on a hereditary basis [15]

Everywhere taxes (_mal_) and tribute (_kharaj_) were settled and hostages taken — occasionally this also meant the custodians of temples.[10] Non-Muslim natives were excused from military service and from payment of the religiously mandated tax system levied upon Muslims called Zakat,[15] the tax system levied upon them instead was the jizya - a progressive tax, being heavier on the upper classes and light for the poor.[15] In addition, three percent of government revenue was allocated to the Brahmins.[4]

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## xairhossi

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> No Jatt uses "Rai" as a surname, only Rajputs do;
> 
> *
> By caste, the Kharals are Rajput of the Agni-Kula descent. They link up their genealogy with Karan, a chivalrous character from Ramayana and were converted by Makhdoom Jahanian Shah Shareef. Saadat Ali Khan, a prominent Kharal, was granted a fiefdom in this locality by Aurangzeb *.
> 
> Same article:
> 
> https://www.dawn.com/news/802754
> 
> They themselves claim to be Rajputs and use a Rajput surname.



Rai is just a title, the Rai dynasty of Sindh who were Buddhists also used this while being Rajput and Buddhist is an oxymoron. Dawn article is hardly credible, as well tracing ancestory to Ramyana. These are likely nomadic/pastoral Jats or Meds of Sindh and South Punjab who were Buddhists as described in the Chachnama.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zibago

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Sounds like Bullshyt!
> Makes no sense, when you Panjabis take pride in surnames like Rana,Raja,Sandhu,Chatha,Cheema etc and claim you are discriminated against ? In what way exactly ?
> 
> 
> Awans aren't Brahmins or Jatts... they claim descent from Hazrat Ali... can be found in Panjab and even Afghanistan... a big tribe, nawab of kalabagh being their chief of sorts..
> 
> Although no proof of it (their links with Hazrat Ali), but there are no Hindu or Sikh awans..


He is no awan he is a Butt 



-blitzkrieg- said:


> Most of the pandits have changed their family names from 'pandit' to 'sheikh' (a muslim clergyman)
> e.g. Sheikh Rasheed a prominent Pakistani politician.


Boss i too am a Sheikh Kashmiri bus chasky ley raha hoan  @krash

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

xairhossi said:


> Rai is just a title, the Rai dynasty of Sindh who were Buddhists also used this while being Rajput and Buddhist is an oxymoron. Dawn article is hardly credible, as well tracing ancestory to Ramyana. These are likely nomadic/pastoral Jats or Meds of Sindh and South Punjab who were Buddhists as described in the Chachnama.


Rai is a title used by Rajputs of Panjab and Haryana ... 

Rajputs and Buddhists are not interchangeable.
However Hinduism was never followed with much zeal in Panjab or Sindh ... 

The link with karan... is claimed by none other than the Kharals ... there is also a registered Rajput forums and even a registered forum by kharrals of jhumra..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## -blitzkrieg-

Zibago said:


> He is no awan he is a Butt
> 
> 
> Boss i too am a Sheikh Kashmiri bus chasky ley raha hoan  @krash



seikh rasheed aur chaskay laazim o malzoom hain


----------



## xairhossi

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Rai is a title used by Rajputs of Panjab and Haryana ...
> 
> Rajputs and Buddhists are not interchangeable.
> However Hinduism was never followed with much zeal in Panjab or Sindh ...
> 
> The link with karan... is claimed by none other than the Kharals ... there is also a registered Rajput forums and even a registered forum by kharrals of jhumra..


The only people in Punjab who use Rai are Kharrals, who speak a Lahnda dialect and are only present in a few districts in Punjab.
Rajput is a varna title, being Buddhist and Rajput is a straight up oxymoron rather than 'not being interchangeable'. As well as the mlechha description of Punjab in Mahbharta and other Hindu texts.
Many of them also claim descent from some vague place in Rajasthan or UP, but that is hardly credible either, especially due to genetics.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

xairhossi said:


> The only people in Punjab who use Rai are Kharrals, who speak a Lahnda dialect and are only present in a few districts in Punjab.



Dude come with me, il take you to their villages and you can meet em.. and ask them if they are Rajputs or not...

Minus some from the pindi bhattian area!



> Rajput is a varna title, being Buddhist and Rajput is a straight up oxymoron rather than 'not being interchangeable'. As well as the mlechha description of Punjab in Mahbharta and other Hindu texts.
> Many of them also claim descent from some vague place in Rajasthan or UP, but that is hardly credible either, especially due to genetics.



Islam also doesn't recognise castes ? Yet you see people using em?

Religion has nothing to do with ones "heritage".

I can even show you Jatts who converted to Christianity.. there is a Basra family living in Narowal.. converted to Christianity during British reign.

And from what I've seen. Not a single Panjabi rajput claims to be from rajhisthan.

P.S; I know the descendants of Ahmed Khan through a mutual friend..



xairhossi said:


> Rai Ahmed Khan Kharral was from Jhamra (district Lyallpur/Faisalabad) not Kamalia.
> The British account of the 1857 rebellion describes them as thus
> "_“In the district around are numerous Mohammedan tribes of Jut origin, at present degenerated into cattlefeeders and cattle-stealers, who nevertheless retained somewhat of their ancestral love of war and plunder; hundreds and thousands oh whom wanted only the opportunity and encouragement to spring up armed—for though nominally disarmed, what Punjabee does not know where to lay hands on his weapon in time of need?---and at the first sound of the war—cry, “Deen! Deen! (religion), in Moslem fanaticism, they would have made Mooltan their rallying-point._”
> http://pu.edu.pk/images/journal/HistoryPStudies/PDF-FILES/13-Saeed_V28_no2.pdf
> 
> Mirza of Mirza-Sahiban was also described as Kharral Jat (Wanjhal Khan Kharal was his name).
> The Joiyas of Lodhran/Vehari region are Lakhwera or Daultana and they were part of the nomadic Bar tribes who were pastoralists until the 19th century when canal irrigation in the dry Bar tract was started by the British and they settled down.
> 
> 
> I think they are best described as their own thing, the dialect that they speak too is Lahnda similar to Jhangochi, as well as being nomadic/pastoral and having curious traditions e.g
> "The Lakhwera, Bhadera, Ghazi Khanana,Kulhera, Daulatana, Kamera and Manghersepts and a few others, observe the _vinayak _ceremony. This consists in slaughtering two rams (_ghattas_) and making a _pulao_ (with rice cooked in ghi) of the flesh. This is given in charity in the name of their ancestor *Allahditta* who single-handed resisted a party of 50 Baloch who tried to raid the cattle he was tending in the Cholistan. *Allahditta* was killed, but his bravery is commemorated in the _winaik_ and his tomb in the *Taj-Sarwar* is greatly frequented by the tribe."
> This is somewhat similar to jathera/ancestor worship.


Nepal also had similiar culture as Panjab and Sindh when it came to brahmanism...

If you read Sepoy and the Raj by David Omissi...

You would come to read about these facts from British accounts.

The British used Gurkhas and Panjabis in central/north India who had equal dislike for brahmanism.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## xairhossi

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Dude come with me, il take you to their villages and you can meet em.. and ask them if they are Rajputs or not...
> 
> Minus some from the pindi bhattian area!


I am from district Pakpattan, here many Manj Rajputs ,who use 'Rana' title, from East Punjab settled after partition and they do not identify with the local Kharrals and Joiyas. Identifying as something matters for little, anyone can identify as anything.


> Islam also doesn't recognise castes ? Yet you see people using em?
> Religion has nothing to do with ones "heritage".


It's not the varna system which is exclusive to Hinduism. And in this context, it does.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

xairhossi said:


> I am from district Pakpattan, here many Manj Rajputs ,who use 'Rana' title, from East Punjab settled after partition and they do not identify with the local Kharrals and Joiyas. Identifying as something matters for little, anyone can identify as anything.
> 
> It's not the varna system which is exclusive to Hinduism. And in this context, it does.


Meanwhile the Manj of Sheikhupura only use "Manj" as surname.

Also the Rajputs who migrated in 47.. don't marry or "mingle" among the local Rajputs... heck even the Panjabi Rajputs don't mingle with the rohatki aka haryanvi Rajputs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## krash

Nexus said:


> "[Serious]"
> 
> I saw this image on reddit few hours ago and do it have sparked number of questions in my mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These results the people Indian army have killed in Kashmir. And i hve noticed that majority of them are actually Kashmiri Pundits who converted to Islam.
> 
> 1) why these brahmins converts to Islam ? And when ?
> 
> 2) how Muslims view these converted brahmins? Do they get respect in Pakistani or Kashmiri society?
> 
> 3) how muslims view these muslims who have "pundit" surname specifically?
> 
> 4) do they intermarry with other muslims ? Do they have their own biradaris?
> 
> 5) how Muslims brahmins view their heritage? And sanskrit.
> 
> 6) how Pashtuns,Baloch view these brahmins? And Rajputs?
> 
> We dont have muslim brahmins in north india beside kashmir and Pakistani punjab so I posted this in Pakistani history section.
> 
> @Mian Babban and @DESERT FIGHTER being a pashtun and Baloch your answers are much needed and highly valuable/ credible for us.
> 
> @waz keep this thread clean please.



My great-grandfather, Pandit Mansanath, converted to Islam after studying the religion under a local Muslim scholar in Srinagar. In those times Muslim scholars and teachers were given the title of a 'Sheikh' and thus it became a very respected title within the Muslim community. So when my great-grandfather converted he changed his surname from Pandit to 'Sheikh'. This practice became the practice for many converts, so much so that there came a time when the surname 'Sheikh' signified that you were a convert (as alluded to by @-blitzkrieg-). This is the reason why this particular surname is found across pretty much all the ethnicities of the region and has no ethnic or tribal significance, as compared to most surnames in the region.

