A Mughal goes to Pakistan to renew blood ties

[Peshwa]

Castes in Pakistan is very different from castes in india.

Castes in Pakistan is just family history and what your ancestors were like. There is no superior inferior caste written in stone. In Pakistan castes are Jatt, Gujar, Rajput, Rao, Mughal, Gilani, Syyeds, Qureshis, Sheikhs, Maliks etcc...

Castes in Pakistan are more like Clans or Tribes.

Its very different from the caste system in India (Brahmin, Dalit, etc..)

Please get your concepts right....

Rajputs are a Hindu Kshatriya Varna.....ie. The caste right below the Brahmin..
a. If you're Muslim, you can be a descendent of a Rajput, but cannot be of a Rajput caste since it indicates the same structure as Hindu Caste system...Rajputs in present form exists only in Hinduism and majority exist in India....the rest are simply descendents.
b. Gujjars are low caste (hate saying this) or OBCs:
c. Also, I believe Rao is simply a last name shared between Pakistan and India....Rao's of India are very different from your kind....


You're mixing concepts of Tribal clans (Jat), Varnas (Rajputs) and common last names to indicate some hybrid "caste system" that does not exist...

 

[Peshwa]

The way indians think about Mughals, I believe that descendents of Mughal emperors are better off in Pakistan than they are in india.


We Pakistanis hold lots of respect for Mughals.

Well said....

Feudal system is banned in India....though very prevalent in Pakistan....which unfortunately is also the biggest curse for your country...

But I agree with the statement that Pakistanis are product of the feudal system....quite evident in many

 

[Omar1984]

Please get your concepts right....

Rajputs are a Hindu Kshatriya Varna.....ie. The cast right below the Brahmin..
a. If you're Muslim, you can be a descendent of a Rajput, but cannot be of a Rajput caste since it indicates the same structure as Hindu Caste system...Rajputs in present form exists only in Hinduism and majority exist in India....the rest are simply descendents.
b. Rao is a Goud Saraswat Brahmin last name...half of Karnataka and Konkan including Goa have Rao's. Again...its not a clan but a last name carried on....If You're a muslim, you cant be a GSB so its not a clan nor a caste in Pakistan..just a common last name
c. Gujjars are low caste (hate saying this) or OBCs:

You guys need to stop spreading misinformation....

You're mixing concepts of Tribal clans (Jat), Varnas (Rajputs) and common last names to indicate some hybrid "caste system" that does not exist...

Maybe thats what you indians believe but in Pakistan theres no high or low caste, everyone thinks their caste is the best.

These castes in Pakistan is just to give you a sense about your family history. No one takes it seriously especially in cities. Maybe in rural villages in Punjab people may care when marrying within the same caste but thats about it.

In Islam, every Muslim is equal.


By the way, in Pakistan's Punjab province no one thinks of Gujjars as low caste. A Chaudhry Sahab is given lots of respect in Pakistan's Punjab Province. Chaudhry Gujjars are in every field in Pakistan. The man who came up with the word, Pakistan, was a Gujjar Muslim. Most of Northern Punjab and Azad Kashmir is Gujjar. We even named our cities in Punjab after Gujjars like Gujranwala and Gujrat.

 

[Omar1984]

Well said....

Because we Pakistanis see Mughals and other Muslim rulers of the subcontinent as heros while indians view Mughals and other Muslim rulers as tyrants.

 

[Peshwa]

Bro i agree with most of what your saying but you got many facts wrong. The Brits/Europeans arrived in the 1600s, the peak of Mughal rule was ca. 1700. However succession of weak rulers after Aurangzaib meant Mughal power went into decline (problem with monarchial system) . You mentioned correctly that other powers arose such as Sikhs, Awadh etc but nevertheless the Sultan in Delhi was still viewed upon as the Shehnshah. That is why in 1857 the rebels were after Bahadur Shah's support. His support would legitimize their cause eventhough he had virtually no power.

Iqbal got it right....