1) We converted because our ancestors thought Islam to be the true path.

2) We are not seen as Muslim Pundits or converts at all. We have taken new identities void of religious connotations, e.g. I am a Kashmiri and that is all I am known by if at all. I identify as a Pakistani with Kashmiri ethnicity, period.

3) I haven't met a Muslim with 'Pundit' as their surname. As mentioned before, we changed our surnames. We are however seen as any other Muslim, at most we are distinguished by our ethnicity, e.g. Kashmiri.

4) We used to try to marry within other Kashmiris but it wasn't a strict rule at all, it was instead just a preference due to cultural reasons. Over the years this preference has become even less important. For example, one of my uncles married a non-Kashmiri. I come from a strict Kashmiri lineage but have married a Rajput. No one really cares enough for it to have any effect. Our biradaris were strictly based on ethnicity and weren't strict biradaris at all. Kashmiris are known to be more open minded to assimilation and integration, at least on this side of the border. Within the Kashmiri biradari there is no distinction between former Brahmin Kashmiris and former non-Brahmin Kashmiris.

5) We mostly see our heritage through our ethnic ancestry without any religious colours to it. The modern Pakistani though is increasingly more interested and accepting of his/her pre-Islam heritage.

6) Like I mentioned before, no one really cares for our Brahmin past, not even us. And I am an example of a Muslim from Brahmin ancestry who married into Rajputs. My maternal side (also formerly Kashmiri Brahmins) is heavily married into Balochs and Pashtuns. Most of them moved to Quetta after moving from Kashmir.

ps: Nawaz Sharif is from the Lahori Kashmiri Biradari as well. Don't know if he comes from Brahmin roots or not. @Zibago does though, haha.



Zibago said:


> He is no awan he is a Butt
> 
> 
> Boss i too am a Sheikh Kashmiri bus chasky ley raha hoan  @krash



Sheikh sahab, aap baaz na ana

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## xairhossi

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Meanwhile the Manj of Sheikhupura only use "Manj" as surname.
> 
> Also the Rajputs who migrated in 47.. don't marry among the local Rajputs... heck even the Panjabi Rajputs don't mingle with the rohatki aka haryanvi Rajputs.


They use Rana as the title and Manj as the surname. 
The actual Rajputs of Punjab are 'ranas' of Majha/upper Punjab and East Punjab.
And yes, Ranghars marry within themselves only, a lot of them settled in district Pakpattan as well.


----------



## Zibago

krash said:


> My great-grandfather, Pandit Mansanath, converted to Islam after studying the religion under a local Muslim scholar in Srinagar. In those times Muslim scholars and teachers were given the title of a 'Sheikh' and thus it became a very respected title within the Muslim community. So when my great-grandfather converted he changed his surname from Pandit to 'Sheikh'. This practice became the practice for many converts, so much so that there came a time when the surname 'Sheikh' signified that you were a convert (as alluded to by @-blitzkrieg-). This is the reason why this particular surname is found across pretty much all the ethnicities of the region and has no ethnic or tribal significance, as compared to most surnames in the region.
> 
> 1) We converted because our ancestors thought Islam to be the true path.
> 
> 2) We are not seen as Muslim Pundits or converts at all. We have taken new identities void of religious connotations, e.g. I am a Kashmiri and that is all I am known by if at all. I identify as a Pakistani with Kashmiri ethnicity, period.
> 
> 3) I haven't met a Muslim with 'Pundit' as their surname. As mentioned before, we changed our surnames. We are however seen as any other Muslims, at most we are distinguished by our ethnicity, e.g. Kashmiri.
> 
> 4) We used to try to marry within other Kashmiris but it wasn't a strict rule at all, it was instead just a preference due to cultural reasons. Over the years this preference has become even less important. For example, one of my uncles married a non-Kashmiri. I come from a strict Kashmiri lineage but have married a Rajput. No one really cares enough for it to have any effect. Our biradaris were strictly based on ethnicity and weren't strict biradaris at all. Kashmiris are known to be more open minded to assimilation and integration, at least on this side of the border. Within the Kashmiri biradari there is no distinction between former Brahmin Kashmiris and former non-Brahmin Kashmiris.
> 
> 5) We mostly see our heritage through our ethnic ancestry without any religious colours to it. The modern Pakistani though is increasingly more interested and accepting of his/her pre-Islam heritage.
> 
> 6) Like I mentioned before, no one really cares for our Brahmin past, not even us. And I am an example of a Muslim from Brahmin ancestry who married into Rajputs. My maternal side (also formerly Kashmiri Brahmins) is heavily married into Balochs and Pashtuns. Most of them moved to Quetta after moving from Kashmir.
> 
> ps: Nawaz Sharif is from the Lahori Kashmiri Biradari as well. Don't know if he comes from Brahmin roots or not. @Zibago does though, haha.
> 
> 
> 
> Sheikh sahab, aap baaz na ana


Jigar ab agar bata doan kay merey pardada bhi convert hoye thay to inhon nay ajeeb sawal start karney hain acha nahi hy key bus chaskey lo

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

xairhossi said:


> They use Rana as the title and Manj as the surname.



I'm specifically talking about Manj of shiekhupura... They are notorious for their "badmashi" and involvement in crime & politics... they don't even use the title Rana.. just Manj.


> The actual Rajputs of Punjab are 'ranas' of Majha/upper Punjab and East Punjab.
> And yes, Ranghars marry within themselves only, a lot of them settled in district Pakpattan as well.


As I said even they don't marry among ranghars... both consider eachother inferior.. Aswell as the local Rajputs... and mostly marry among their respective communities.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zibago

krash said:


> My great-grandfather, Pandit Mansanath, converted to Islam after studying the religion under a local Muslim scholar in Srinagar. In those times Muslim scholars and teachers were given the title of a 'Sheikh' and thus it became a very respected title within the Muslim community. So when my great-grandfather converted he changed his surname from Pandit to 'Sheikh'. This practice became the practice for many converts, so much so that there came a time when the surname 'Sheikh' signified that you were a convert (as alluded to by @-blitzkrieg-). This is the reason why this particular surname is found across pretty much all the ethnicities of the region and has no ethnic or tribal significance, as compared to most surnames in the region.
> 
> 1) We converted because our ancestors thought Islam to be the true path.
> 
> 2) We are not seen as Muslim Pundits or converts at all. We have taken new identities void of religious connotations, e.g. I am a Kashmiri and that is all I am known by if at all. I identify as a Pakistani with Kashmiri ethnicity, period.
> 
> 3) I haven't met a Muslim with 'Pundit' as their surname. As mentioned before, we changed our surnames. We are however seen as any other Muslims, at most we are distinguished by our ethnicity, e.g. Kashmiri.
> 
> 4) We used to try to marry within other Kashmiris but it wasn't a strict rule at all, it was instead just a preference due to cultural reasons. Over the years this preference has become even less important. For example, one of my uncles married a non-Kashmiri. I come from a strict Kashmiri lineage but have married a Rajput. No one really cares enough for it to have any effect. Our biradaris were strictly based on ethnicity and weren't strict biradaris at all. Kashmiris are known to be more open minded to assimilation and integration, at least on this side of the border. Within the Kashmiri biradari there is no distinction between former Brahmin Kashmiris and former non-Brahmin Kashmiris.
> 
> 5) We mostly see our heritage through our ethnic ancestry without any religious colours to it. The modern Pakistani though is increasingly more interested and accepting of his/her pre-Islam heritage.
> 
> 6) Like I mentioned before, no one really cares for our Brahmin past, not even us. And I am an example of a Muslim from Brahmin ancestry who married into Rajputs. My maternal side (also formerly Kashmiri Brahmins) is heavily married into Balochs and Pashtuns. Most of them moved to Quetta after moving from Kashmir.
> 
> ps: Nawaz Sharif is from the Lahori Kashmiri Biradari as well. Don't know if he comes from Brahmin roots or not. @Zibago does though, haha.
> 
> 
> 
> Sheikh sahab, aap baaz na ana


Nawaz sharif is a Bhat (Butt) from Shopian IoK his great grandfather migrated to Amritsar and after partition migrated to Lahore(unfortunately)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

krash said:


> My great-grandfather, Pandit Mansanath, converted to Islam after studying the religion under a local Muslim scholar in Srinagar. In those times Muslim scholars and teachers were given the title of a 'Sheikh' and thus it became a very respected title within the Muslim community. So when my great-grandfather converted he changed his surname from Pandit to 'Sheikh'. This practice became the practice for many converts, so much so that there came a time when the surname 'Sheikh' signified that you were a convert (as alluded to by @-blitzkrieg-). This is the reason why this particular surname is found across pretty much all the ethnicities of the region and has no ethnic or tribal significance, as compared to most surnames in the region.
> 
> 1) We converted because our ancestors thought Islam to be the true path.
> 
> 2) We are not seen as Muslim Pundits or converts at all. We have taken new identities void of religious connotations, e.g. I am a Kashmiri and that is all I am known by if at all. I identify as a Pakistani with Kashmiri ethnicity, period.
> 
> 3) I haven't met a Muslim with 'Pundit' as their surname. As mentioned before, we changed our surnames. We are however seen as any other Muslim, at most we are distinguished by our ethnicity, e.g. Kashmiri.
> 
> 4) We used to try to marry within other Kashmiris but it wasn't a strict rule at all, it was instead just a preference due to cultural reasons. Over the years this preference has become even less important. For example, one of my uncles married a non-Kashmiri. I come from a strict Kashmiri lineage but have married a Rajput. No one really cares enough for it to have any effect. Our biradaris were strictly based on ethnicity and weren't strict biradaris at all. Kashmiris are known to be more open minded to assimilation and integration, at least on this side of the border. Within the Kashmiri biradari there is no distinction between former Brahmin Kashmiris and former non-Brahmin Kashmiris.
> 
> 5) We mostly see our heritage through our ethnic ancestry without any religious colours to it. The modern Pakistani though is increasingly more interested and accepting of his/her pre-Islam heritage.
> 
> 6) Like I mentioned before, no one really cares for our Brahmin past, not even us. And I am an example of a Muslim from Brahmin ancestry who married into Rajputs. My maternal side (also formerly Kashmiri Brahmins) is heavily married into Balochs and Pashtuns. Most of them moved to Quetta after moving from Kashmir.
> 
> ps: Nawaz Sharif is from the Lahori Kashmiri Biradari as well. Don't know if he comes from Brahmin roots or not. @Zibago does though, haha.
> 
> 
> 
> Sheikh sahab, aap baaz na ana


I'm the second person in my family to marry outside Baluch.

First was my uncle who found love across the border in Iran.

I found it in the neighbouring province, KPK.

Also there are shiekhs even among Pakhtun.. they belong to the working class.. dhobis etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## krash

Zibago said:


> Jigar ab agar bata doan kay merey pardada bhi convert hoye thay to inhon nay ajeeb sawal start karney hain acha nahi hy key bus chaskey lo



Hahahaha! Kiunke baki sara Pakistan arabi hona jo claim karata hai.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Zibago said:


> Nawaz sharif is a Bhat (Butt) from Shopian IoK his great grandfather migrated to Amritsar and after partition migrated to Lahore(unfortunately)


My roommate and class fellow in univ... was a butt too..

His great grandparents came from anantnag/Islamabad during famine and settled in Azad Kashmir.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zibago

krash said:


> Hahahaha! Kiunke baki sara Pakistan arabi hona jo claim karata hai.


Pata nahi ye Bhutto aur Bhatti kon si Arabi tribe kay hain 



DESERT FIGHTER said:


> My roommate and class fellow in univ... was a butt too..
> 
> His great grandparents came from anantnag/Islamabad during famine and settled in Azad Kashmir.


Most Kashmiris moved out of the province during the famine they are called Butts because the Pahari pronunciation of the word Bhat 
Fun fact everyone who migrated from Kashmir was called Butt by Punjabis so a lot of Butts in Punjab may not be Bhats

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## krash

Nexus said:


> Sad. Too bad we were not able to save them in past.



Oh but we were saved.



Deidara said:


> We are discriminated against but we hold massive psychological sway over the general public. Its like a wife in south asian culture who doesnt like her husband but still has to server him with her body whenever he wants. So in the end we get what we want due to the comfortable mental edge we have over all of them even when we are disliked as an extension of the dislike for hindus.



Lol. False flagger.



Nexus said:


> Sad. Too bad we were not able to save them in past.
> 
> Do these muslims hate real brahmins as well despite being former brahmins?



Nope. Contrary to the popular belief in India, we don't hate Hindus, we hate the occupation of our land.




Nexus said:


> Are u a muslim brahmin ?
> 
> What kind of influence you have over general public there ?
> 
> And why your ancestors converted to Islam when you are facing discrimination even today ?
> 
> Also, please tell me perks (advanadvantages and limitations of) being a muslim brahmin.



He's not. He's not even a Pakistani, trust me.



DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Also there are shiekhs even among Pakhtun.. they belong to the working class.. dhobis etc.



Yeah, heard of that. My Paskhtoon friend didn't believe me when I told him.



Zibago said:


> Pata nahi ye Bhutto aur Bhatti kon si Arabi tribe kay hain



Janab apko nahi pata, in sub ke pass family trees hain. Pakistan mein Arabia se ziyada arabi hain.



Zibago said:


> Most Kashmiris moved out of the province during the famine they are called Butts because the Pahari pronunciation of the word Bhat
> Fun fact everyone who migrated from Kashmir was called Butt by Punjabis so a lot of Butts in Punjab may not be Bhats



Lol true. My maternal side's surname is actually "Kasher" but are now known as Butts.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Nexus

hydrabadi_arab said:


> Stupid brahmin I hope your daughter run away with dalit.


We created Eastern civilization boy, even whites wanted to be like us. (Boston brahmins)

Despite being muslim for 100s of years, real muslims respect us more than they respect you. This is the status of Brahmins.

And we are brahmins, emphomee of Pride and Honor. don't worry about our women they are more proud than us.


----------



## El Sidd

The caste system is alive and pretty much kicking as well. Sometimes i wonder if there was nothing left to be divided upon we would create one out of thin air.

This inferiority/superiority complex will eventually die out but it will take quite a few million people on its shoulder as it goes.


----------



## Nexus

xairhossi said:


> Interesting thing to note is that in most Hindu texts like the Mahabharata, Punjab (called Aratta-Vahika) is described as a mlechha/foreigner like land which is outside the boundaries of 'Brahmavarta' (whose western boundary was at Kurukshetra, Haryana) and where varna and dharma is not practiced and Brahmins are advised not to go. Before entering this region, Brahmins performed purification rites.
> 
> _"Where forests of *Pilus* stand, and those *five rivers* flow, viz., the Satadru, the Vipasa, the Iravati, the Candrabhaga, and the Vitasa and which have the Sindhu for their sixth, there in those regions removed from the Himavat, are the countries called by the name of the *Arattas*. Those regions are without virtue and religion. No one should go thither. (VIII.30.36)"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> Kashmir too would be considered the same and outside the boundary of Brahmavarta which could explain why Kashmiri Brahmins were more liberal and willing to convert to Islam.
> 
> This is also the reason why Punjabis voted for the Muslim League and Pakistan in 1947 (jk )
> 
> 
> in Haryana?


Lol.

Aryavarta was KPK,Punjab, Haryana and western UP in early age.


----------



## xairhossi

Nexus said:


> Lol.
> 
> Aryavarta was KPK,Punjab, Haryana and western UP in early age.


That was Sapta Sindhu of Rg Veda. Later it changed to the Ganges Plains.


----------



## Mian Babban

krash said:


> My great-grandfather, Pandit Mansanath, converted to Islam after studying the religion under a local Muslim scholar in Srinagar. In those times Muslim scholars and teachers were given the title of a 'Sheikh' and thus it became a very respected title within the Muslim community. So when my great-grandfather converted he changed his surname from Pandit to 'Sheikh'. This practice became the practice for many converts, so much so that there came a time when the surname 'Sheikh' signified that you were a convert (as alluded to by @-blitzkrieg-).


Shaikh title in Pashtun nation is used for saints, buzargan-i-deen from their tribes e.g Shaikh Michin Niazi, Shaikh Hussain Kasi, Shaikh Kabir Bhittani etc

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nexus

Zibago said:


> SHould i tell him or not  ?
> 
> Son of a converted Brahmin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmiri_Shaikh



I know about him, truely, we brahmins are special breed.





even muslim brahmins today are ruling pakistan ! 



xairhossi said:


> I think this was only in Kashmir Valley that Brahmins converted to Islam. Only they have Brahmin clan names like Pandit, Bhat etc. Apart from that, in AJK there are Potohari/Pahari speaking Sudhans who are Brahmin converts as well. But I dont think there are any Punjabi Brahmins that converted to Islam (apart from the Kashmiri Butts, Dars etc. that settled in Punjab in the 18th and 19th centuries).



I guess you are right.

as Brahmins are almost 20 to 25% in North Indian states of Jammu,UK and Himachal. i guess majority of brahmins migrated to the Hilly Areas to avoid conversation in Medieval period. 

even my own Brahmin family(small community of 250 family) Migrated to Gujarat from Haryana just before first ever Islamic Invasion of India.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zibago

Nexus said:


> even muslim brahmins today are ruling pakistan !


No such thing as Muslim Brahmins we are Kashmiri Sheikhs 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmiri_Shaikh
After the advent of [Islam] into Afghanistan and South Asia, a significant number of *Hindu Brahmins* and Kshatriya's converted to Islam and adopted the title of Shaikh. In Punjab, they are known as Kashmiri Shaikh. The Kashmiri Shaikhs are predominantly urban.


My great grandfather converted to Islam to what was once a small village in Srinagar and later moved to modern Mirpur AJk
SHeikh was an honorary title for Kashmiri brahmins who embraced Islam

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Nexus

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> I have a "brahmin" friend from Kashmir , settled in Islamabad.. both his maternal and paternal grandfathers were generals,his father retired as a Lt Col (Surgeons).
> 
> There is no difference .. although I sometimes jokingly call him "Pandit sb"..
> 
> But that's about it.
> 
> I also have Rajput friend, Muslim ,proud of his heritage (and mostly conservative, marry among their community)..
> 
> All in all, I don't see any difference?
> 
> All are Pak, Muslim .. nobody cares.



brahmins ruled all over Asia from Afghanistan to the ASEAN countries like Thailand, Combodia, Vietnam and Indonesia. Angkor vat was built by Brahmin Kings for example. so i am not surprised that his Family have martial roots. my own family have held jagirs in KAthiyawad Gujarat for 900 years.

can you tell me whats his surname ?



DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Sounds like Bullshyt!
> Makes no sense, when you Panjabis take pride in surnames like Rana,Raja,Sandhu,Chatha,Cheema etc and claim you are discriminated against ? In what way exactly ?
> 
> 
> Awans aren't Brahmins or Jatts... they claim descent from Hazrat Ali... can be found in Panjab and even Afghanistan... a big tribe, nawab of kalabagh being their chief of sorts..
> 
> Although no proof of it (their links with Hazrat Ali), but there are no Hindu or Sikh awans..



yeah we dont have any Awans or Arians in India, not even in Punjab. maybe one of this community is made of Migrants from Afghanistan or MENA(Middle East and North Africa).



DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Sindh is diverse AF.
> 
> I've met 3rd gen Baluch (my new driver is a Magsi, whose grandfather migrated from jhal Magsi).
> 
> Another guy I met is a Sindhi of Pashtun origin.
> 
> Than there are Sindhi Baluch like Talpurs,Jatois etc.
> 
> Sindhi Rajputs Soomro,Samma (whose dynasties ruled the Sindh state).
> 
> Than other tribes like Kalhoros etc.
> Memons (sindhis & Gujrati , from Kutch).
> 
> 
> Syeds (descendents of Pirs, who are respected madly, even if they are azzholez,exploiting poor).
> 
> The Hindus of Sindh (Umer/Amar Kots rulers were Hindu Rajputs, Late Former Minister Rana Chander Singh) are also divided .. Rajputs,Traders and the Dalit Bheels who again are exploited by land owners and high castes).
> 
> 
> P.S; Mithi is a Hindu majority city of Pakistan... I believe like 70+% people are Hindu).


majority of rajputs of Gujarat are infect Sindhis.

Jadejas are Junejas (muslim rajputs still uses junejas here), Chudasamas are samma rajputs, Jethwas and other major Rajput tribes are infect Sindhis who migrated to Western Gujarat. and rajputs are 20% of West Gujarat population.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Nexus said:


> brahmins ruled all over Asia from Afghanistan to the ASEAN countries like Thailand, Combodia, Vietnam and Indonesia. Angkor vat was built by Brahmin Kings for example. so i am not surprised that his Family have martial roots. my own family have held jagirs in KAthiyawad Gujarat for 900 years.
> 
> can you tell me whats his surname ?



His roll call or ID doesn't state any

yeah we dont have any Awans or Arians in India, not even in Punjab. maybe one of this community is made of Migrants from Afghanistan or MENA(Middle East and North Africa).[/QUOTE]


Nexus said:


> brahmins ruled all over Asia from Afghanistan to the ASEAN countries like Thailand, Combodia, Vietnam and Indonesia. Angkor vat was built by Brahmin Kings for example. so i am not surprised that his Family have martial roots. my own family have held jagirs in KAthiyawad Gujarat for 900 years.
> 
> can you tell me whats his surname ?
> 
> 
> 
> yeah we dont have any Awans or Arians in India, not even in Punjab. maybe one of this community is made of Migrants from Afghanistan or MENA(Middle East and North Africa).
> 
> 
> majority of rajputs of Gujarat are infect Sindhis.
> 
> Jadejas are Junejas (muslim rajputs still uses junejas here), Chudasamas are samma rajputs, Jethwas and other major Rajput tribes are infect Sindhis who migrated to Western Gujarat. and rajputs are 20% of West Gujarat population.


in Sindh, there are only "Junejos"
Not Jadeja.

Sindh also has both Muslim and Hindu Solankis.

Samma and Soomro both are mostly Muslim .. and these Muslim Rajputs ruled Sindh.


----------



## Nexus

xairhossi said:


> Bin Qasim didn't abolish 'hindu caste system' in Sindh given that during his time the majority of Sindh was made up of Buddhists who didn't have a varna system.



lol. 

Buddhism is most castist Religion in the world.

why ?

1) buddha always said that all non Brahmin and Kshatriya people are 2nd clas people

2) all buddhas will born in either Brahmin or kshatriya family. next buddha will born in Brahmin family as original Buddha was born in Kshatriya family.

3) buddha claimed that while non B/K people can reach nirvana they will always be inferior to Brahmin and Kshatriya poeple in the World.



DESERT FIGHTER said:


> I'm also Baloch, and had always though that Sindhi Baluch are the reminents of Baluch dynasties, like the Sadozais,Khakwanis etc and other Pashtuns of Waseeb,southern Panjab)...
> 
> 
> Bheels etc live in thar,border areas so they probably are rajhisthani).



we have many Muslim Baloch in Junagah and Champaner region. generally they have heavy West Asian influence and light eyes.



Radio Mirchi said:


> Jhooth ki bhi hadd hoti hai. See whats mentioned about Bin Qasim s administration in Sindh. He protected Brahminism by allocating 3% of state revenues to them. So your claim about Bin Qasim abolished caste is as good as rubbish.
> 
> *Administration by Muhammad bin Qasim[edit]*
> After the conquest, Muhammad bin Qasim's task was to set up an administrative structure for a stable Muslim state that incorporated a newly conquered alien land, inhabited by non-Muslims.[15] He adopted a conciliatory policy, asking for acceptance of Muslim rule by the natives in return for non-interference in their religious practice,[15] so long as the natives paid their taxes and tribute.[4] In return, the state provided protection to non-Muslim from any foreign attacks and enemies. He established Islamic Sharia law over the people of the region; however, Hindus were allowed to rule their villages and settle their disputes according to their own laws,[4] and traditional hierarchical institutions, including the Village Headmen (_Rais_) and Chieftains (_dihqans_) were maintained.[15] A Muslim officer called an _amil_ was stationed with a troop of cavalry to manage each town on a hereditary basis [15]
> 
> Everywhere taxes (_mal_) and tribute (_kharaj_) were settled and hostages taken — occasionally this also meant the custodians of temples.[10] Non-Muslim natives were excused from military service and from payment of the religiously mandated tax system levied upon Muslims called Zakat,[15] the tax system levied upon them instead was the jizya - a progressive tax, being heavier on the upper classes and light for the poor.[15] In addition, three percent of government revenue was allocated to the Brahmins.[4]



dont waste your time o these fools, Hindu brahmin getting more respect from real muslim is real reason that causes heart burn in these folks.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Nexus said:


> lol.
> 
> Buddhism is most castist Religion in the world.
> 
> why ?
> 
> 1) buddha always said that all non Brahmin and Kshatriya people are 2nd clas people
> 
> 2) all buddhas will born in either Brahmin or kshatriya family. next buddha will born in Brahmin family as original Buddha was born in Kshatriya family.
> 
> 3) buddha claimed that while non B/K people can reach nirvana they will always be inferior to Brahmin and Kshatriya poeple in the World.
> 
> 
> 
> we have many Muslim Baloch in Junagah and Champaner region. generally they have heavy West Asian influence and light eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> dont waste your time o these fools, Hindu brahmin getting more respect from real muslim is real reason that causes heart burn in these folks.


Baloch ruled states in north India.

Others were part of Pashtun and Mughal empires as military officers as administrators.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nexus

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> His roll call or ID doesn't state any
> 
> yeah we dont have any Awans or Arians in India, not even in Punjab. maybe one of this community is made of Migrants from Afghanistan or MENA(Middle East and North Africa).



in Sindh, there are only "Junejos"
Not Jadeja.

Sindh also has both Muslim and Hindu Solankis.

Samma and Soomro both are mostly Muslim .. and these Muslim Rajputs ruled Sindh.[/QUOTE]

that unfortunate.

Jadejas are junejas who changed their clan name from Juneja to Jadeja after migrating to Western Gujarat. infact whole north Kathiywad and Kutchh is their terf, nobody have power to dethrone these Rajputs. 

solankis,zalas, Katis and Vaghelas are Native Gujarati Rajputs who are racially Indo(Aryan)-Scythians.



krash said:


> Oh but we were saved.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. False flagger.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Contrary to the popular belief in India, we don't hate Hindus, we hate the occupation of our land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's not. He's not even a Pakistani, trust me.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, heard of that. My Paskhtoon friend didn't believe me when I told him.
> 
> 
> 
> Janab apko nahi pata, in sub ke pass family trees hain. Pakistan mein Arabia se ziyada arabi hain.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol true. My maternal side's surname is actually "Kasher" but are now known as Butts.



of course you dont hate us, as you know deep down that your own ancestors are the one who Created Hinduism  

same for Muslim Rajputs.



krash said:


> My great-grandfather, Pandit Mansanath, converted to Islam after studying the religion under a local Muslim scholar in Srinagar. In those times Muslim scholars and teachers were given the title of a 'Sheikh' and thus it became a very respected title within the Muslim community. So when my great-grandfather converted he changed his surname from Pandit to 'Sheikh'. This practice became the practice for many converts, so much so that there came a time when the surname 'Sheikh' signified that you were a convert (as alluded to by @-blitzkrieg-). This is the reason why this particular surname is found across pretty much all the ethnicities of the region and has no ethnic or tribal significance, as compared to most surnames in the region.



hmm... can you tell me why sheikh is adopted by Brahmins while majority of kshatraiyas and Rajputs kept their original surnames ?



> 1) We converted because our ancestors thought Islam to be the true path.
> 
> 2) We are not seen as Muslim Pundits or converts at all. We have taken new identities void of religious connotations, e.g. I am a Kashmiri and that is all I am known by if at all. I identify as a Pakistani with Kashmiri ethnicity, period.
> 
> 3) I haven't met a Muslim with 'Pundit' as their surname. As mentioned before, we changed our surnames. We are however seen as any other Muslim, at most we are distinguished by our ethnicity, e.g. Kashmiri.



Kashmiri is not an ethinicity, Kashmiri, Punjabi, Rajasthani, Gujarati, Hindi are just languages not Ethinicies. (upper caste people of north Indians states only)

kashmiri was Ethnicity maybe 1000 years ago, not today as majority of Kashmmiri have little to no Dardic Blood.



> 4) We used to try to marry within other Kashmiris but it wasn't a strict rule at all, it was instead just a preference due to cultural reasons. Over the years this preference has become even less important. For example, one of my uncles married a non-Kashmiri. I come from a strict Kashmiri lineage but have married a Rajput. No one really cares enough for it to have any effect. Our biradaris were strictly based on ethnicity and weren't strict biradaris at all. Kashmiris are known to be more open minded to assimilation and integration, at least on this side of the border. Within the Kashmiri biradari there is no distinction between former Brahmin Kashmiris and former non-Brahmin Kashmiris.



brahmin and Rajput generally intermarry in India as well, altho in very very limited numbers.