Delhi being the capital of India had a symbolic significance more than power...The Marathas and the Sikhs controlled most of India and the Delhi Mughals paid taxes to them...In fact the Mughals had to call the Marathas to defend against Abdali and other invading Afghans. So the British controlled India only after they were able to defeat these two groups....nevertheless the symbolism of Delhi as the capital was used by the British to send a message to the Indians that their "King" was now just a British agent

Bahadur Shah Zafar was used as a source of unity among pre-independence Indians.... they rallied under his name to inspire the mutinous soldiers.....It was the flame to light the fire....You got that right..

 

[Iqbal_Brar]

where is Jinnah's family in India

any source to prove your claim?

yeh.. go read Jinnah's biography..

omar is right.. Dina Wadia.. the daughter of Jinnah who chose to marry and live in India.. the daughter Jinnah disowned.. and the daughter who disowned her father and his country.. ironic story his..

and this is Jinnah's great grandson..

 

[Kambojaric]

maybe they arrived in 1600 but they only arrived in bengal that time.. im saying by the time they got to delhi.. mughals had no power left in them.. mughal forces were weakened by constant fighting with sikhs and after aurangzebs death mughal king was actually put in place by sikh armies who took part in battle of succession and help Muazzam (bahadur shah 1) to defeat his brothers and become king.. muazzam from then was already somewhat sikh puppet.. he gave title of "Hind ka Peer" to last Sikh guru Gobind Singh... and after that too mugh infighting within mughals.. everyone wanting power.. and whatever little pockets of mughal rule left in punjab were defeated by sikh misls when all sikh armies united to make khalsa army.. basically.. there took place British-Maratha wars... there took place Anglo-Sikh wars.. but no British-Mughal wars took place because Mughals were already pretty much dead when British came.. they had no armies left to fight they were emporer in name only...

bahadar shah was chosen to lead independance war because everyone was willing to unite under him... marathas would not fight under rajputs.. raputs would not fight under sikhs.. sikhs would not fight under marathas.. basically only token king everyone agreed to unite under was bahadur shah..

Im afraid you are wrong when you say Mughal power had totally waned by the time the British power grew. The Battle of Buxar is testiomany to the fact that Mughals still had some power albeit minimal compared to what it is used to be before. Only after the disaster at Buxar was there no going back but even uptil the 1760s the Mughals did have some power. The constant political instability (turani/irani nobles, wars of sucessioons) + weak kings more interested in music and drinking totally destroyed the Kingdom from within.

Your second paragraph is basically a repitition of what i said before, the Mughal King was regarded symbolically as the Shehnshah although in reality his powers was all but that of a Shehnshah. Hence he was acceptable to be the symbolic head of the rebellion to all the factions involved.

 

[Iqbal_Brar]

And when was the last time you visited Pakistan's Punjab province.

You talk like your an expert on Pakistanis and how Pakistanis live, but I bet you never even set foot in Pakistan in your life.

noo I didn't.. but i'm Punjabi and I know Punjab's history very well... Punjab is hundreds of years old.. pakistan is only 60 years old.. anyways... I only talked about people from Lahore.. that have lived there.. they will tell you what chooras and chamaars are.. because seems like you've also never stepped foot in Punjab...

 

[Peshwa]

Because we Pakistanis see Mughals and other Muslim rulers of the subcontinent as heros while indians view Mughals and other Muslim rulers as tyrants.

Has zilch to do with respect.....

Has more to do with land reforms....something your country needs as badly as air and water....

About the bolded part....You've got to be kidding me.....Have you happened to notice that monuments such as the Taj, Red Fort etc happen to be symbols of India most promoted by Indians?

In fact I can say with certainty that India takes as much pride in its Muslim history as its Hindu and Sikh history....same cannot be said about Pakistan who have shunned everything pre-islamic

 

[Bang Galore]

where is Jinnah's family in India

any source to prove your claim?

Nusli wadia - Jinnah's grandson
Nusli Wadia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jeh wadia - great grandson

Ness wadia - great grandson

 

[Al-zakir]

Fifty-six-year-old Sultana Begum, the great-granddaughter-in-law of the last Mughal king Bahadur Shah Zafar today crossed over into Pakistan from here to trace some of her ‘royal relatives’. The widowed Begum is a resident of Kolkata and lives on a monthly pension of Rs 6,000, recently hiked from Rs 400 at the instance of President Pratibha Patil.