> 5) We mostly see our heritage through our ethnic ancestry without any religious colours to it. The modern Pakistani though is increasingly more interested and accepting of his/her pre-Islam heritage.



what past ? mostly IVC ?

[qoute]6) Like I mentioned before, no one really cares for our Brahmin past, not even us. And I am an example of a Muslim from Brahmin ancestry who married into Rajputs. My maternal side (also formerly Kashmiri Brahmins) is heavily married into Balochs and Pashtuns. Most of them moved to Quetta after moving from Kashmir.[/quote]

Good for you. 



DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Baloch ruled states in north India.
> 
> Others were part of Pashtun and Mughal empires as military officers as administrators.


most likely. i guess majority of Baloch here are descenders of soldiers and Administrators


----------



## hydrabadi_arab

Nexus said:


> We created Eastern civilization boy, even whites wanted to be like us. (Boston brahmins)
> 
> Despite being muslim for 100s of years, real muslims respect us more than they respect you. This is the status of Brahmins.
> 
> And we are brahmins, emphomee of Pride and Honor. don't worry about our women they are more proud than us.



 What civilisation? Before Hazrat Bin Qasim there was no sign of civilisation in India. If oppressing dalits is called civilisation then you got full marks.

Muslims respects brahmin more then decedents of arabs in subcontinent?  Is this why brahmin converts hide behind arabic title of sheikh?  People respect you if you are proud of your roots, brahmin converts clearly were not.


----------



## Nexus

hydrabadi_arab said:


> .
> 
> Muslims respects brahmin more then decedents of arabs in subcontinent?  Is this why brahmin converts hide behind arabic title of sheikh?  People respect you if you are proud of your roots, brahmin converts clearly were not.


 tell that to @Zibago and @krash


----------



## Pakistani E

Nexus said:


> Are u a brahmin muslim as well ? With Awans name ?



Maternally, yes. I am an Awan from my father's side and a Kashmiri Butt from my mother's side. Their roots are in Kashmir Valley.



hydrabadi_arab said:


> Muslims respects brahmin more then decedents of arabs in subcontinent?  Is this why brahmin converts hide behind arabic title of sheikh?  People respect you if you are proud of your roots, brahmin converts clearly were not.



You know nothing about Kashmiri Pandits who converted to Islam. They are one of the few ethnic groups in the subcontinent who still retained their ethnic surnames and origins after conversion.


----------



## countryman

(If your answer is specifically about Kashmir please skip reading; these are the answers from someone whose ancestors were Hindus centuries ago, from Rajput family tree, migrants from Jalendhar and Ludhiana)
1) why these brahmins converts to Islam ? And when ?
Because, I think it was right thing they did. I'm personally grateful to my ancestors who chose Islam over what they believed before and we got Islam as an inherited treasure; I can understand conversion part is most difficult. People in this region started converting to Islam centuries ago and are still converting. Though the all Muslims are converts, though, the conversion in this region started little later, you know the rest of history.

2) how Muslims view these converted brahmins? Do they get respect in Pakistani or Kashmiri society?
Brahmin is term of Hindu culture and Hinduism, I think people don't carry it along with themselves nor they feel any pride in it anymore because Islam teaches the equality not racism. If someone thinks he/she is better than other based on his ancestry or cast then he/she is not completely following Islam on this aspect.

3) how muslims view these muslims who have "pundit" surname specifically?
It would be same like "Hassan Abdullah" being a Hindu, because the will cause some confusion due to context. However, think it doesn't matter once the confusion is gone.

4) do they intermarry with other muslims ? Do they have their own biradaris?
After all we have some inherited values from hindu culture, talking about Rajputs, people usually don't marry an outsider, however this trend is changing greatly and cast system have diminished greatly in urban areas. Regarding new converts: It is difficult for them sometimes, for example, when my maternal grand parents arrived at Pakistan they met some young Hindu convert here in Pakistan. my grandparents land were allocated land exactly beside his land. At the time of partition, his parents left for India - he was Khatri by cast but he hid himself because he accepted Islam sometimes before, he was young though about 23 by age, unmarried. He was greatly appreciated by people here. He was married in our family; however, some racist element are in every community, especially among the migrants and converts in rural areas sometimes have hard time intermingling with new society in rural areas.

5) how Muslims brahmins view their heritage? And sanskrit.
Like I answered before, this is no longer important and something worth feeling pride. 

6) how Pashtuns,Baloch view these brahmins? And Rajputs?
Nothing special; unless you're talking about some super racist. Just think of it as random to be someone from particular clan, however, these things are usually asked in rural areas only when marrying outside your existing family circle and nothing else.


----------



## hydrabadi_arab

Nexus said:


> I know about him, truely, we brahmins are special breed.
> 
> even muslim brahmins today are ruling pakistan !



In Pakistan anyone can become PM. But if tomorrow Nawaz said he was brahmin and asked for votes then not even dogs will go near him. Hindu varna caste system was abolished by Bin Qasim.

Nawaz was illegal son of Zia. His father was lohar and Zardari used to make fun of his family profession. 






Shows in Pakistan even low castes like lohars can become PM.


----------



## xairhossi

Nexus said:


> lol.
> 
> Buddhism is most castist Religion in the world.
> 
> why ?
> 
> 1) buddha always said that all non Brahmin and Kshatriya people are 2nd clas people
> 
> 2) all buddhas will born in either Brahmin or kshatriya family. next buddha will born in Brahmin family as original Buddha was born in Kshatriya family.
> 
> 3) buddha claimed that while non B/K people can reach nirvana they will always be inferior to Brahmin and Kshatriya poeple in the World.


Buddhism as a religion still didnt have varna, which is why it spread to places like Afghanistan, China, Far East and Central Asia while Hinduism cant function without varna and proper Hinduism is only found in the Hindi belt.


----------



## Mian Babban

Nexus said:


> i
> 6) how Pashtuns,Baloch view these brahmins? And Rajputs?
> 
> We dont have muslim brahmins in north india beside kashmir and Pakistani punjab so I posted this in Pakistani history section.
> 
> @Mian Babban and @DESERT FIGHTER being a pashtun and Baloch your answers are much needed and highly valuable/ credible for us.
> 
> @waz keep this thread clean please.


We (Pashtuns) just view them as Kashmiris. Our folk in general are not familiar with castes and baradries of Kashmir. There are guys from Azad Kashmir running bakeries in our areas but no one asks them about their castes. The categorization in our society is simple, Pashtun and non-Pashtun.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## hydrabadi_arab

Nexus said:


> *Kashmiri is not an ethinicity*, Kashmiri, Punjabi, Rajasthani, Gujarati, Hindi are just languages not Ethinicies. (upper caste people of north Indians states only)



 allah forgive this brahmin and show him the light.


----------



## krash

Nexus said:


> of course you dont hate us, as you know deep down that your own ancestors are the one who Created Hinduism
> 
> same for Muslim Rajputs.



Lol, as true as that may be, it's not the actually reason for not hating Hindus.




Nexus said:


> hmm... can you tell me why sheikh is adopted by Brahmins while majority of kshatraiyas and Rajputs kept their original surnames ?



Two reasons in my opinion. 1) 'Pandit' had obvious Hindu religious connotations, which for obvious reasons the new Muslims would not want to keep. 'Sheikh' on the other hand, not only signified their new beliefs but also gave them a surname devoid of any tribal/ethnic links. 2) The Brahmins of the time, being used an 'above par' surname wanted something to match. 'Sheikh' suited perfectly since the title held tremendous respect in the Muslim circles. Later on, it was just because it was the tradition.



Nexus said:


> Kashmiri is not an ethinicity, Kashmiri, Punjabi, Rajasthani, Gujarati, Hindi are just languages not Ethinicies. (upper caste people of north Indians states only)



Not true. However, if you must, take it as a geographical grouping then.



Nexus said:


> kashmiri was Ethnicity maybe 1000 years ago, not today as majority of Kashmmiri have little to no Dardic Blood.



Again not true, as witnessed in the genetic studies done on the people. Besides, Dardic itself is an extremely vague and loose grouping.




Nexus said:


> brahmin and Rajput generally intermarry in India as well, altho in very very limited numbers.



We marry everyone and everyone is happy enough to marry us.




Nexus said:


> what past ? mostly IVC ?



Post as well.



Nexus said:


> Good for you.



Indeed.




Nexus said:


> tell that to @Zibago and @krash



Don't have the energy to respond to nonsensical statements.


----------



## Fledgingwings

The Caste system in hinduism in it self can also be a reason for a person to convert into islam because Islam offers equality to all people and does not allows any division on the basis of castes among the society.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zibago

krash said:


> We marry everyone and *everyone is happy enough to marry us.*


Ah so there is hope

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S.Y.A

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> *Syeds *(*descendents of Pirs*, who are respected madly, even if they are azzholez,exploiting poor).


A Syed is a descendant of Holy Prophet through Hazrat Fatima R.A and Hazrat Ali R.A, not of pirs.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

S.Y.A said:


> A Syed is a descendant of Holy Prophet through Hazrat Fatima R.A and Hazrat Ali R.A, not of pirs.


I didn't know the English for "gadi nasheen" ?


----------



## S.Y.A

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> I didn't know the English for "gadi nasheen" ?


well you can say that. just pointing out that they are called Syeds because of the Holy Prophet, and not because they aer descendants of peers. and, you are right, a lot of peers and their descendants are Syeds, and are practically worshiped.


----------



## Zibago

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> I didn't know the English for "gadi nasheen" ?


Pillow inheriter :-//

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kabira

xairhossi said:


> In Pakpattan district where most of them are, they are Jatts. It's confusing for many of these Bar tribes, as some of them are called Jatts others Rajputs. Now many of them only identify with their clan e.g Kharrals of Pakpattan/Sahiwal only identify
> as Kharral and not Jat or Rajput.
> Interesting thing about these Bar tribes is that they were nomadic or pastoral until the 19th century when most of the forested regions of the Bar were cleared by the British.
> I think they are the original Sindhi Jats as described in the Chachnama as the population of Sindh was described as mostly made up of Buddhist Jatts or Meds who were nomadic/pastoral. Their clans are usually only Muslim exclusive as well (like Sial, Wattoo, Dogar etc.)



+1 These bar tribes are most likely related to Buddhist nomadic pastoral Sindh jats described by Chinese traveller. There are many reasons to believe that

1. Bar tribes kharrals, watto, sials, fatianas, wasirs etc were nomadic pastoral till 19th century, being rajput and nomadic pastoral are oxymoron.

2. Rajput is title developed in hindi belt and all of their kingdoms were located there. Real rajputs in punjab, potohar etc likely have blood relations with rajputs of rajasthan/delhi/haryana. Khokhars, bhattis, janjuas etc Even though bhattis zamindar in Hafizabad now identify as jatts.

3. Till 19th century British described them as muhamadan jats and even in famous stories of Heer Ranjha and Mirza Jatt.

4. According to British gazetteer muhamadan jat tribes of predatory nature like Kharrals coming from south displaced hindus from their lands in Gujranwala region in 16-17th century.

5. They were bhuddists and converted to Islam and that's why we don't see their hindu/sikh counter parts unlike pretty much all rajputs or many other muslim jatt tribes who have origins in Gujranwala, Sialkot, Lahore region.

Most likely what happened is that after settling down some started to adopt rajput title, others continued with jatt. All these tribes in central punjab identify as mostly jatts and likely those in south punjab identify as rajputs or with their own tribe. Even if they are not same jats as that of Sindh in 7th century which is possibility, they are not rajputs either.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kambojaric

Zibago said:


> Pillow inheriter :-//



That made me lol . Try explaining that too a westerner, pillow inheritor haha. How about "spiritual successor".

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nexus

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Meanwhile the Manj of Sheikhupura only use "Manj" as surname.
> 
> Also the Rajputs who migrated in 47.. don't marry or "mingle" among the local Rajputs... heck e Panjabi Rajputs don't mingle with the rohatki aka haryanvi Rajputs.



Why ? Because migrants identify as muhajirs ? Or both consider eachother inferior ? 

And what about Sindhi Rajputs ? Do they mix with punjabi and migrant rajputs ?


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Nexus said:


> Why ? Because migrants identify as muhajirs ? Or both consider eachother inferior ?
> 
> And what about Sindhi Rajputs ? Do they mix with punjabi and migrant rajputs ?


Panjabis who migrated don't call themselves "muhajir".

According to them .. all they don't marry local Rajputs because they don't have any way of ascertaining even if they are Rajput .. hence they marry among their own Rajput community that also migrated from east Panjab... but things are changing.

Don't know about Sindhi and Panjabi Rajputs.

I know people who are jatt and married among Pashtuns..

I'm Baluch and have Pashtun in laws. So hardly any of that matters these days.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nexus

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Panjabis who migrated don't call themselves "muhajir".
> 
> According to them .. all they don't marry local Rajputs because they don't have any way of ascertaining even if they are Rajput .. hence they marry among their own Rajput community that also migrated from east Panjab... but things are changing.
> 
> Don't know about Sindhi and Panjabi Rajputs.
> 
> I know people who are jatt and married among Pashtuns..
> 
> I'm Baluch and have Pashtun in laws. So hardly any of that matters these days.


How can one find out that other party is also a Rajput ? It must be difficult to prove your rajput origins since Jats and Rajputs are really mixed up in Pakistan. (Same jaat and gotras)


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Nexus said:


> How can one find out that other party is also a Rajput ? It must be difficult to prove your rajput origins since Jats and Rajputs are really mixed up in Pakistan. (Same jaat and gotras)


Well according to a friend ... they are connected in one way or other..

I mean they know either have some far off , mutual relations or simply their elders know each other etc.

I mean if A & B are getting married... when their folks sit down.. and talk .. they somehow discovered some mutual relatives or maybe their families came from villages that were close to each other and their elders knew em.

People also maintain their family trees.. etc.


----------



## Nexus

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Well according to a friend ... they are connected in one way or other..
> 
> I mean they know either have some far off , mutual relations or simply their elders know each other etc.
> 
> I mean if A & B are getting married... when their folks sit down.. and talk .. they somehow discovered some mutual relatives or maybe their families came from villages that were close to each other and their elders knew em.
> 
> People also maintain their family trees.. etc.


Hmm.

But still it must be hard for muhajirs to prove their rajput heritage since they are the one who's migrating to the land of Native punjabi rajputs.

@DESERT FIGHTER do rajputs there have any specific title ? In India rajputs are called 
"Hukum" in Rajasthan, "Thakor saab" in UP and "Bapu" in Gujarat.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Nexus said:


> Hmm.
> 
> But still it must be hard for muhajirs to prove their rajput heritage since they are the one who's migrating to the land of Native punjabi rajputs.
> 
> @DESERT FIGHTER do rajputs there have any specific title ? In India rajputs are called
> "Hukum" in Rajasthan, "Thakor saab" in UP and "Bapu" in Gujarat.


Lmao.

Panjabi migrants don't call or get called "muhajirs".

It's only karachiites .. who called "themselves" muhajir for political gains.


----------



## Mian Babban

Nexus said:


> Hmm.
> 
> But still it must be hard for muhajirs to prove their rajput heritage since they are the one who's migrating to the land of Native punjabi rajputs.
> 
> @DESERT FIGHTER "Bapu" in Gujarat.





DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Lmao.
> 
> Panjabi migrants don't call or get called "muhajirs".
> 
> It's only karachiites .. who called "themselves" muhajir for political gains.


I have heard from the mouths of Punjabis that even today settlers from east Punjab are called "Panahi" (panah guzeen) .



DESERT FIGHTER said:


> I know people who are jatt and married among Pashtuns..
> 
> .


They are usually "kasabgars" among us (known as "kammi" in Punjab)


----------



## Zibago

Mian Babban said:


> I have heard from the mouths of Punjabis that even today settlers from east Punjab are called "Panahi" (panah guzeen) .


Hein?
Jhoot 


DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Panjabi migrants don't call or get called "muhajirs".


Most prefer term Urdu speaking now


----------



## Nexus

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Lmao.
> 
> Panjabi migrants don't call or get called "muhajirs".
> 
> It's only karachiites .. who called "themselves" muhajir for political gains.



I know that, I was talking about those rajputs who migrated from Indian Rajasthan, UP, Gujarat and Haryana.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Mian Babban said:


> I have heard from the mouths of Punjabis that even today settlers from east Punjab are called "Panahi" (panah guzeen) .
> 
> 
> They are usually "kasabgars" among us (known as "kammi" in Punjab)


Having lived in Panjab.. I've never heard that term being used.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nexus

Mian Babban said:


> I have heard from the mouths of Punjabis that even today settlers from east Punjab are called "Panahi" (panah guzeen) .
> 
> 
> They are usually "kasabgars" among us (known as "kammi" in Punjab)



It's like discriminating your own brothers. Large numbers of Sindhi migrated to Kutch and Kathiyavad in 47. But today they are accepted as natives here. 

They us gujarati as well as and Sindhi within their communities.

Why pashtuns suddenly started giving their daughters to others @mian ? As far as I know pashtuns don't evwn give their daughters to enemy tribe. Is this a desi fever ?


----------



## Mian Babban

Nexus said:


> Why pashtuns suddenly started giving their daughters to others @mian ? As far as I know pashtuns don't evwn give their daughters to enemy tribe. Is this a desi fever ?



Desi fever? 

A Pashtun prefer to marry with a Pashtana and vice versa, for obvious reasons.


----------



## jaydee

Nexus said:


> "[Serious]"
> 
> I saw this image on reddit few hours ago and do it have sparked number of questions in my mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These results the people Indian army have killed in Kashmir. And i hve noticed that majority of them are actually Kashmiri Pundits who converted to Islam.
> 
> 1) why these brahmins converts to Islam ? And when ?
> 
> 2) how Muslims view these converted brahmins? Do they get respect in Pakistani or Kashmiri society?
> 
> 3) how muslims view these muslims who have "pundit" surname specifically?
> 
> 4) do they intermarry with other muslims ? Do they have their own biradaris?
> 
> 5) how Muslims brahmins view their heritage? And sanskrit.
> 
> 6) how Pashtuns,Baloch view these brahmins? And Rajputs?
> 
> We dont have muslim brahmins in north india beside kashmir and Pakistani punjab so I posted this in Pakistani history section.
> 
> @Mian Babban and @DESERT FIGHTER being a pashtun and Baloch your answers are much needed and highly valuable/ credible for us.
> 
> @waz keep this thread clean please.


Brahmins ??

It has been almost 750 years since Shahi Hamdan(ra) converted brahmins to Islam and you seem stuck in your time machine capsule.750 years have passed since then buddy and you still call us Brahmins.Same logic can be used to call you Buddhists coz buddhism preceded Hinduism in this sub continent.


----------



## Kambojaric

Mian Babban said:


> I have heard from the mouths of Punjabis that even today settlers from east Punjab are called "Panahi" (panah guzeen) .