How is she a Mughal? She supposedly married to Mughal descendant which it self doesn't make her a Mughal nevertheless good luck with her new ambition but should accept the reality and live with it.


I hold high, respect and pray for Muhy-ud-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb.

 

[Iqbal_Brar]

Im afraid you are wrong when you say Mughal power had totally waned by the time the British power grew. The Battle of Buxar is testiomany to the fact that Mughals still had some power albeit minimal compared to what it is used to be before. Only after the disaster at Buxar was there no going back but even uptil the 1760s the Mughals did have some power. The constant political instability (turani/irani nobles, wars of sucessioons) + weak kings more interested in music and drinking totally destroyed the Kingdom from within.

Actually Battle of Buxar is perfect example of how weak the Mughals were.. they fought 1 battle and that too after they had already been subdued by British.. they were angry so they had to combine their army with oudh and bengal to fight.. and it was puny expedition.. compare this with the other kingdoms like the Anglo-Sikh wars where British had to fight literally 2 huge wars with many battles before they could take Punjab... and it was complete opposite of Buxar.. in Punjab it was Sikh army on one side and on the other side was combined British force with Bengalis and Marathas and even all the kingdoms they had subdues... a very big difference from Buxar where it was only 1 battle and that too Mughals Oudh and Bengal had to fight combined with lone British force which at max had local bengali sepoys.. it actually is good example of how weak Mughals were not how strong..

Your second paragraph is basically a repitition of what i said before, the Mughal King was regarded symbolically as the Shehnshah although in reality his powers was all but that of a Shehnshah. Hence he was acceptable to be the symbolic head of the rebellion to all the factions involved.

Ok.

 

[Peshwa]

Maybe thats what you indians believe but in Pakistan theres no high or low caste, everyone thinks their caste is the best.

These castes in Pakistan is just to give you a sense about your family history. No one takes it seriously especially in cities. Maybe in rural villages in Punjab people may care when marrying within the same caste but thats about it.

In Islam, every Muslim is equal.

Are u kidding me!!

Please dont paste a rosy picture....

Caste system has taken a whole different form in Pakistan in the name of regionalism and Tribalism...

The mistreatment of Bengalis in 71....The domination of Punjabis (criticized by your own Baluchis and Sindhis) is highly evident...and lets not forget the false Pushtun ego that considers everyone beneath them...

Just because it doesnt have religious roots as in Hindusim does not make it non existant....

Inequality based on "race", which is identical to caste system ie. rooted in birth is highly prevalent in Pakistan!

 

[Iqbal_Brar]

Please get your concepts right....

Rajputs are a Hindu Kshatriya Varna.....ie. The caste right below the Brahmin..
a. If you're Muslim, you can be a descendent of a Rajput, but cannot be of a Rajput caste since it indicates the same structure as Hindu Caste system...Rajputs in present form exists only in Hinduism and majority exist in India....the rest are simply descendents.
b. Gujjars are low caste (hate saying this) or OBCs:
c. Also, I believe Rao is simply a last name shared between Pakistan and India....Rao's of India are very different from your kind....


You're mixing concepts of Tribal clans (Jat), Varnas (Rajputs) and common last names to indicate some hybrid "caste system" that does not exist...

Rajputs are also considered tribal clans... they have been absorbed into hinduism because these tribes came into region before Jatts did.. but even jatts have been little bit absorbed into hindu mythology but not as much as rajputs... rajputs are older tribes in region.. jatts came much later.. jatts are decendants of sakas... but jatts and rajputs are still both tribes.. rajput history is just more mixed with hinduism because they have longer history in region than jatts.. rajputs came earlier.. jatts came into region later... but both are separate tribes..

 

[Bang Galore]

Because we Pakistanis see Mughals and other Muslim rulers of the subcontinent as heros while indians view Mughals and other Muslim rulers as tyrants.

Not accurate. Most Indians(most, not all) regard kings like Sher Shah Suri, Akbar & Tipu Sultan as being good kings & in the case of Tipu as a national hero. You can't expect that people bent on persecuting the adherents of the majority religion will be regarded with any great fondness by them, the dislike is expressed towards just a few, most notably Aurangzeb who was seen as a religious tyrant. Most other Muslim rulers are regarded with the same indifference as most Hindu rulers with a few exceptions ,are.