Never heard that term before. My maternal side came from Amritsar in 47. They are considered Punjabi like any native Lahori or Sialkoti.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cyborga8a

Its all in the brainwashing brother, arabs consider themselves as the upper class and non-Arabs are 2nd class citizens.


----------



## Fledgingwings

In Islam there is no caste system.


----------



## Mian Babban

Kambojaric said:


> Never heard that term before. My maternal side came from Amritsar in 47. They are considered Punjabi like any native Lahori or Sialkoti.


Not in big cities. I am talking about rural areas.


----------



## M. Sarmad

Mian Babban said:


> I have heard from the mouths of Punjabis that even today settlers from east Punjab are called "Panahi" (panah guzeen) .




That simply isn't true. As per 1951 census, settlers from East Punjab constituted 25.6 % of total population of Pakistani Punjab. i.e. every fourth person in Punjab was a "settler from East Punjab"_. _Punjabi immigrants got easily assimilated in the host society as there were no cultural or lingual differences and many of them already shared _beraderi_ linkages with the local population and it was not difficult for them to find bonds with them. As a result of frequent inter-marriages the settlers from East Punjab got fully absorbed into the local population and lost their separate identity just after one generation and today it's virtually impossible to _distinguish_ them apart.


The only immigrants in Punjab who still hold a 'separate identity' are the immigrants from the State of Jammu and Kashmir. In the districts of Pakistani Punjab bordering Indian occupied Kashmir (the Dogri-Kangri speaking areas of Punjab primarily), they are called _"Riyasati"_ (People of the state) as opposed to _"Baashinda/Muqami"_ (the locals). And that is because those immigrants are registered as such and they are "dual" nationals as they are eligible to vote/participate in the Pakistani as well as AJK elections. And special quotas for them are reserved in jobs and educational institutions all across Pakistan. However, they too have assimilated in socio-cultural and economic life of Punjab in such a way that you can't tell them apart.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## salarsikander

cyborga8a said:


> Its all in the brainwashing brother, arabs consider themselves as the upper class and non-Arabs are 2nd class citizens.


That is racism not in religions sense. The relation of Islam doesn't have cast system


----------



## Kabira

Azlan Haider said:


> That simply isn't true. As per 1951 census, settlers from East Punjab constituted 25.6 % of total population of Pakistani Punjab. i.e. every fourth person in Punjab was a "settler from East Punjab"_. _Punjabi immigrants got easily assimilated in the host society as there were no cultural or lingual differences and many of them already shared _beraderi_ linkages with the local population and it was not difficult for them to find bonds with them. As a result of frequent inter-marriages the settlers from East Punjab got fully absorbed into the local population and lost their separate identity just after one generation and today it's virtually impossible to _distinguish_ them apart.
> 
> 
> The only immigrants in Punjab who still hold a 'separate identity' are the immigrants from the State of Jammu and Kashmir. In the districts of Pakistani Punjab bordering Indian occupied Kashmir (the Dogri-Kangri speaking areas of Punjab primarily), they are called _"Riyasati"_ (People of the state) as opposed to _"Baashinda/Muqami"_ (the locals). And that is because those immigrants are registered as such and they are "dual" nationals as they are eligible to vote/participate in the Pakistani as well as AJK elections. And special quotas for them are reserved in jobs and educational institutions all across Pakistan. However, they too have assimilated in socio-cultural and economic life of Punjab in such a way that you can't tell them apart.



You got 25.6% from here? Do you know how many of them were urdu speakers?
http://www.irispunjab.gov.pk/StatisticalReport/Population Census/1951/Census of Pakistan 1951 Population According to Economic Status.pdf

I don't think 25% were all east punjabis. Among them were people from current day Haryana who speak haryanvi and also Delhi which used to be part of British punjab. And UP and Bihar as well. Majority were east punjabis though. That Pak punjabi movie actor Saud is actually Bihari origin.


----------



## Deidara

Mian Babban said:


> I have heard from the mouths of Punjabis that even today settlers from east Punjab are called "Panahi" (panah guzeen) .


Dude what are you talking about. It was all about land reallocation in Punjab. The Sikhs left their land in Pakistani Punjab and got land in Indian Punjab. The muslims left their land in Indian punjab and were reallocated land in Pakistani punjab. When sikhs and muslims switched sides they found whole villages deserted with no one to claim the fields in their new home. Those abandoned villages and fields were allocated to the new comers by the governments. No one calls anyone who owns more than 5 acres a refugee in any sense of the word. And no muslim punjabi migrant got any lesser land in Pakistani punjab.
It was basically a land swap. But in this swap the sikhs saw their land increase and the muslims had their decreased.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Deidara said:


> Dude what are you talking about. It was all about land reallocation in Punjab. The Sikhs left their land in Pakistani Punjab and got land in Indian Punjab. The muslims left their land in Indian punjab and were reallocated land in Pakistani punjab. When sikhs and muslims switched sides they found whole villages deserted with no one to claim the fields in their new home. Those abandoned villages and fields were allocated to the new comers by the governments. No one calls anyone who owns more than 5 acres a refugee in any sense of the word. And no muslim punjabi migrant got any lesser land in Pakistani punjab.
> It was basically a land swap. But in this swap the sikhs saw their land increase and the muslims had their decreased.


Panjabi immigrants had to show "claims" and got half of that in Pak.. most didn't ..

Locals benefited from it..

Ch Pervaiz Ilahis father became rich by buying claims from immigrants.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kabira

Deidara said:


> Dude what are you talking about. It was all about land reallocation in Punjab. The Sikhs left their land in Pakistani Punjab and got land in Indian Punjab. The muslims left their land in Indian punjab and were reallocated land in Pakistani punjab. When sikhs and muslims switched sides they found whole villages deserted with no one to claim the fields in their new home. Those abandoned villages and fields were allocated to the new comers by the governments. No one calls anyone who owns more than 5 acres a refugee in any sense of the word. And no muslim punjabi migrant got any lesser land in Pakistani punjab.
> It was basically a land swap. But in this swap the sikhs saw their land increase and the muslims had their decreased.



Mian is probably trolling.



DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Panjabi immigrants had to show "claims" and got half of that in Pak.. most didn't ..
> 
> Locals benefited from it..
> 
> Dr Pervaiz Ilahis father became rich by buying claims from immigrants.



In Kharian even urdu speakers got land, though they sold it and moved to Karachi. This was likely the case all over punjab. Also remember only sikhs who owned agricultural land were sikh jatts. Sikh/hindu khatri aroras who made huge part of non-muslim population in west punjab mostly lived in cities like Lahore. And in 1901 British forbade khatris/aroras, mazhabhi sikhs etc to own land. Most of agricultural land left behind by sikhs was in Faisalabad canal colonies region. Which is why one see most of east punjab muslims settled there or in cities like Lahore.

I don't know exact figures but I doubt there was much agricultural land left to reclaim in west punjab. Punjabi muslims in east punjab were majority agriculturists but there was huge population of hindu/sikhs in west punjab who were not. This could be reason why east punjabi muslims couldn't get same amount of land as they owned in east punjab.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## M. Sarmad

Tesky said:


> You got 25.6% from here? Do you know how many of them were urdu speakers?
> http://www.irispunjab.gov.pk/StatisticalReport/Population Census/1951/Census of Pakistan 1951 Population According to Economic Status.pdf
> 
> I don't think 25% were all east punjabis. Among them were people from current day Haryana who speak haryanvi and also Delhi which used to be part of British punjab. And UP and Bihar as well. Majority were east punjabis though. That Pak punjabi movie actor Saud is actually Bihari origin.




Nearly six million Muslims were expelled from East Punjab by Hindus and Sikhs. As per (higher) estimates, 1.2 million Muslims left India but didn't reach Pakistan, most of them were from Eastern Punjab (an estimated 0.5-0.8 million). Only 2.5 % of those who made it alive to Pakistan, settled outside Pakistani Punjab. As per 1951 census, i.e. four years later, the total number of _"Mohajirs"_ in Pakistani Punjab was 5.28 million. Do the maths and you will get your answers. 

As for the immigrants from the five/six south-eastern districts of Punjab (that today constitute Haryana) not all of them spoke _Haryanvi. _The areas bordering (now) Punjab had a high percentage of Punjabi speaking Muslims. I personally know a lot of people whose ancestors migrated from Haryana districts, they are as Punjabi as it gets. People like Rana Iqbal Khan of Phool Nagar and Hafiz Saeed of Sargodha have Haryanvi origins, but no one ever considers them "Mohajir" or "Haryanvi" ... Rangari, arguably a dialect of Haryanvi, however, is still spoken by a significant number of Rajput settlers, but they too have fully assimilated into Punjabi culture. Moreover, a large number of Meo Muslims from Mewat region of Haryana chose to stay back in India (on assurance of Gandhi) and today are in majority (up to 80%) in a few districts of Haryana.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Butchcassidy

Azlan Haider said:


> Nearly six million Muslims were expelled from East Punjab by Hindus and Sikhs. As per (higher) estimates, 1.2 million Muslims left India but didn't reach Pakistan, most of them were from Eastern Punjab (an estimated 0.5-0.8 million). Only 2.5 % of those who made it alive to Pakistan, settled outside Pakistani Punjab. As per 1951 census, i.e. four years later, the total number of _"Mohajirs"_ in Pakistani Punjab was 5.28 million. Do the maths and you will get your answers.
> 
> As for the immigrants from the five/six south-eastern districts of Punjab (that today constitute Haryana) not all of them spoke _Haryanvi. _The areas bordering (now) Punjab had a high percentage of Punjabi speaking Muslims. I personally know a lot of people whose ancestors migrated from Haryana districts, they are as Punjabi as it gets. People like Rana Iqbal Khan of Phool Nagar and Hafiz Saeed of Sargodha have Haryanvi origins, but no one ever considers them "Mohajir" or "Haryanvi" ... Rangari, arguably a dialect of Haryanvi, however, is still spoken by a significant number of Rajput settlers, but they too have fully assimilated into Punjabi culture. Moreover, a large number of Meo Muslims from Mewat region of Haryana chose to stay back in India (on assurance of Gandhi) and today are in majority (up to 80%) in a few districts of Haryana.


A lot of muslim chauhans living in sirsa (now haryana) were punjabis. Similarly muslims living in ambala and karnal were also Punjabi. However those from Rohtak and souther haryana (bahadurgarh and pataudi) were ranghars and meos.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kabira

Azlan Haider said:


> Nearly six million Muslims were expelled from East Punjab by Hindus and Sikhs. As per (higher) estimates, 1.2 million Muslims left India but didn't reach Pakistan, most of them were from Eastern Punjab (an estimated 0.5-0.8 million). Only 2.5 % of those who made it alive to Pakistan, settled outside Pakistani Punjab. As per 1951 census, i.e. four years later, the total number of _"Mohajirs"_ in Pakistani Punjab was 5.28 million. Do the maths and you will get your answers.
> 
> As for the immigrants from the five/six south-eastern districts of Punjab (that today constitute Haryana) not all of them spoke _Haryanvi. _The areas bordering (now) Punjab had a high percentage of Punjabi speaking Muslims. I personally know a lot of people whose ancestors migrated from Haryana districts, they are as Punjabi as it gets. People like Rana Iqbal Khan of Phool Nagar and Hafiz Saeed of Sargodha have Haryanvi origins, but no one ever considers them "Mohajir" or "Haryanvi" ... Rangari, arguably a dialect of Haryanvi, however, is still spoken by a significant number of Rajput settlers, but they too have fully assimilated into Punjabi culture. Moreover, a large number of Meo Muslims from Mewat region of Haryana chose to stay back in India (on assurance of Gandhi) and today are in majority (up to 80%) in a few districts of Haryana.



When I say Haryanvi I meant people who speak Rangari language and not punjabi speakers from border areas which ended up in today Haryana. In 98 census 4.5% of population in punjab was urdu speaking, they could be ranghars and urdu speakers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## M. Sarmad

Deidara said:


> It was basically a land swap. But in this swap the sikhs saw their land increase and the muslims had their decreased.



That, my friend, is not true. Although Muslims (53%) were a majority in united Punjab, Sikhs (14.6%) and Hindus (30%), besides owning most of the agricultural land, together owned roughly 75-80 % of commerce, manufacturing and even real estate in major urban centers, but they ended up getting East Punjab only i.e. 38% of the Total Land area of Punjab. Indian Government claimed that Hindus and Sikhs left behind almost 8 million acres of agriculture land in Pakistani Punjab, Pakistani government estimated it to be around six million acres. Muslim immigrants claimed to have abandoned around 4.5 million acres of agricultural land behind.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## M. Sarmad

Tesky said:


> In 98 census 4.5% of population in punjab was urdu speaking, they could be ranghars and urdu speakers.



Many people, although Punjabi ethnically, do not speak Punjabi as their first language. Also, those stats are from 1998 (i.e. 41 years after partition), so, until and unless data on 'internal migration' that took place during that time period, (and on those ethnic Punjabis who speak Urdu as their first language) is available, I don't think those stats can be used to analyze ethnic makeup of post-partition West Pakistan.


----------



## Kabira

Deidara said:


> Dude what are you talking about. It was all about land reallocation in Punjab. The Sikhs left their land in Pakistani Punjab and got land in Indian Punjab. The muslims left their land in Indian punjab and were reallocated land in Pakistani punjab. When sikhs and muslims switched sides they found whole villages deserted with no one to claim the fields in their new home. Those abandoned villages and fields were allocated to the new comers by the governments. No one calls anyone who owns more than 5 acres a refugee in any sense of the word. And no muslim punjabi migrant got any lesser land in Pakistani punjab.
> It was basically a land swap. But in this swap the sikhs saw their land increase and the muslims had their decreased.



British settled large numbers of people in few decades from "central punjab" which back then meant current day east punjab/Indian punjab in west punjab canal colonies. In districts like Jhang, Sahiwal, Faisalabad etc South west of Lahore. Usually arains/muslims and sikhs from east punjab who were likely better agriculturists because east punjab was more fertile land even without canals while people in west punjab canal colonies regions were mostly pastoral cattle herders. Anyway what ever happened under British was reversed in 47 to extent. Before canal colonies these regions were not as populated as it's now the case.



Azlan Haider said:


> Many people, although Punjabi ethnically, do not speak Punjabi as their first language. Also, those stats are from 1998 (i.e. 41 years after partition), so, until and unless data on 'internal migration' that took place during that time period, (and on those ethnic Punjabis who speak Urdu as their first language) is available, I don't think those stats can be used to analyze ethnic makeup of post-partition West Pakistan.



Many urdu speakers migrated to punjab, there is even muhajir colony in Lahore. Many actors from Lahore identify as urdu speakers but speak punjabi like any other. Saud and Faisal Qureshi comes to mind. They are not visible politically because of their relatively low numbers.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## M. Sarmad

Tesky said:


> Many urdu speakers migrated to punjab, there is even muhajir colony in Lahore. Many actors from Lahore identify as urdu speakers but speak punjabi like any other. Saud and Faisal Qureshi comes to mind. They are not visible politically because of their relatively low numbers.



Not many, a few, very few ... As for showbiz/actors, Lahore had been the center of Pakistani cinema, producing films in both Punjabi and Urdu languages since 1920s. It was the only film production center in the newly founded Pakistan. So, people related to film industry did migrate to Lahore, from India, and also from other parts of Pakistan ... _Internal Migration_ I was talking about.


----------



## Ocean

And if someones ancestors were converts from both sikh faith and kashmir brahmins? Would that make them any less of a Pakistani?


----------



## dreamer4eva

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Panjabi immigrants had to show "claims" and got half of that in Pak.. most didn't ..
> 
> Locals benefited from it..
> 
> Dr Pervaiz Ilahis father became rich by buying claims from immigrants.



Similar thing happened to my grandmother's father. He owned agricultural land in Pakistan and when he moved to eastern Punjab in 1947 was not able get the same amount of land.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deidara

Azlan Haider said:


> That, my friend, is not true. Although Muslims (53%) were a majority in united Punjab, Sikhs (14.6%) and Hindus (30%), besides owning most of the agricultural land, together owned roughly 75-80 % of commerce, manufacturing and even real estate in major urban centers, but they ended up getting East Punjab only i.e. 38% of the Total Land area of Punjab. Indian Government claimed that Hindus and Sikhs left behind almost 8 million acres of agriculture land in Pakistani Punjab, Pakistani government estimated it to be around six million acres. Muslim immigrants claimed to have abandoned around 4.5 million acres of agricultural land behind.


I can give correct general facts for free but for providing accurate details I charge money.
You are obviously a better person. Furnishing a half-troll half- casual forum with minute details for fee.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nexus

SarthakGanguly said:


> I think I am qualified to answer.
> 
> 1. From the 14th to the 18th century. Mostly.
> 2. Outside Kashmir not very well. But they get good respect in general Pak/Muslim society.
> 3. Apart from some jokes, they feel pride. For having left 'jahalat'.
> 4. Not usually. Mostly among Kashmiri Muslims.
> 5. They run away from it.
> 6. They consider us as too proud, cunning and shrewd. None are true, except for maybe the pride part.


Mahadev har bro. i think you were banned when this thread was Active. i still have some question for you brother.

why you guys live ? do you share samajs ? like we have Brahmin Samaj, rajput samaj, maldhari samaj. 

just few days ago a petriot Muslim Ksahmiri got killed by crowed for mistaking him as a Hindu as he had pandit surname. how many of these brahmins are loyal to India ? do they still take part in social works ?

are there any kashmiri muslims with brahmin ancestry wants to become part of Dharmic fold again ? how KP community see these "Brahmins" ?


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

Nexus said:


> 1) why these brahmins converts to Islam ? And when ?


Brahmins have been converting to Islam since the introduction of Islam to South Asia. Many of them had also converted to Buddhism before the introduction of Islam. 

They were very educated. Taxila for example, which had been the intellectual powerhouse of South Asia was filled with Brahmins. Unlike the peasantry which was converted by Sufis, Brahmins were mostly converted by high-class Muslims such as scholars and merchants. They brought forward logical challenges against Hinduism which the Brahmins could not refute. 



Nexus said:


> 3) how muslims view these muslims who have "pundit" surname specifically?


I haven't really met many people with that surname, but most Pakistanis wouldn't really care. 



Nexus said:


> 4) do they intermarry with other muslims ? Do they have their own biradaris?


Yes and somewhat yes. Many Brahmins integrated into other biradaris. But most of them adopted the surname "Sheikh", which is meant to highlight their status. 



Nexus said:


> 5) how Muslims brahmins view their heritage? And sanskrit.


Most of them don't care about it.



Nexus said:


> 6) how Pashtuns,Baloch view these brahmins? And Rajputs?


As fellow Muslims and Pakistanis.


----------



## Kaushika

I guess i was wrong, most of Sheikhs are kashmiris. Do you have any native punjabi or sindhi brahmin muslims ?

What about Junejas ? Do you have muslim junejas ?


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

Kaushika said:


> I guess i was wrong, most of Sheikhs are kashmiris. Do you have any native punjabi or sindhi brahmin muslims ?
> 
> What about Junejas ? Do you have muslim junejas ?


No, most Shiekh in Pakistan are Punjabi/Sindhi. There are 10 million in Punjab alone.


----------

